Link on Inequality

The article I found explores reasons behind income disparities in the U.S., and the technology that might be related to the widening gap between classes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/business/17scene.html

Interestingly, the author discounts large corporations as propagators of economic discrepancy, since "Microsoft has created cheap software and many jobs, and its co-founder, Bill Gates, is giving away most of his fortune." So in some ways, Microsoft's cheap software may be leveling the playing field.
The largest factor in information inequality is education, and along with that, the libraries, computers, labs, etc that are characteristics of good schools. In all, the article concludes with a pessimistic note (but probably very realistic): "Technology is advancing faster than our ability to educate. So even if inequality declines today, it may well intensify in the future. Even if American education improves at every level, the largely not-for-profit educational sector may simply be less dynamic than the progress of new technologies."

Inequality.

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20081221/NEWS22/812210383/1039/rss15

The article I found was about a library in Detroit that was considering charging by the hour for internet usage. They interviewed two college students who talked about the difficulties patrons might have if the changes ended up being approved. The two college students interviewed said that although they could afford it and would be willing to pay, they realized that low-income families who don't have computers of their own could be hurt because of it. The article also explained that a large percentage of the people who use the computers at the library are businesspeople on their lunch break.

It was kind of like what we talked about in lecture today, where money needed to be saved and it was decided that the best place to make those changes was in the library system. The city was short about $5.5 million at the end of 2008, and they determined that they could save large amounts of money with staff cuts and charges for internet usage. In addition to the $780,000 that could be saved with the cuts, the city estimated that about $25,000 could be made by charging for internet use.

There was one quote in the article that I thought really summed up what we've been talking about in class: "It's a library and it's supposed to be an educational resource. I can still afford it, but for other people, if their tool is the library to use the internet because they don't have (a computer) at home, it's not fair."

We need our libraries

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=216165&format=html

I was lucky enough to find an article that directly coincides with what we were talking about in class today.  The article talks about the severe budget cut on Pennsylvania libraries.  What I found interesting was that the proposed cut was only 2.3% compared to the 50% cut taken in 2003.  I feel that this shows that the vitalness of libraries is being overlooked.  Not only are these libraries operating at less than capacity, but they will be doing it even more so in the coming weeks.  The Pennsylvania libraries also ended Sunday service, cut Saturday hours and even some weekday hours.  The fact of the matter is that the state and local government should not cut funding for libraries.  Pennsylvania reported a 2% increase in circulation in the past year.  I was also reading other articles that stated that with people losing their jobs they are turning to libraries for additional resources whether it be to look for a new job, use the computers or take their children to get books.  As our country has continues to fall deeper into debt, I think we need to seriously look at what funding is being cut.  Libraries are an integral part of the community and we can't take them away when people need them most.  

Librarians: Keep public library Wi-Fi free

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Their-View-Librarians--Keep-public-library-Wi-Fi-free

I was able to find a very interesting article about how some libraries are trying to ban WiFi from their buildings. They based their decision on scientific/medical research demonstrating harm from electro-pollution. They say they are completely for the use of Internet as "It is our obligation as librarians to provide uncensored information to all people. These ideals, a) no censorship, and b) no barriers to access." Yet I feel they are walking a pretty fine line as they are not completely allowing everyone to use their computers because of people who are adversely affected by electromagnetic fields, including epileptics. They do not want to create barriers for people who can have adverse reactions to exposure that can induce severe symptoms such as heart arrhythmias and seizures. They say that WiFi is a barrier for them.

The most interseting part of the article for me was how the author, completely for banning WiFi, stated "There is no comparison today with Wi-Fi in libraries. It does not narrow the digital divide or the socio-economic gap as if often claimed by Wi-Fi proponents. It simply perpetuates the inequities in society. Providing a Wi-Fi signal does not magically produce a laptop computer. It only serves those who own a laptop. Why should those who can afford a laptop get a "free" signal while those who can't are relegated to "sign up" for an hour of computer use? It is fallacious to claim that Wi-Fi will free up computers."

With any decision that is made, some group will be angered. Whether it be people with laptops who would like to have free WiFi to use in a public space, or people who are affected by WIFi signals. I would like to know if these people are able to enter coffee shops, peoples houses that have WiFi, or even be on the University of Wisconsin campus without feeling the effect with WiFi. It seems like most of the nation is going wireless and it could be near impossible for everyone to accomidate the certain few who are affected by WiFi.

The Internet... Increasing Global Inequality?

To many the great invention that is the internet may seem as a gift from the heavens. However, in reality it is increasing the gap between the poor and the rich. For instance, in order for one to use the internet, one needs a computer. And to get that you need the money to buy one. In the article it is stated that for a worker from Blangladesh it would take him 8 years of his salary to buy a computer while on the other hand, for an American it would only take a month's salary. Basically, this technology is making the richer even more rich; and the poor even more poor.
For example, about 80 countries are receiving less revenue than they were receiving a decade ago.
In my opinion, I think that in order to decrease this gap we have to help out the poor countries that need our help. We can not advance as a world together if half of our global population is not technically savvy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/392171.stm

Inequality

Hey i found a bunch of articles on inequalities in health. The articles talked about how health care isn't available to everyone and can be very restricted in some forms. Not all jobs give out health insurance, which makes it hard for some people to find health insurance coverage. It can be costly to find it outside of the work place. Basically the higher up a person's socioeconomic status is, the better off they are health wise, with insurance coverage and other health plans.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/269/24/3140

^ one of the many

Increasing need for broadband internet worsens the Digital Divide

Most of our focus thus far has been on the availability of general Internet use and access. Although this is the main concern, the world moves at a fast pace and basic Internet access may no longer be enough. The need for broadband Internet access vs. basic dial-up is increasing as our World continues to become more dependent on second to second communication.



A December 31, 2008 telecommunications article in BusinessWeek addresses this growing concern and notes President Barrack Obama's acknowledgement of this as one of the many problems facing our country. From the beginning, author Arik Hesseldahl provides strong evidence for the need for high speed Internet access. He cites the specific situation of a small time business owner in a low-income Harlem neighborhood and the many benefits he has reaped as a direct result of having a broadband connection. Furthermore, Hesseldahl examines the consequences of not having Internet access, specifically broadband. He explores the many barriers this creates in regards to retrieving up-to-date news, streaming live video, and general communication.



This article touches on most of the points brought up on the 2/3/09 discussion about technological inequalities. The digital divide and basic Internet access seemed to be a bottomless pit but with the need for high speed Internet access increasing, solutions seem almost nonexistent.



Hesseldahl also explores the participation of technological service conglomerate AT&T and the several nonprofit organizations that are trying to close the digital divide between the urban poor and high speed Internet access. Unlike rural areas, broadband access is likely available in urban areas but affordability then becomes the problem. AT&T and these organizations are trying to provide the necessary funds (and unprecedented low rates) to provide this access, but the inequality of not owning a home computer still remains.



Home access to high speed Internet is vital. Whether its communicating with distant family members or reading a "how to file your taxes" article, computer access is very important. Owning a home computer is convenient and almost necessary. Thousands of low-income families are still without computers, further contributing to the digital divide.

I think that this article does a particularly good job of exploring the digital divide through Internet access and personal computer access by providing several examples of how technological inequalities specifically affect the everyday lives of Americans. Home access to the Internet can help with job searches, health information (that might be very private), how-to websites, up to date news, networking, and educational opportunities. It is also very interesting that Hesseldahl chose to include the political implications of the Digital Divide by noting Obama's acknowledgement of the issue and tentative solutions.

Although I think this article is very effective, I question the urgency to provide complete Internet access for everyone. I think that providing more opportunities and affordable access is a more feasible and a more reasonable solution.

If you want to check out the article for yourself and comment on my response it can be found here:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2008/tc20081230_015542.htm