Mobile vs. Internet for the Global South: continuing the debate

The Community Informatics mailing list has a continuing debate on whether the diffusion of mobile broadband is sufficient to replace the internet in developing countries.

One of the best contributions is from Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change:

“PC/Internet versus mobiles is one of the most important policy issues in ICTD today. It is not that I want to present it as a ‘versus’ issue, I would prefer not to. However that is how those with unadulterated belief in markets-as-panacea present it as, ironically, even when the dominance of their ideology has largely been responsible for what as been described as the failure of first generation telecentres initiatives. And this ‘versus’ thinking also dominate policy makers today, and thus we need to address it.

At one level, there are substantive issues in this discussion and at another clarificatory ones about issues/ concepts etc that one may be speaking for or against.

First the latter, the clarificatory stuff:

If anyone is arguing that the less developed regions be left with p2p voice/ telephony application alone because this is what they have so eagerly lapped up while the rest of world is transforming the very nature of social interactions and social institutions – in sum, the nature of society – over new techno-social possibilities offered by the Internet, I think this argument does not even require refutation. Such kind of arguments have been used regarding modern education and communities living in ‘traditional ways’, and I thought were completely out of fashion now a days. There is however a curious new over-valorisation of ‘choice’ in neoliberal thought whereby it seems to be offered as overruling all ethical and normative considerations. However going into that discussion may not be possible here.

Then comes the issue, if Internet is indeed required (1) how should it be best provided in the conditions that obtain in developing countries, and (2) a related question of, what ‘kind’ of Internet it should be.

In the light of the above, we may be not be arguing about whether Internet or not (unless someone here is so radical to be arguing that, whereby I may be corrected), but whether

(1) mobile or landline Internet/ broadband, and (2) PC or mobile/ handset as user device

A connected and, at the base, a very important question is whether connectivity is easily and freely available for a range of social purposes for which, as per the typical economic definition of a ‘public good’, a model of a large number of people accessing the Internet on user-fee basis does not work. Example; a community trying to build a community generated database of local information.

Also, whether a PC is the end device of a mobile/ handset is an issue completely different from the question of the underlying infrastructure – Internet or mobile telephony infrastructure. The two questions should be teated separately and not conflated as is often done Beyond that, there are certain limitations in relying ‘only’ on mobile/ handset as the user device, which choice affects the kinds of activities and applications that can be accessed/ done. This factor too can determine the nature of uses of the Internet, in terms of empowering uses versus passive uses – a factor I consider very central to the consideration of ‘development potential’ of new ICTs.

In the light of above clarificatory analysis we may examine the available policy and market options. This brings us to the real ad substantive issues of the present discussion.

Mobile connectivity has the obvious, and immense, advantage of ‘mobility’, as well as better economics for less densely populated areas. However, the question remains if it should be a wired backhaul and a wireless last-mile connectivity, or wireless all the way. The former to me looks the preferred model which means we still have to lay the fibre backbone almost everywhere.

The problem with mobile connectivity is that the bandwidth scarcity is often used as an excuse for bandwidth manipulation to change the net neutral nature of the Internet, which for me is very essential to its ‘development potential’. Unfortunately, many market-model enthusiasts do not think so. A connected issue is that mobile connectivity has come to be associated with pure market play model while in broadband infrastructure – due to natural monopoly factors – there often is a strong possibility of a public sector player. This particular factor

(1) on one side, reduces the possibility/ incentive to manipulate the net neutral character of the Internet for endless ‘innovations of business models’ to squeeze in more and more profits

(2) and on the other, makes possible availability of connectivity on special subsidized terms, or free, for a range of social purposes, as is required in the case of all essential infrastructure and services. It was (wrongly) assumed by the first generation ICTD initiatives that a pay-per-use model of providing a general purpose transformational technology like the Internet can enable its appropriation to its best potential. There is so much literature on ‘productivity paradox’ and its subsequent clarification regarding use of ICTs for the business sector in the world’s most developed economy. In the light of it, I continue to be amazed how we cannot simply see that the usage/ appropriation/ ‘productivity’ curve will be even much more difficult for social uses of the Internet in under-developed regions. Such difficult – as in, ‘apparently’ unpromising – curves cannot be cited as the reason for jettisoning efforts to appropriate a technology, a mastery of which is the very condition of even expecting to live on fair and equitable terms in the emergent social arrangements. (Never forget what literacy and education has meant for the same purpose.)

The above to me are the two main issues/ factors in any discussion on what kind of connectivity or infrastructure is needed for less developed regions, and for marginalized sections of the society.

The point two above of providing connectivity (plus) as a public good relates to a larger – and very ideological – debate on whether it is enough to expose marginalised communities to markets for ensuring their development or whether ‘interventionist’ (enabling/ empowering) initiatives continue to be needed to ensure development. One cannot easily expect to convince those on the other side of this great ideological divide. The only thing that can be attempted in this regard is to offer clarifications on some issues, and also some deliberate obfuscations that get created by the strength of various resources that market-fundamentalist ideology obviously commands.

To expound on and expose the other point, regarding what does an exclusive reliance on mobile infrastructure (and to a lesser extent, exclusive reliance on a very small user device) do to the very nature of the much celebrated phenomenon of the Internet, is something which should appeal to a much greater swathe of interests and opinions. I propose that we undertake a systematic study of how Internet on mobile is increasingly provided in a stunted, non net neutral manner, and the prognosis for the near future in this regard is even much worse, and how this threatens the very egalitarian potential of the Internet. This egalitarian and empowering nature of the Internet, as against possibilities of providing some goodies while increasing dependencies, is the real development question that should frame the ‘Internet versus mobiles’ debate.

So while we discuss much whether mobiles can provide more Internet to more people, we need to at the same time ask the question, what kind of Internet is this? It exactly parallels the key development question around us today – the issue is not only ‘more development’ but also ‘what kind of development’. “

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.