I recently gave an apparently ‘thorough’ workshop on digital migration in South Africa specifically examining the Department of Communication’s Digital Migration Strategy and its implications for South African media. Within this discussion a central question relating to development kept coming up: what are the implications for those living on the poorer side of the ‘digital divide’?
I know this is quite a technical and at times perhaps boring topic of discussion, but it is an important one. South Africa is in the unique position of needing to be somewhat ‘catapulted’ into digital migration because of well, soccer. Sounds like a bit of a leap, but really there is a connection. South Africa is due to host the FIFA Soccer World Cup in 2010 , an event of international proportions requiring top quality, fast and effective coverage. This need for digital infrastructure and broadcasting adds to an already daunting list of requirements for South Africa to fulfil before 2010. In reality absolutely everything from our airports, transport systems, stadiums and roads need to be organised by the time millions of soccer-lovers fly into our country.
The question becomes one of priority: will those living in rural or impoverished areas be left out of receiving top quality soccer matches and details in favour of getting the major cities up to scratch?
It is ironic that so few of the general public seem aware of this process called digital migration and how it will affect their lives. So let me briefly explain digital migration: It is best described as the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting at both the levels of transmission and reception of broadcasting. This transition is to take place within television broadcasting services and sound broadcasting. The digital transition consists of two important phases: the switch-on of digital broadcasting on the one hand, and the switch-off of analogue broadcasting on the other.
This discussion of ‘switching-off’ in particular led me to realise that the digital migration process, while positive in the long run, will have negative implications for those living on the wrong side of the digital divide. Firstly , Africa as a continent will be left behind in terms of the global digital divide because of the major costs involved in introducing the digital technologies. Whereas the UK have already begun switching off some of their analogue infrastructure this year, almost all African countries have yet to commence with even switching on their digital broadcasting.
Moreover, due to the high costs involved in purchasing digital receiver equipment, there will be a huge division among those who can afford to make the switch to digital and those who will be left receiving analogue transmission for years to come.
One suggestion for maintaining access to information has been discussed in terms of the Public Broadcasting Services. It has been proposed that at least one SABC service remains available on analogue indefinitely to ensure public access to news and information.
In their discussion of the digital dilemma in Africa, C Armstrong and R Collins say: “citizen access is perhaps the thorniest issue in the digital TV debate in South Africa”. They believe the problems for citizen access should be a powerful reason for adopting a cautious, phased approach to digital migration in South Africa. This issue includes problems of signal coverage (the metropolitan areas will take priority), affordability (of reception devices) and home-language provision (will all languages be taken into consideration?)
Affordability of things like the Set Top Box (STB) receivers needed in people’s homes is a serious deterrent for viewers wanting to undergo the digital switchover process. The Digital Migration Working Group found that around 4.5 million households in SA will be unable to afford a digital STB, no matter how low the entry-level price may be. A comprehensive government subsidy scheme has been proposed in order to remedy this situation to ensure STBs are accessible and affordable to the majority of television households, no matter how poor they may be.
Guy Berger's 2006 article on digital migration shows how digital broadcasting will certainly widen the digital divide in Africa, with those citizens unable to pay subscription fees being “condemned to analogue service for many years yet” (Berger, 2006:2).
Government’s promise of subsidies for the poor should therefore be heavily encouraged and monitored, or else the poor stand to be left even further behind than before. For ICTs to truly aid development in the future, the digital migration process should be taken into serious consideration. If this is done sooner rather than later, we could consider how the digital migration could actually benefit the poor and marginalised.
For updates on government policy on this matter go to: DVB’s website . You can also compare Africa’s development here in relation to other countries.
Showing posts with label Digital Divide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Digital Divide. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
The ‘New Economy’: increasing the digital divide?
Most of us have heard the term ‘new economy’ thrown about in discussions of ICT and development, often without having a concrete understanding of what this term means and what real effect it has on countries. The ‘new economy’ has also been described as: the ‘knowledge economy’, an ‘information-driven economy’, ‘networked economy’, and an ‘e-conomy’. These terms all express the fundamental point: that we now live in an knowledge-based global economy.
An International Monetary Fund article defines a ‘new economy’ as “one characterised by higher long-term growth that is due to a permanently higher growth rate in productivity stemming primarily from the production, adoption, and continued diffusion of ICT”.
The IMF article uses examples of industrial societies where the rapid adoption of ICT has been the driving force behind acceleration in labour productivity, such as in the United States during the 1990s. For instance, technological innovation resulted in sharp declines in computer prices of about 22 percent a year between 1995 and 2000. This meant industries could invest in information processing equipment and peripherals.
While it is all good and well to consider what the new economy has meant for the U.S. and European countries, there is far less discussion and consideration of developing countries and how they may (or may not) be benefiting. This is why Anthony P. D’Costa’s article is refreshing. He acknowledges that “knowledge-based economic activities are key to international competitiveness and productivity growth,” and that with industrialisation no longer the principal driver of economic growth, developing countries need to catch up in ICT development.
Whether or not developing countries can work effectively with the changing global regime, how they might utilise the open access to knowledge and information, and how they can adopt best practices (such as telemedicine, distance learning and e-government) are significant questions for development.
Developing countries are structurally disadvantaged in seeking the best from the global regime of ICT infrastructure, which is related to their lack of key ingredients such as human capital, physical infrastructure, and lack of venture capital to exploit ICTs. But D’Costa says this does not mean the doors are completely shut. Poor countries such as the Philippines, which have unwittingly created human capital, have shown they are able to interact with the global economy, adapt imported ideas and know-how and localise them.
D’Costa suggests that the old (non-ICT) economy and the traditional development concerns are equally important to secure the benefits of the new economy. Previously emphasised development needs, such as infrastructure investments and domestic market stimulation, are still relevant.
Gale T C Rigobert’s article continues in this same vein, examining the implications of the new economy for a country on the less-beneficial side of the digital divide: the Caribbean.
Rigobert says firms or national economies that fail to incorporate ICTs in their economic or productive structures are likely to be abandoned at the fringes of the global economy. The repercussions of this being: declining competitiveness, and negative or poor economic growth. This suggests that the ‘new economy’ threatens to increase the digital divide, with those countries already on top of ICT development maintaining an advantage over those countries still lacking in such developments.
Like D’Costa, Rigobert says for poor countries to benefit from ICTs, there are important social, institutional and cultural preconditions for entering the digital age and evolving into a knowledge society/ economy. The existence of an apparently daunting digital divide, however, raises significant doubt about the potential of ICTs to raise the living standards of the poor in the Caribbean.
So in this ‘new economy’, where knowledge has become a very important factor of production, countries like that of the Caribbean need to move toward fostering an innovation culture and environment to secure a place for itself among the technological leaders. Rigobert says this includes the need for a more vigorous attempt at resolving the technology access divide, skills divide, social capability divide, and the technology production divide.
It seems it is only then that “any significant strides can be made in narrowing the economic divide between the haves and the have-nots in the current techno-economic context”. If developing countries fail to make these necessary steps, they will continue to be left behind.
An International Monetary Fund article defines a ‘new economy’ as “one characterised by higher long-term growth that is due to a permanently higher growth rate in productivity stemming primarily from the production, adoption, and continued diffusion of ICT”.
The IMF article uses examples of industrial societies where the rapid adoption of ICT has been the driving force behind acceleration in labour productivity, such as in the United States during the 1990s. For instance, technological innovation resulted in sharp declines in computer prices of about 22 percent a year between 1995 and 2000. This meant industries could invest in information processing equipment and peripherals.
While it is all good and well to consider what the new economy has meant for the U.S. and European countries, there is far less discussion and consideration of developing countries and how they may (or may not) be benefiting. This is why Anthony P. D’Costa’s article is refreshing. He acknowledges that “knowledge-based economic activities are key to international competitiveness and productivity growth,” and that with industrialisation no longer the principal driver of economic growth, developing countries need to catch up in ICT development.
Whether or not developing countries can work effectively with the changing global regime, how they might utilise the open access to knowledge and information, and how they can adopt best practices (such as telemedicine, distance learning and e-government) are significant questions for development.
Developing countries are structurally disadvantaged in seeking the best from the global regime of ICT infrastructure, which is related to their lack of key ingredients such as human capital, physical infrastructure, and lack of venture capital to exploit ICTs. But D’Costa says this does not mean the doors are completely shut. Poor countries such as the Philippines, which have unwittingly created human capital, have shown they are able to interact with the global economy, adapt imported ideas and know-how and localise them.
D’Costa suggests that the old (non-ICT) economy and the traditional development concerns are equally important to secure the benefits of the new economy. Previously emphasised development needs, such as infrastructure investments and domestic market stimulation, are still relevant.
Gale T C Rigobert’s article continues in this same vein, examining the implications of the new economy for a country on the less-beneficial side of the digital divide: the Caribbean.
Rigobert says firms or national economies that fail to incorporate ICTs in their economic or productive structures are likely to be abandoned at the fringes of the global economy. The repercussions of this being: declining competitiveness, and negative or poor economic growth. This suggests that the ‘new economy’ threatens to increase the digital divide, with those countries already on top of ICT development maintaining an advantage over those countries still lacking in such developments.
Like D’Costa, Rigobert says for poor countries to benefit from ICTs, there are important social, institutional and cultural preconditions for entering the digital age and evolving into a knowledge society/ economy. The existence of an apparently daunting digital divide, however, raises significant doubt about the potential of ICTs to raise the living standards of the poor in the Caribbean.
So in this ‘new economy’, where knowledge has become a very important factor of production, countries like that of the Caribbean need to move toward fostering an innovation culture and environment to secure a place for itself among the technological leaders. Rigobert says this includes the need for a more vigorous attempt at resolving the technology access divide, skills divide, social capability divide, and the technology production divide.
It seems it is only then that “any significant strides can be made in narrowing the economic divide between the haves and the have-nots in the current techno-economic context”. If developing countries fail to make these necessary steps, they will continue to be left behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
