Eurocitie E Inclusion Demand And Offer Digital Divides


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eurocitie E Inclusion Demand And Offer Digital Divides

  1. 1. “Demand and Offer Related Digital Divides: The Piedmont Experience” Experience” EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY FORUM 23rd – 25th October 2008 AMAROUSSION - Hellas Dr. Enrico Ferro
  2. 2. Why Caring about Digital Divide? • Importance of eInclusion has been widely recognized (pillar of i2010 strategy) • N t j t a matter of social equality, b t a problem of strategic Not just tt f il lit but bl ftt i importance in the global race for competitiveness • Th Thomas F i d Friedman i the b k “ in h book “world i fl ” argues the ld is flat” h increased importance of individuals as key the economic agents • “The world did not expect the second wave of Internet innovation to be led by consumers rather than companies y p (myspace, youtube, 2L, facebook, etc..)” interview to CYSCO’s CEO. 1
  3. 3. Types of Digital Divides DIGITAL DIVIDE TAXONOMY 1. Availability of PCs and Internet 1. Lack of e-Government service OFFER connections in schools and public places provisioning in small municipalities 2. Availability of broadband networks 2. Diffusion of WAI compliant websites outside metropolitan areas id li Geographic Divides ND 1. Gap associated to age, gender, 1. Lower penetration of PC and Fast Internet DEMAN education and income d ti di connections i rural vs. metropolitan areas ti in l t lit 2. Gap associated to enterprise size, sector 2. Less training and lower ICT usage in of activity and type of management small Public Administrations INTRA-MUNICIPAL INTER-MUNICIPAL (Social Classes) (Geographic Areas)
  4. 4. The Piedmont C Th Pi d t Case • Background information: – 1206 Municipalities p – 90% of which below 5000 inhabitants – Around 40% of the population lives in rural areas – As of 2005 30% of municipalities reached by DSL services i
  5. 5. The WI-PIE Programme • Recently recognized by the EU Commission as a b practice i R l i db h C ii best i in Europe through a “fast track” INTERREG capitalization project named: B3 Regions. • ACTION LINES: – Understand and keep under control the phenomenon through a regular monitoring and study activity (Observatory) – Promote the experimentation of Alternative Technological Solutions: • Satellite + HyperLAN + WiFi / Satellite + Copper wire / WiMAX Sate te ype NW Sate te Coppe w e W – Favor the development of broadband enabled services (break chicken and egg problem - BB better sold in bundles) – Creation of distributed GigaPops to be used as test beds for the creation of interactive multimedia services – Provide fast access to schools and universities 4
  6. 6. Guiding Criteria • Selectivity: technological and economical model efficiency; y; • No overlapping on market action and interventions supportability; t bilit • Coherence with national and international Co e e ce w t at o a a d te at o a initiative • T h l i l neutrality and O Technological li d Open A Access 5
  7. 7. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% gen-99 apr-99 lug-99 ott-99 gen-00 apr-00 lug-00 ott-00 gen-01 apr-01 % municipalities reached lug-01 ott-01 gen-02 apr-02 lug-02 ott-02 gen-03 apr-03 lug-03 ott-03 gen-04 % population reached DSL Infrastructure Evolution apr-04 lug-04 ott-04 gen-05 apr-05 lug-05 ott-05 PROGRAMME gen-06 LAUNCH OF WI-PIE apr-06 lug-06 ott-06 gen-07 apr-07 lug-07 ott-07 6 gen-08 AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH TELECOM ITALIA apr-08
  8. 8. Agreement with Telecom Italia • Incumbent operator (TI) has agreed to cover 1029 municipalities out of 1206 – Focus infrastructure related actions on a limited number of municipalities 177 – Government may hence concentrate on stimulating demand 7
  9. 9. Digital Divide Dynamics N connection i No N ti Broad Band Narrow B d Band Nessuna connessione B dB d N 100% 80% 50% 53% 53% 54% 55% 59% 60% 13% 40% 21% 26% 37% 39% 37% 20% 37% 26% 21% 9% 5% 4% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 • Broadband penetration has increased among I/net users • No “technology push” effect on excluded people 8
  10. 10. Digital Divide Dynamics (II) 2003 2005 2006 2007 90% HOUT 80% an Interne Connection 70% % of Households WITH 60% 50% 40% et 30% 20% 10% a o 0% 1 n. familiare=1 n. familiare=2 e reddito n. familiare=2 e reddito n. familiare>2 2 person 2 people 2 people More than ≤2000 >2000 Income <2000€ Income >2000€ people HOUSEHOLD TYPES IDENTIFIED • Very limited opt-in dynamics within clusters over time • High resistance to change 9
  11. 11. Open issues issues… • Are i2010 objectives realistic? • May a multiplatform approach help to find a solution? • Should we start talking about the concept of digital choice? hi ? • How should public policies evolve to face changing issues? Focus should be on demand since: i ?F h ld b d di – Its reduces market perturbations – It is the only real technology neutral action – It fosters the creation of complementary services – Life long learning prevents the birth of second order divides 10