With the internet becoming essential for education, communication, livelihoods and government services and entitlements, access to the internet is no longer a privilege or luxury. Those who do not have access to the internet (or have rudimentary or limited access) will fall further and further behind in the digital age. The CCDS study examines the extent of digital inequality in a rapidly-expanding Indian metropolis and explores the barriers to internet access for the poor and marginalised.

1. A study by the
Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS)
2015
Supported by Ford Foundation
www.netpehchaan.in

2. Internet penetration - Global
3 billion online by 2014: penetration rate 40.4% (Measuring the Information Society
Report, ITU 2014)
Penetration in Europe 75%, America 66%, Asia-Pacific 32%, Africa 19% (ITU 2014)
BUT….
4.3 billion not yet online, 90% of them in the developing world.
3 out of 4 people online in the developed countries, 1 out of 3 in developing
countries.
India is at the bottom of most indices when compared to other BRICS countries
Source: ITU 2014.* http://www.internetsociety.org/map/global-internet-report/
Country Rank* Percentage
Brazil 74 51.6%
China 86 45.8%
India 139 15.1%
Russia 57 61.4%
South Africa 80 48.9%

3. Internet penetration –India
 254.4 million by September 2014 (TRAI)
 350 million users as of June 2015; 17% growth in number of users between January-
June 2015 (IAMAI)
 2nd largest population online after China
 15.1% penetration, 129th rank on the ICT Development Index
 India has 17.5% of the world’s population but only 8.33% of the world’s internet users.
 In comparison, China has 19.24% of the world’s population and 21.97% of the world’s
internet users with 46% penetration
 60% of internet users access the internet through mobile devices (IAMAI-IMRB 2015)
 Effective internet penetration in India is 6.19 per 100 as 178.67 million users are
narrowband subscribers, and only 75.73 million are on broadband subscribers

4.  Internet access – not a privilege or luxury
 Internet - essential for education, communication, livelihoods, access to government
services and entitlements
 Digital inequality taps into existing socio-economic inequalities. The poor and
marginalised lack the economic/social capital to go online. Information poverty
makes them further marginalised. It’s a vicious circle
 CCDS’s study offers a reality check on the digital ‘revolution’
 Conflation of numbers connected with internet inclusion needs to be questioned
Internet for the urban poor – Why?

5. Aim and Objectives
 Aim:
 To understand internet access among low-income, marginalised urban
communities and the factors facilitating or inhibiting their access
 Specific Objectives:
 To understand inequality in internet access in low-income settlements of Pune
 To understand how socioeconomic and infrastructural factors shape internet
access for people residing in these settlements
 To study awareness and attitudes of inhabitants of low-income urban settlements
towards the internet
 To understand patterns of internet use among people in these settlements,
and how they are introduced to and explore the internet;
 To explore the quality of access available to them
 To understand the enablers of and barriers to internet access among people in
these settlements, and their aspirations to go online.

6. Research Methods
 6 purposively selected low-income settlements of Pune city (PMC and PCMC)
 A mixed method approach was adopted:
 Quantitative survey (1634 Households) – Households selected through
systematic random sampling; respondents 16-70 years
 Qualitative data collection: FGDs, in-depth interviews and case studies
 Reportage, photography, short films supplemented the research (available at
www.netpehchaan.in)
 Insights were gained in the course of internet literacy workshop conducted in low-
income settlements of Pune

7. Study Locations

8. Characteristics: Study population
 48.5% females, 51.5% males in the sample
 62% youth in the 16-35 age-group
 About 80% of the study population literate, but less than 9% graduates and above
 20% self-employed, about 19% in the service sector, 12.4% students, 34% non-
working
 Substantial share of population (84%) from marginalized communities: SC, ST and
religious minorities
 Settlements of varying wealth status – Mahatma Phule Nagar and Ambedkar Nagar
with majority of households in the lower wealth quintiles, Laxmi Nagar and Janata
Vasahat with larger numbers in the upper wealth quintiles

9. Continued……
 Majority (88%) live in their own houses
 About ¾ of the households live in pucca and semi-pucca houses
 More than 90% of the houses have 1 and 2 rooms.
 HH assets:
 89% own television
 86% have cooking gas connections
 2/5th own 2-wheelers & refrigerators
 Only 11% have desktop/ laptop computers, 3.6% have tablets
 1% own desktop computer with fixed internet, 4% own dongle/ data card
 97% own mobile phones; 34.5% own basic mobile phones while 69% have internet
accessible phones
 Penetration of landline phones: poor (1.1%)
 Large majority of the households have cable / DTH TV
 About 1/5th (22%) of HHs have yellow (BPL) ration cards, 69% have orange (APL)

10. Internet penetration
Household Members
USERS NON-USERS TOTAL
1066
18%
4933
82%
5999
100%
Ever heard of
Internet
Not heard of
Internet
2886
58%
2047
42%
Internet Penetration
(connected Households)
AT
LEAST 1
USER
NO
USER
TOTAL
720
44%
914
56%
1634
100%
Primary Respondents
USERS NON-USERS TOTAL
564
35%
1070
65%
1634
100%
Ever heard of
Internet
Not heard of
Internet
502
47%
568
53%

11. Internet users/ non-users by gender
16
58
84
42
Female Male
Internet Users
Internet Non-users
 16% of women are users compared to 58% of men
Big gender gap

12. Internet users/ non-users by age
 Internet use declines sharply with
age – Big age gap.
 Majority of users – 64% – in 16-20
age-group.
 Only 7% of the 35+ are users.
64
39
26
15
7
36
61
74
85
93
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 35+
Internet Users Internet Non-users

13. Internet users/ non-users by education
 Sharp increase in internet use
as educational level
increases.
 83% of graduates and above
are users
 only 3% of those with primary
education are users. 3
20
37
65
83
97
80
63
35
17
No Ed/ Up to
Std 5
Std 6-8 Std 9-10 Std 11-12/
Dip/ Voc
Grad &
above
Internet Users Internet Non-users

14. Internet users/non-users by occupation
48
27
8
77
14
52
73
92
23
86
Service Self-employed Daily wager Student Not working
Internet Users Internet Non-users
 77% of students are users
 48% with more stable occupations in service are online

15. Internet users/ non-users by
wealth quintile
Correlation between wealth and internet use:
23% of those in the lowest wealth quintile are users
compared to 51% in the highest quintile.
23 23
33
43
51
77 77
67
57
49
1st (lowest) 2nd 3rd 4th 5th (highest)
Internet Users
Internet Non-users

16.  Of 1,170 school-going children enumerated, 65% report computer training in schools
 FGDs with children in 11 schools revealed that there is a marked difference in ICT
infrastructure and training among ‘regular’ schools and e-learning schools or schools
supported by CSR/ civil society interventions for digital literacy
 Few functional computers and large numbers of students per class limit hands-on
experience of computers
 This results in difference in children’s awareness of the internet and its uses as well
as their confidence in ability to use the internet
ICT skills for school-going children

17. Use of media at household level
Most important source of information for households
 80% households depend
on TV for news and
information
 36% on newspapers
 Only 11% on internet

18. Household expenditure on
media consumption
 94% spend up to Rs 300 on TV
 48.6% spend more than Rs 300 on talk
time
 Majority of users (70.4%) spend up to Rs
200 on internet
 45% of households spend up to 5% of
total monthly income on digital
communication
 38% spend as much as 5-10%, indicating
importance given to communications
45.2
37.7
10.2
7
Upto5% >5to10% >10to15% Above15%

19. PATTERNS OF INTERNET USE

20. Frequency of internet use
 66% reported daily use of the internet
 More men (71%) access the internet every day as against women (52% )
 Although students form the biggest segment of internet users, their frequency of
use is the lowest
 Frequency of use increases with improving economic status

21. Purpose of internet use
76.1
79.8
49.8
11.7
44.3
47.2
Social Networking Entertainment
Information Seeking Online services
Communication Job/Education
 Awareness and use of online
services, including e-governance
services, is low
 Only 8% of users said the internet
had helped them get information
about government services/
entitlements

22. Point of internet access
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Female Male Total
47.3
63.4
59.2
6.8
4.1 4.8
8.9
2.2 3.9
18.5
5.7
9
18.5
24.6 23
Percent
Mobile only Computer/ Laptop only
Workplace only/ School/ College/ Class Cyber cafe only
Multiple
 59% access the internet on
mobile phones only
 In the absence of mobile
devices capable of data
access, women are more
dependent on public access
points than men.

23. Perceived quality of internet access
53.3
56.1
39.7 37.4
7.1 6.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Speed Connectivity
Good Average Poor
• Connectivity and speed: about 50%
rate it ‘good’
• 3/4 of users say the internet is
affordable
• High level of satisfaction
BUT
34.7
27.3
8.5
29.5
<=300 MB >300 MB to 1
GB
>1 GB DK/ NA
• Internet services consumed are limited
to 300 MB or less and 1-7 days’ validity
• These services suffice for messaging
and social networking only
• Respondents use cybercafés for
internet research, submission of online
forms etc.
Quality of access Monthly data transfer consumed

24. BARRIERS TO INTERNET ACCESS
• Infrastructural
• Socio-cultural
• Economic
• Attitudinal
• Gender

25. Infrastructural barriers
 Wired broadband is completely absent in low-
income areas.
 Internet access is mobile cellular, mostly 2G, with
average speeds of 60 kbps
Internet connectivity is higher where:
 Households possess any internet-accessible phone
(61.6%)
 Households possess smart phones (77%)
Unconnected households:
 93% of households with no phones
 85.3% of households with basic phones only
7.3
9.0
5.5
52.3
24.5
1.4
Wired Line
Cybercafé
Dongle/data card
2G service on mobile
3G service on mobile
Don’t know
I had a dongle which I stopped using. It was too expensive. The
cyber cafe is there but there is no privacy to use internet. So the
mobile is the best option. (Male Internet user, 26, Married, college
graduate, service)
We don’t have the internet in our mobile. The cybercafes are too far
away and the family does not allow us to go out. (Female internet
user, 21, unmarried, final year BA student)
MOBILE PHONE IS KEY TO CONNECTIVITY

26. Awareness of internet
 35% of our respondents (n=1634) had not heard of the internet
 Of the 82% that are offline (n=4933), 42% had never heard of internet
 Awareness increases with education, decreases with age
 86% of respondents with ‘no education’ have not heard of internet

27. Computer skills/Education
 Likelihood of household
being connected 3 times
higher where one member
has completed school
 Households with at least one
computer-trained member
twice as likely to be
connected
 Greater use of net for
education/livelihoods when
users are educated to/above
higher secondary level

28. Attitudinal Barriers
 78% of non-users agreed that internet is as important as any other basic amenity
 Less than 10% feel that internet is not relevant for people in low-income settlements
 97% -- users and non-users -- want a public access point in their settlement
 But 23% of non-users feel the internet has nothing useful for them, reflecting the
lack of awareness about the diverse uses of the internet , and also the absence of
local and hyper-local content
 Over 60% believe the internet is addictive and has the potential for misuse
ASPIRATION
 73% of internet non-users aspire to go online in the future

29. 58.2
28.9
11.1
1.7
Male only Female only
Both Not reported
Literacy and awareness
Ever heard of internet
(non user respondents)
Computer use in the household by
gender (n=1634)
55.4
43.5
Male Female
Gender Barriers
 Gender differences begin with literacy – 70% women are literate compared to 87% of
men
 More men than women non-users have heard of internet
 Computer use in the family is dominated by males

30.  Women have less access to mobile phones.
 They face family restrictions on use of
mobiles. Also restrictions on movement
outside the settlement, to cybercafés
 Majority women have basic mobile phones
or feature phones only
 Women lack economic capital to get
infrastructure /buy net time at cybercafés
 Misconception that women can’t handle
technology
73.3%
90.7%
26.7%
9.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male
Yes No
Ownership of mobile phones by gender
Gender Barriers (contd)

31. Gender Barriers (contd)
Point of access
47.3
63.4
6.8
4.1
8.9
2.2
18.5
5.7
18.5
24.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Female
Male
Mobile only
Computer/ Laptop only
Workplace / School/ College/ Class only
Cybercafe only
Multiple
24
34
23
14
5
0 1
10
21
24
23
14
7
2
Female Male
Expenditure on the Internet
In the absence of mobile devices capable
of data access, women are more
dependent on public access points than
men
Women are able to spend less than men on
internet services.

32.  Men have this attitude towards women ..They say, ‘Why do you need internet, you
are at home'. Women are given phones to receive incoming calls only...Most men
have android/ smartphones, women get simpler ones
(Woman internet user, 23 years, unmarried, college graduate, service)
 People in our settlement don’t like to see girls on the mobile all the time because it
does not look good. People in our settlement have certain views about girls and
the community thinks that if girls are on the mobile they are not conforming to
community culture
(Woman internet non-user, 45 years, married, not educated, domestic worker)
 I feel proud that though I am married, I still get a chance to use the internet....Most
of the girls do not get permission to use the internet. Both my mother’s family and
my in-laws' family use the internet, so it is a plus point for me.
(Female internet user, 24, married, educated up to Standard 9, homemaker)
Patriarchal barriers
Gender Barriers (contd)

33. Reported barriers to internet access
REASONS
FOR NON-
USE
27%
No ICT
skills/ Don’t
know how to
use
23%
Do not
need/ not
interested
16%
Lack of
education
14%
Poor
infrastructure
NON-USERS
48.8
21.8
12.4
4.3
4.1
Poor network coverage for
mobile internet
No wired facility in my
settlement
Cyber cafe or public access
point is too far away
Don't have good enough
device
Not affordable USERS

34. Enabling factors for internet access
20
2
13
64
43
48
54
25
Internet available at home
Good network coverage/speed
Affordable
Have ICT skills
Knowledge of English language
Own mobile/computer/laptop
Being educated
I learnt it
Percent of internet users

35. Conclusion
 Sharp digital divide in the city – if at least 5/10 residents of Pune city are online (IMRB-
IAMAI studies), less than 2/10 individuals in the low-income study sites use the internet
 Digital inequality overlays economic and socio-cultural exclusion
 Slums and marginalised low-income areas have severe infrastructural constraints
 Clear links between economic deprivation and internet exclusion: The poorest are
the most likely to be offline
 Those with low levels of education more likely to be digitally disadvantaged.
Patterns of use are also related to educational level
 Lack of ICT skills is a major barrier to internet use
 Big gender divide; big age barrier
 Attitudinal barriers
 Two levels of digital inequality: 1) Digital divide between internet haves and have-nots;
2) Capability divide.

36. Towards internet inclusion
 Digital inclusion policy must be organised around EQUAL access, QUALITY access,
and capacity to ADOPT and make FULL USE of the technology. Not just around
numbers connected
 Focus on infrastructure-provisioning for underserved and marginalised urban areas
 Public access points for affordable, high-speed internet
 Support and incentives, particularly from the state, required to meet the needs of low-
income populations
 Policy/ programmes to bring digital empowerment and ICT skills to the most digitally-
excluded groups, particularly women
 Systems for equal access to information, and equal opportunities to use that
information, must be an integral part of e-governance
 Raising awareness of the internet, its multiple benefits, and safe use
 Building relevant (local) content and services; addressing social acceptability

37. THANK YOU
Although diffusion of internet is accelerating, greater
internet penetration will not automatically ameliorate
digital inequality. Any long-term and meaningful digital
inclusion policy must aim to provide equal internet access to
all.
Contact:
Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS)
C/12, Gera Greens, NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Pune 411 048, India.
Phone No: 91-20-32342047/26852845
Email: hutokshi@ccds.in
Visit us at: www.netpehchaan.in