I couldn't agree with you more. I
actually have a TV, but watch an hour a week tops (can't actually remember when
last I had it on) and certainly couldn't be bothered with pay TV. But then I can
buy books, go to see films, have an endless supply of music to listen to, and,
of course, reasonably satisfying work and the stimulus of the Internet. "My
girls", on the other hand, in their desperately impoverished environment, have
much fewer sources of entertainment and stimulus, so the guy down the road, who
has a TV that they can watch if the battery has enough juice, is a social
magnet.
I believe if people had choices, they
wouldn't be so wedded to things the lucky few tend to look down their noses at.
Same thing applies to food, by the way: the fast food outlets are cheap and most
importantly, they're there. I bet (there's that phrase again) if you went into
one of your poor neighbourhood, you'd battle to find a tomato or an apple that
is not horrendously expensive and pocked with bruises. The poor tend not
to be have access to gorgeous arrays of gleaming apples and crisp spinach.
Same thing applies here in South Africa:
when one woman I employed got diabetes, I battled to find an alternative that
suited her pocket for the 'vetkoek' she ate every morning (that translates to
fat cake, and that basically describes it, fried dough!); of course, she liked
the taste, one tends to learn to like the things that are readily available, but
there was literally nothing that was the equivalent price that would not send up
her blood sugar. I could source good foods for her in bulk at a more affordable
price, but then I had to make plans to get them to her home, since she couldn't
carry them there on public transport, and she had no fridge... etc. I'd bet
(again!) that similar considerations apply when people think of swapping TV for
broadband, too, considerations that wouldn't cross my mind, like, as Claudia
mentions, that TV is a great social binder, while Internet is a solitary
pursuit.
Mandi
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:04
AM
Subject: Re: Binary America: Split in Two
by A Digital Divide
Umm... maybe we could all back off from "prescriptive" values
and take a more descriptive look here.
YES. Both in the micro-universe
of this story, and the wider personal experience of some of us, low-income
households appear to be more likely to have TV's with cable than computers
with internet.
Never mind that access being high-speed. I live in a
grad student/old people's "ghetto" in my small university town and I only have
dial-up. Why? It's not the cost to me, but the unwilllingness of either my
local phone provider or rental property owner to provide. Certainly, my city
isn't interested.
Not that cost isn't a consideration: I don't
have cable or a big TV, partly because it's an expense I'm unwilling to pay.
But my social and informational needs are amply satisfied by internet
communities, list-servs and emails; by the many local RL friends who I tend to
see on campus, or downtown, at the gallery, the bookshop or the Saturday
market; by occasional trips out of town to see family; by newspapers (online)
and journals (delivered). I can watch films on my laptop. If I want to see a
favorably-reviewed TV show or an entire season, my family can often share it
on TiVO or DVDs when I visit.
Ahhh.... that's why I can live without
TV. It isn't my source of news or shopping information. It isn't the
common conversational currency with friends or colleagues. It isn't my escape
from the humdrum of home with kids during the day, or when hiding inside from
heat, a city's noise or insecurity. Or the "only thing there is," as for
so many older people who for health or safety reasons, stay at home.
So, I can turn my nose up at cable TV. But for others, it's a key
connection to news and neighborhood, as well as recreation. I'd no more ask
them to trade it in for a computer & the internet - with the associated
learning curve, hardware needs, shorter uselife, and mainly single-user setup
- than I would ask my Mom to give up watching Wimbledon and Mystery to listen
to NPR and hang out on the internet like me. Internet doesn't replace
cable TV for her, just augments it. But it added costs and complications as
well.
Mom's house is actually wireless now. But she was driven to the
internet more than she was enticed. She had to get email to stay in touch with
her peripatetic children (who don't write snail mail letters) and eastern
European friends (whose letters take months). She can use it to shop
beyond her smallish city. To really sweeten the pot, she gets unlimited
free in-home software and hardware support from 2 daughters and a son-in-law
with very high computer skills.
I don't think it's as easy for someone
like those in this article to dump cable TV and shift over to internet. They
would lose as much as, or more than, they gain.
Claudia
On 7/24/07, Phil
Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
You're
digging yourself in deeper, Eric. Why don't all those poor
people stop
eating at MacDonald's and start eating healthy organic
vegetables? And if
they just studied harder instead of wasting their
money on "mindless
entertainment" I bet they could get into Harvard
too.
This isn't
the Science for Elitists list.
--PG
At 8:58 PM -0400 7/24/07,
Eric Entemann wrote:
>The article in question starts with this
erroneous comment:
>
>"I am low-income and computers are not
low-income," says Marcella
>Morris, sitting on the front step of her
apartment building on a
>sweltering day last week.
>
>A
$50 used computer and under $20 per month gets one on the internet
>with broadband quite adequately, and a dialup connection can be
had
>for under $40 per year.
>
>My contention is simply
that cost is not the cause of the so-called
>"digital
divide". And that most low-income people in this country
>spend far more than that on mindless entertainment, as do
most
>people of any income level. Let's get real
here.
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Phil
Gasper <
[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People
Discussion List
><[log in to unmask]>
>To:
[log in to unmask]
>Subject:
Re: Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>Date: Tue, 24
Jul 2007 16:26:35 -0500
>
>I am uncomfortable with Eric's
comment, which seems to be blaming
>the poor for their lack of
computer access.
>
>I also think that on a list about science it
ought to be possible to
>do better than make claims that begin "I
bet". Why not do a little
>research
first?
>
>--PG
>
>At 1:31 PM -0400 7/24/07, Eric
Entemann wrote:
>>I'll bet a lot of lower-income people have big
TVs and cable, but
>>no computer or broadband. A
computer that is adequate for
>>broadband net access can bought
new for little and used for almost
>>nothing. The primary computer
I use is an old Pentium 3 that has a
>>value of maybe
$50. And if need be, cable TV could be sacrificed
>>for
cable broadband. So no doubt choice is a big factor
here.
>>
>>But, of course, much more needs to be done
toward the provision of
>>technology education and low-cost
broadband. And more public
>>access to computers on the
internet as alternatives to libraries
>>and schools and
Starbucks. For example, when I visited Tucson
>>three yy
ago, I was pleased to find the Univ. of AZ computer center
>>to be
open long hours and to have free public access with no
time
>>limit. Every computer even had a CD burner available for
downloads.
>>
>>----Original Message
Follows----
>>From: Sam Anderson < [log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To:
Science for the People Discussion List
>><[log in to unmask]
>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject:
Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>Date: Tue, 24
Jul 2007 08:38:17 -0400
>>
>>Binary America: Split in Two
by A Digital Divide
>>
>>By Jose Antonio
Vargas
>>Washington Post Staff Writer
>>Monday, July 23,
2007; C01
>>
>>CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Less than a mile and a
half from the Citadel,
>>the site of the Democratic
presidential debate tonight, sits
>>Cooper River Courts,
a public housing project. Forget the Web.
>>Never mind
YouTube, the debate's co-sponsor. Here, owning a
>>computer and getting on the Internet (through DSL or
cable or
>>Wi-Fi) is a luxury.
>>
>>"I am
low-income and computers are not low-income," says
Marcella
>>Morris, sitting on the front step of her apartment
building on a
>>sweltering day last
week.
>>
>>The unemployed 45-year-old adds: "I know how to
use a computer. I
>>just can't afford one right
now."
>>
>>There exists "two Americas," as John Edwards,
South Carolina's own
>>son, likes to say: an America for the rich
and an America for the
>>poor. But what Edwards and the rest of the
presidential field have
>>yet to adequately address are the two
Americas online: one that's
>>connected to high-speed Internet --
socializing, paying bills,
>>uploading debate questions to
presidential candidates on YouTube --
>>and one that's not. This is
the digital divide, now more than a
>>decade old, a rarely
discussed schism in which the unconnected are
>>second-class
citizens. In some parts of this so-called Internet
>>ghetto, the
screech of a telephone modem dialing up to get online
>>is not
uncommon. And with dial-up, YouTube is impossible to
use.
>>
>>Between 40 to 45 percent of Charlestonians, city
officials here
>>estimate, subscribe to high-speed Internet. That
figure is nearly
>>in line with the national average, according to
the nonpartisan
>>group Free Press. And though a study released
last month by the Pew
>>Internet & American Life Project found
that broadband use among
>>African American adults increased from
14 percent in 2005 to 40
>>percent this year, blacks continue to
lag behind whites and
>>English- speaking Latinos. In fact, a great
number of American
>>households , especially in rural areas and
poorer parts of cities
>>such as Charleston, are without
broadband.
>>
>>And in a presidential election that's
being fought as much online
>>as off it -- all campaigns employ Web
strategies -- some say the
>>candidates have generally ignored the
issue.
>>
>>"I would argue that the digital divide is
worse than it was 10
>>years ago. Back then everyone -- schools,
businesses -- was trying
>>to get online. These days every single
Fortune 500 company has its
>>employees, its customers and its
suppliers connected 24 hours a
>>day, seven days a week. In the
meantime, while our students have
>>online access at school, many
of them don't have it at home," says
>>Andrew Rasiej, a member of a
panel studying universal Internet
>>access in New York,
and co-founder of TechPresident, a nonpartisan
>>blog that
tracks the online campaign.
>>
>>"Our
presidential candidates may all have BlackBerrys, but they
>>have
no vision when it comes to bringing all our citizens to the
>>21st
century. If you go to look at the presidential candidate
Web
>>sites, the word 'Internet' practically doesn't exist.
Breaking the
>>digital divide has not been recognized as a
critical issue," Rasiej
>>continues.
>>
>>Two
months ago, TechPresident challenged the candidates to
adopt
>>specific policies to get everyone online. "Declare the
Internet a
>>public good in the same way we think of water,
electricity,
>>highways," reads a policy statement. "Commit to
providing
>>affordable high-speed wireless Internet access
nationwide," reads
>>another. So far most of the candidates have
not adopted any of it,
>>Rasiej says.
>>
>>"At
one level, the YouTube debate shows that the Web has
really
>>become a centerpiece of American political culture," adds
Lee
>>Rainie, director of Pew Internet. "At another
level, it also shows
>>that the debate is not for
everybody. It's certainly not available
>>to
all Americans."
>>
>>That is especially true at
Cooper River Courts, where Tiara Reid,
>>14, in her
jeans shorts and pink striped top, runs up and down the
>>complex
asking friends if anyone wants to go the library.
Finally
>>her mom, Jossie, who works at a deli, drives
her and a neighbor's
>>daughter. With school out and without
Internet access at home, the
>>library is the only place where she
can go on the Web -- for a
>>maximum of two hours a day. Says
Tiara: "It's 10 minutes to get to
>>the library if someone drives
you. It's 15 minutes if you take the
>>30 bus. It's
about 30 minutes if you walk." On the library's
>>second floor, she
folds herself up on a chair and updates her
>>MySpace profile,
sends e-mails on her Yahoo! account and, if
>>there's time, surfs
Disney.com.
>>
>>Across
from the Reids' apartment stands LaToya Ferguson, holding
>>her
grandson Marquis. She's one of the few residents here to
have
>>Internet access at home. It's a sense of pride for her.
"You're
>>falling behind if you're not online, now that's the
truth," says
>>Ferguson, a nail technician in her
30s.
>>
>>Nearby Marcella Morris runs after her son Donny,
who's nearly 2.
>>Morris says she relies on "the three F's" -- food
stamps, family
>>and friends -- to provide for Donny and her
7-year-old daughter,
>>Jordan. Money's tight. She has a phone,
subscribes to cable, but
>>that's it. No cellphone, no car, no
computer. At 3 in the morning,
>>when an infomercial about the
Web-based Specialty Merchandise
>>Corp.comes on TV, she dreams of
owning a business, she says.
>>
>>A few weeks ago, she
signed up for a computer program at Trident
>>Literacy
Association, a 10-minute walk from her apartment. At
the
>>end of the 10-week program, she will receive a
refurbished
>>computer, free.
>>
>>"Never too
late to start, right?" Morris says. "But after I get the
>>computer I have to worry about the
Internet."
>>
>>It's a familiar story around the country,
even in places as
>>Internet- savvy as San Francisco, Chicago and
the District. Who can
>>get online? Who can't? And what
can be done about it?
>>
>>Charlestonians pay as little as
$20 or as much as $99 (which covers
>>phone, cable and the
Internet) a month to get online, depending on
>>the package. There
are a few free Wi-Fi "hot spots" in town, such
>>as the Cereality
cafe on King Street, where a cappuccino
costs
>>$2.99.
>>
>>Nearly two years ago,
officials vowed to spread Internet access
>>across the city. An
initiative called the Charleston
Digital
>>Corridor selected a proposal to build a
citywide Wi-Fi grid. It
>>was meant to give everybody
free Wi-Fi -- and the city didn't even
>>have to pay
for it. As in other municipalities that are
developing
>>public Wi-Fi projects, now numbering around
400, the goal is
>>twofold: to empower small businesses
and to plug poorer
>>neighborhoods such as Cooper River
Courts into the online world.
>>
>>But like other cities,
including San Francisco, Charleston has
>>struggled with its Wi-Fi
project. The city originally said the
>>service would be up and
running at the end of 2005. It was delayed.
>>Twice. When it
finally was launched last spring, the Wi-Fi reached
>>only about 30
to 40 percent of its intended coverage.
>>
>>And the
Charlestonians tapping into the free Wi-Fi network --
>>sometimes
more than 200 surfers a day -- were largely the ones who
>>could
already afford to pay for it.
>>
>>Now the citywide Wi-Fi
project is in limbo. But Ernest Andrade,
>>head of the Digital
Corridor, is optimistic: "We're evaluating
>>right now and I know
that we'll bring Wi-Fi access to the rest of
>>this city," he
pledges. Morris sounds upbeat, too. She plans on
>>sticking with
her 10-week computer course. "Not having the
>>Internet
in this day and time makes me feel disconnected from a
>>whole other world. Things I could see, things I could
hear, things
>>I could do.
>>
>>"I could take my
kids to other places on the Internet," says Morris
>>as Donny naps
on her lap. "Sometimes I feel shortchanged. Not
>>envious, but
shortchanged."
>>
>>She just turned 45 three days ago. By
her 46th birthday, she hopes
>>to own a computer -- and
be
online.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------
>>s. e. anderson (author of "The Black Holocaust for Beginners"
-
>>Writers + Readers) + http://blackeducator.blogspot.com
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all
in
>>one place! http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>http://liveearth.msn.com
