So here’s what the world looks like today in terms of world internet penetration rates. As of December 2007, 71.1% of North America is connected to the internet, with Oceania/Australia coming in second with 57.1% and Europe third with 43.4%. On the opposite end there’s the Middle East with 17.4%, Asia with 13.7% and Africa with a mere 4.7%[1]. These are huge differences that not only show how big the digital divide is, but also that we have a lot of work to do!

So why is it important that we do something? First and foremost, globally we are driven by new technologies. Almost everything we do today is related somehow to the internet. We are being informed online about issues on our economy, legislation, and events across the world. Many of us are being educated online, and communicate online daily with clients, vendors, customers, colleagues, peers, friends, and family. Then there’s e-commerce, too, that plays a large part in our lives. Our world is getting smaller through new technologies, and if you’re not participating in this, you’re basically left out.

Luckily, statistics show that over the last several years, internet penetration has seen a large increase, even in the areas where penetration is low. In fact, of the three regions where penetration is the lowest, two of them show the largest growth globally; Africa with 882.7% and the Middle East with 920.2%! However, considering that these rates reflect the growth between 2000 and 2007, and that the penetration rates mentioned earlier reflect the situation as of December 2007, it still means that we are nowhere close to being done.

IGADD found that the digital divide is widening, rather than narrowing. So even if some regions in the world show an incredible growth with regard to access to the internet, if it’s widening it means that other regions have a continuous growth, as well, and it is hard to keep up with this growth for those places where internet is still scarce. Speaking of scarcity, IGADD believes that the best staging ground for the innovations needed to close the digital divide is in Indonesia, the fourth largest country in the world. It, for some reason, was excluded in Asia from the surge in technology, but actually has great potential due to its democratic society, its openness to foreign investment, and its source of intergovernmental investors that can help generate subsidies[2]. In Indonesia they plan to close the digital divide through a model that formulates business models, policies, and the like, needed to achieve a reduction of preexisting pricing structures and to commercialize a new line of products geared to low-income consumers in emerging markets.  With this, investors are shown how to get a good return on their investments supporting ICT’s that serve the poor, and how alliances between them and governments and NGO’s benefit poverty-alleviation and market development agendas. This model was implemented in Thailand, which proved very successful and later led to other project including One Laptop per Child.

The digital divide is a problem, but luckily governments collaborate with investors and NGO’s to jointly work on this. Though it may take years for the effects to show, it is important that we do something now. Globalization affects everyone, and no one should be left out.

Vonage offers some different plans, from basic ($14.99 a month) to unlimited ($24.99 a month). Given that I would only get Vonage to call to Europe (after all, I have free minutes already to call anywhere within the U.S.), I looked more closely at the unlimited plan, as it was the only residential plan that mentioned international calling. Apparently, with this plan you already get free minutes to certain European countries such as the U.K. and France. Unfortunately, the Netherlands and Germany aren’t included, which are the two countries I would call the most. So, I would have to get an add-on package if I want this to be an affordable option for me. They have five different international calling plans with a cost varying from $6 a month to $15 a month, depending on which countries you would want included in your plan. For the Netherlands and Germany the Basic World Plan of $6 a month would suffice, so the total monthly cost (before taxes, fees, etc.) would be $30.99. The first month is more expensive, however, with some additional fees you’d have to pay, such as activation fees, shipping and handling, and the adaptor to make it all work (although you’re not forced to purchase this through them directly). With Vonage you are able to keep your current number (provided you have one, of course), but you are also able to choose any available area code within the U.S.

Speakeasy works in a similar way, but is much more expensive (could that be why I hadn’t heard of it before?). Or, that was my first thought. They actually offer plans that include broadband service, so even though a price of $83.90 a month might scare you away, you have to realize that you will no longer have your current monthly fee through your broadband provider – this will now go through speakeasy. They also offer plans of VoIP in combination with DSL or cable, which are a little bit cheaper, BUT these don’t include the “worldwide free calling” (which is free to 22 countries really…). I wondered what you could do if you didn’t want broadband, DSL, or cable through them. Apparently, you can also get a “simple” VoIP line that cost about $34 a month. Unfortunately they don’t advertise this very well, so I couldn’t find too many details on it. I guess they just want you to sign up for the broadband, as well! Just like Vonage, speakeasy also lets you keep your current number, if you so choose.

There is still something about VoIP that makes me hesitant about signing up. I worry that there are some hidden fees that they don’t tell you about unless you happen to ask the right questions. With Vonage that worry isn’t that prevalent, since it seems like they have a lot of information on their website. But, on speakeasy.com this isn’t the case. Maybe excluding information isn’t intentional on their part, but it seems odd that we are so used to finding everything on the internet and then coming across this site that doesn’t follow this standard. I just want to know what I’m getting myself into… without any BS. Doesn’t seem possible yet…

That being said, I feel that the Knoxville News-Sentinel was by far the best website among the six I looked at. This had mostly to do with the design, easy navigation, and the professional look I was hoping to find. I’m not a big fan of typical gossip papers or magazines, so that ruled out a couple of websites that had a gossipy feel to it and had very busy looking imagery. My senses like being tickled, but on some of these sites there was a big, BIG sensory overload.

I was happy to see that all sites had RSS feeds. Though very basic, given other options that are out there, at least it’s something. My suggestion for all online newspapers is to look at your competition. Having a large subscriber base no longer has to do with just news quality, but also with other aspects (i.e. your WEBSITE!). So please, look around, and find out what your target audience is interested in. I don’t believe for one second that an online paper is only interested in having high school students as its audience, but their site would certainly suggest that…

So the question really isn’t whether we should do something about the digital divide, but whether we should get more people internet access at home. Or at least, that’s my interpretation of it. But why would we put so much effort in achieving this? There are plenty of people out there who don’t own a DVD player, or a simple coffee maker. Should we, then, also do something about the entertainment or caffeine divide?

For about a year I have been using VoIP at work, and overall I am pleased with it. The only glitch I see and have experienced is total loss of communication abilities. If the network goes down, it really goes down, and there’s not much you can do about it. That being said, I now do think there’s a future for this technology and suspect that it might eventually take over the “oldfashioned” way of making phone calls. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the regular telephone will be like dial-up, and eventually disappear. VoIP is very flexible, and even though there are still some kinks that need to be worked out, the fact that my company, a Fortune 1000 corporation, has chosen to implement VoIP throughout the company all across the world is quite impressive.

• How long will it take for VoIP to completely take over regular phone systems?
• According to Howstuffworks, geographic location is not determined by using VoIP, perhaps endangering citizens when making 911 calls. What are some other dangers to society with this new technology?
• What groups of people will be most negatively impacted by a full implementation of VoIP?

I’m not sure what is meant by accessibility standards. Is it using WLAN or WMAN as a standard? By looking at the chart that Best provides on global Wi-Fi policies, it becomes pretty obvious that different countries maintain different national policies when it comes to using wireless LAN’s. If we want to do something about the digital divide, isn’t it crucial to streamline policies across the world?

I wonder what will happen if everyone got access to the internet, even those people who live in rural areas and don’t live according to the western ideologies on capitalism that dominate the Net.

• What advantages does it have to get access to the internet for people in remote areas whose lives are “off the grid?”
• What is the ultimate goal of connecting the world together through the Internet?
• How much money are we willing to give up to connect poor people to the Internet?

Looking first at Obama’s website, the opening page immediately caught my attention; it showed Obama with his family in what clearly reflects family values. The page is headlined “Change we can believe in,” and has two fields information can be entered, along with a “LEARN MORE” button. It seems as if many people would easily enter their information in there, because none of it is too personal, and it takes little time. However, by saying you want to “learn more,” you’re actually joining Obama’s movement. Only by going to a small blue button on the bottom of the page, which is well disguised due to the page’s blue body color, can you get around this.

McCain has a similar opening page, but with slight differences. Whereas Obama used the Democratic blue color in its body, McCain did not use the Republican red color. This may not seem like a big deal, but in a race to become the next United States’ President, it would be helpful to do as much as you can to create an identity. Another big difference is in that what grabs your attention first on the opening page. Whereas on Obama’s site the focus is on joining his movement, on McCain’s website the focus appears to be to “Donate Today.”  

Both websites are well organized; all the major topics can be found at the top and bottom of the page that allows for quick navigation through the sites. McCain’s website looks very “military,” due to its dark colors, use of stars throughout the site, and a picture of a jet placed prominently on the home page. The words “Ready to Lead on Day One” therefore seems to be in reference to the Iraq war, though it’s not clear what McCain’s viewpoint is on that issue until you reach the “On the Issues” page. This page briefly outlines his standpoint on every major issue, such as taxes, healthcare, government spending, immigration, and national security. Obama’s website has such a page as well, but not only addresses the problems we are dealing with, but also our values on family and faith.

Both websites also allow for citizen interaction. McCain’s site offers “McCainSpace” in which you can connect to other supporters. Though it’s great for people to have this option, those of us who don’t want to be forced to sign up and give out our information (and thereby being added to the mailing list) will not like this feature, as you can’t openly browse through the space to see what it’s all about. From a campaign standpoint this, of course, is great for luring in new supporters. It, then, comes as no surprise that Obama uses this sign up requirement as well.  However, you are able on this site to view members’ blogs without doing so, which enables more people, especially the undecided, to access and view opinions.

Speaking of target groups, McCain’s website has a special section for those who are undecided. There are also two other groups of people who get special attention; veterans and women. On Obama’s website, however, there’s a section for women and veterans, but also for students, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Americans abroad, Environmentalists, kids, Latinos, people of faith, and so on. Addressing so many people on a website makes you feel acknowledged and important. It seems, therefore, that Barack Obama wants to address issues that affect everyone, and not just limited groups.

Because I am a permanent resident, and therefore cannot vote this election, I haven’t looked specifically at the issues that each candidate present, but have purely looked at the content and marketing to the people in the United States. Though some similarities can be detected, it will likely be the differences that will affect the outcome of this election. Which website will prove more effective? 

What blows me away when looking at these websites critically is that some of these newspapers apparently have no clue how hard it is to navigate through their site. I had one site where I had to actually scroll down to get to the different news sections – classifieds were the first visible links on the home page. How many people actually go to a newspaper without looking at the news first? It seems as if their priorities were a little “different.”

 The second one, however, which was the Journal News, was much better. It was very well organized, and their use of colors was much more pleasant. It did surprise me that they only had four RSS feeds, and that it didn’t have a designated election page.

The internet also makes it possible to very easily compare products, and find the best price available. I’ve never been someone who likes to drive around for bargains, because it’s so time consuming. As a result, I used to simply settle for whatever price showed on the tag and be done with it. Now, with e-commerce, not only do I save time by going to stores, I also actually save money! I am not sure what the benefit is of creating many online communities for shoppers like Murphy mentions in her article about Circuit City. I think there could be a market for that if there are rewards, but without any of that, what’s the point? Why would you spend so much time creating a profile with avatar and no real reason to do it (besides killing time…)?  

• How do online communities improve the shopping experience online?
• What type of businesses should focus on e-commerce more and which ones less?
• When will we become “over-e-communified?”