INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AMONG PEOPLE EXPERIENCING POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION

Dr Sarah Wise

University of Melbourne and Berry Street Victoria

PRESENTATION AIM

7 points about deprivation of telecommunications among people experiencing poverty

1 strategy to build a more digitally inclusive society

ANG

LICARE VICTORIA’S 2013 H

ARDSH

IP SURVEY

280 emergency relief and 45 financial counselling clients (N = 325)

24 Victorian service locations (14 metro, 10 non-metro)

Deprivation index

Items on telecommunications access and affordability

62.8% disability

7.7% homelessness

41.8% long-term (10+ years) unemployed

51.0% less than Year 12 education

55.0% living with dependent children under the age of 18

26.3% born in a non-English speaking country.

46.6% male

10.8% above the working age (65 years or more)

INTERNET CONNECTIVITY HAS POSITIVE BENEFITS

Information and knowledge Skills building (e-learning) Services Social and political participation Employment Creative expression

DIGITAL EXCLUSION CAN REINFORCE AND DEEPEN EXISTING SOCIAL INEQUALITIES

83.0 per cent of Australian households have access to the Internet (ABS 2014)

93.0 per cent of Australians with home Internet have broadband access (ABS 2014)

64.0 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (11.19 million people) use a smartphone (ACMA 2014)

UNDERSTANDING WHO IS EXCLUDED AND WHY IS CRITICAL TO BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Skills and confidence in using the Internet

Perceived benefits and interest/motivation

Age Geographic location Affordability

MAJORITY OF WELFARE SERVICE CLIENTS MISSED OUT ON HOME INTERNET AND SMART PHONE, BUT NOT MOBILE PHONE

Home Internet Mobile phone Smart phone 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Welfare service clients Australia

Per c

ent

AGE AND PRESENCE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN DIFFERENTIATED USERS AND NON-USERS OF HOME INTERNET AND SMARTPHONE

Smartphone users significantly younger

Home Internet users (almost) significantly older

Home Internet users significantly more likely to have dependent children (<18 years) living in the home

≤$50 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE ON HOME INTERNET AND MOBILE PHONE AFFORDABLE FOR THOSE WHO HAD IT

Home Internet 49.2% didn’t have it because they couldn’t afford it 68.0% (who didn’t bundle) spent $50 or less per month 63.4% (who didn’t bundle) felt the cost was ‘very’ or

‘moderately’ affordable

Mobile phone 11.1% didn’t have it because they couldn’t afford it 82.3% spent $50 or less per month 61.7% felt the cost was ‘very’ or ‘moderately’ affordable

HOME INTERNET GREATLY IMPROVED (OR WOULD IMPROVE) STANDARD OF LIVING

Welfare service client (had home In-ternet)

Welfare service client (deprived of home Internet)

Australia 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Impr

ovem

ent (

or p

erce

ived

impr

ovem

ent)

in s

tand

ard

of li

ving

SCHEMES FOR AFFORDABLE SMARTPHONES COULD INCREASE INTERNET ACCESS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY

Welfare service clients see the benefits of Internet access, but many can’t afford it

Mobile phone is the dominant form of telecommunication

Mobile networks, such as 4G, and Wi-Fi hotspots making mobile Internet more accessible

Cost effective programs and special schemes for smartphone usage could be an effective strategy to increase Internet access for people living in poverty

Up to $50 per month affordable for most

FURTHER INFORMATION

Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy 2(4), December 2014.

sarah.wise@unimelb.edu.au