The Multiple Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Morethan the Technology ‘Haves’ and ‘Have Nots’

John Carlo Bertot*

Florida State University, School of Information Studies, 101 Shores Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2100, USA

1. Discussion

When we hear about the Digital Divide, it is most often in the context of informationtechnology “haves” and “have nots.” This symposium issue ofGovernment InformationQuarterly, however, clearly indicates that such a definition of the Digital Divide is toonarrow at best and quite problematic at worst. Indeed, one can cast the Divide along anumber of dimensions such as:

● Technology. Holders of this view regard the Divide as one of access or lack of accessto computing technology. The variousFalling through the Net studies conducted by theDepartment of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Adminis-tration (NTIA) adopt this view of the Divide by tracking user access to computers andthe Internet in the home.1 By extension, however, one needs to consider a variety ofcommunity access points to technology such as libraries, schools, and places ofemployment. Technology access in itself is multidimensional, and different accesspoints lend themselves to different technology competencies and adoption as discussedby Hollifield and Donnermeyer.� A note on this perspective is that with the Bush Administration’s inauguration, there

has been a shift in perspective on the Digital/Technology Divide. Indeed the BushAdministration does not share the view that a technology Divide exists, preferring torecast the debate as a “closing gap.”2 A different view on this is that the BushAdministration considers the Divide closed, and thus not in need of substantialfederal funding initiatives.3

● Telecommunications. As the Stover, Venkatachalam and McDowell, and Glass articles inthe symposium detail, the “have” and “have not” dichotomy extends to access to broadband

* Corresponding author. Tel.:�1-850-644-8118.E-mail address: jcbertot@lis.fsu.edu (J.C. Bertot).

Pergamon

Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

0740-624X/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(03)00036-4

(or wideband, as Bob Rowe points out in his article) telecommunications services. To alarge extent, those communities without adequate access to broadband services (defined bythe Federal Communications Commission as 200kbps4 fall largely in rural areas. Indeed, asthe Choura et al. article indicates, some communities within the country do not receivePOTS (plain old telephone service). Moreover, the likelihood of traditional broadbandtelecommunications services in those rural communities is unclear at this time and associ-ated costs can be prohibitive.

● Economic. Linked clearly to technology and telecommunications infrastructure(see the Hollifield and Donnermeyer and Rowe articles, for example) is eco-nomic development. Rural communities face a number of challenges in attractingand promoting economic development within their communities. A knowledgesociety dependent economy, however, needs minimally a combination of an edu-cated workforce (which extends to technical skills), technology infrastructure, andtelecommunications infrastructure (particularly broadband). While there are a num-ber of factors that contribute to economic development, a high-tech economy and,thus, businesses and other related entities, require a foundational infrastructureupon which to build. To some extent, rural communities are caught in a chicken andegg situation: the need to promote economic development is dependent on aninfrastructure that is not easily attained in rural communities without significantinvestment by the communities. Yet these communities do not necessarily have theability to invest in infrastructure without access to resources that businessesprovide.

● Information Access. The foundation to a democratic society is free and unencum-bered access to information. This ideal gave birth to the public library structurewithin the United States as we know it. It also provided for the elaborate andcodified structure (44 USC) that governs the dissemination of government infor-mation through the Federal Depository Library (FDL) program and the GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO). This system for information access, however, is basedlargely on a print publication model that requires a physical presence (e.g., alibrary) and is out of step with the distributed networked environment. The questionbecomes: what is Universal Access with regards to information in the networkedenvironment? Some indicate that Universal Access is the ability of individuals toaccess a baseline or minimal level of information regardless of location or demo-graphics.5

● Information Literacy. Access to technology and content are not enough. Onceindividuals have access, they need to then know minimally how to 1) use thetechnology, 2) know how to locate and retrieve useful information, 3) evaluate andassess the relevance of the information, and 4) synthesize the information in orderto solve their information problem.6 Simply put, access to technology and contentis only a first and relatively low level step in the information literacy process.

The Digital Divide is, therefore, multidimensional, complex, and extends beyond accessto technology. Moreover, there is a need to incorporate a number of perspectives into thediscussion of the Divide and ways in which to assess it.

186 J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

2. Implications and recommendations

There are a number of conceptual, definitional, policy, operational, and research impli-cations that emanate from considering the Digital Divide as a multidimensional concept.These include:

● Conceptual. How one conceptualizes the Digital Divide drives several key factors –thedefinition of the Divide, theoretic and operational approaches to studying the Divide,and policy approaches aimed at resolving the Divide. Thus, if the Divide is viewed asan issue of technology access, the studies that assess the Divide, policy to resolve theDivide, and so forth, will all reflect a technology access perspective. To a large extent,we are still struggling with the legacy conceptualization of the Divide as being a gapin technology “haves” and “have nots.” Indeed, one could argue that this view of theDivide enabled the Bush Administration to cut funding to various community-basedtechnology initiatives aimed at resolving the Divide.7 In essence, as the technology“have” and “have not” gap closes, policy makers can declare victory and move on.

● Definitional. A key theme of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) wasthe extension of Universal Service principles (Section 254) to the networked environ-ment. In particular, Section 254 of the Act sought to foster a telecommunicationsenvironment throughout the United States through which all citizens—regardless oflocation—would have access to adequate and reliable telecommunications services.The same section even authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) toestablish a system of telecommunications discounts for schools, libraries, and healthcare institutions (more on this below) to foster access to telecommunications servicesto in high cost and rural areas. There are essentially two dimensions to this view of theDivide: 1) Location –that is the realization that high cost for telecommunicationsservice is often related directly to geographic location, with rural communities oftenhaving to pay more for basic services; and 2) Technology –that is that the Divide isbased on having or not having access to telecommunications services.� There is a need to revisit and recast the notion rural from one of location-based to,

perhaps one of access. Indeed, as several articles in this symposium issue reference,one needs to explore the concept of “ rurality,” which views the notion of being ruralon a continuum, versus rural as a geographic location. In general, when one discusses“ rural” communities, one uses accepted definitions of rural as put forth by the U.S.Office of Management and Budget (OMB).8 In this approach, communities areassigned a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In a telecommunications/networkedenvironment, one needs to reconsider this location-based definition and consider theconcept of “ rurality”— that being “ rural” has more to do with access to and avail-ability of advanced, reliable, and high speed telecommunications services thangeography. Indeed, some communities designated as rural using the Census defini-tion are in close proximity to suburban and urban areas and thus have access to botha number of service providers as well as broadband services. Using the samedefinition, other communities may be 50 or more miles from the nearest populationcenter. Both would qualify as rural communities under the E-rate program (more on

187J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

this below), and yet both have substantially different telecommunications opportu-nities and choice.

● Policy. There is no single national, state, or local government policy that attempts toresolve the Digital Divide. The policy environment regarding the Divide is diverse,complex, and often subject to interpretation by the stakeholders involved in thedebate(s) surrounding the Divide. On the one hand, this is as it should be –one size doesnot fit all in the Divide and the policy environment should reflect that. On the otherhand, this creates a system of silo policies that do not necessarily integrate or offercommunities –where the policies go into operation –the flexibility that perhaps theyneed to resolve Divide issues customized to those particular community needs. Forexample, there are various policies that attempt to resolve various aspects of the Divide(if one uses the multidimensional view)� The E-rate program. The FCC, through a mandate in Section 254 of the Telecom-

munications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104), established a structure for schools andlibraries to received 20%-90% discounts off of telecommunications services, internalwiring, and communications technologies (e.g., hubs, routers) through the creation ofa Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF, capped at $2.25 billion, enables theSchools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service AdministrativeCorporation (USAC) to provide these discounts based on geographic location (Ur-ban/rural designations) and poverty (as measured by the percentage of studentseligible for the federal school lunch program).9

� No Child Left Behind. The sweeping educational reform legislation promoted byPresident Bush, passed by Congress, and signed into law, includes a number ofliteracy and technology-based programs.10

� The NTIA Technology Opportunity Program (formerly known as the Telecommu-nications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program) and Department ofEducation Community Technology Centers (CTC) grant programs. These programs,though slated for elimination under the Bush Administration, provide funding forcommunity-based technology innovation initiatives. In general, these programs re-quire partnerships and matched funding to build various community Divide pro-grams that ranged from technology labs to educational programs.11

� Competitive forces. To a large extent, the intent of the Telecommunications Act of1996 (P.L. 104-104) was to expand the availability of telecommunications servicesat reasonable costs in the United States through competition. The Act did thisthrough a number of mechanisms that enabled competition in the local and longdistance markets, cable industry, and others. The extent to which the Act wassuccessful in achieving its goals remains unclear. However, the competitive marketsdebate still exists. Indeed, the FCC recently debated the extent to which the federalgovernment should create a competitive market in the local exchange carrier (LEC)market versus the state regulators. The heart of the issue regarded what the regionalbell companies (RBOCs) could charge competitors for the use of their lines whenreselling services such as DSL or local phone service. The FCC ruled that theRBOCs must still lease at discounted prices their lines for local phone service. TheFCC removed such rules to RBOC broadband services –an outcome that the RBOCs

188 J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

initially sought. Some RBOCs, however, indicated that they would not invest inbroadband services until the local service rules were removed as well.12

� Various state and local government initiatives. A number of state and local govern-ments have developed approaches to resolving the Divide over the years. Forexample, Texas established the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) spe-cifically to address technology and telecommunications infrastructure in Texas, witha particular emphasis on public schools, libraries, higher education institutions, andselected health care facilities. There are many other examples of such programs thatare too numerous to discuss here.13

� To this list, one would have to add philanthropic efforts, though they are not directlyrelated to the policy environment. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foun-dation has provided public libraries with substantial numbers of workstations, net-working technology, application software, and training over the years.14

● Problematic policy assumptions. Perhaps most problematic of all within this silopolicy environment are the underlying assumptions that these individual approachesmake about the communities and/or constituencies that they intend to help. Theseassumptions include, but are not limited to� There is a basic telecommunications infrastructure and service available to all

communities. This is not a safe assumption, as various communities do not even haveaccess to POTS (as pointed out by the Choura article in this issue), much lessmultiple service providers. Indeed, one of the many complaints that libraries raiseagainst the E-rate program is that they often have access to only one service provider,or none in other cases.15 The E-rate program does not cope with this situation well.

� There is a basic knowledge infrastructure within the community that understands 1)technology in general and telecommunications in particular, 2) technology andtelecommunications planning and implementation, 3) how to incorporate technologyand telecommunications-based services and resources into the classroom and libraryservices, and 4) the process of grant/discount applications, proposals, and contractand franchise (e.g., cable) negotiation.▫ In states where libraries were more successful in receiving E-rate discounts, for

example, there was a large assistance effort mounted by state library agencies andregional cooperatives aided libraries in completing their technology plans anddiscount applications.16

� There are partners available within the communities to offer matching funds, sup-port, or other services. In the more extreme rural communities, there is a need toattract even basic service organizations as opposed to knowledge-based businesses.

The key point is this: communities are at different levels of development, requirements,and access. There is a need to allow for community-based decision making regardingthe Divide and devise mechanisms on how best to resolve the Divide that are commu-nity-based. Communities that do not have access to basic telecommunications services,for example, cannot adequately utilize the E-rate program for their schools and librar-ies. There may be other options available to such communities, and they should havethe flexibility to explore and pursue such options.

189J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

● Research. As Bob Rowe points out in his introductory article to this symposium issue,there are many areas that require research and exploration regarding the Divide,“ rurality,” and other topics. There are independent strands of research being conductedby various groups—the communications and telecommunications fields, public policy,information science and studies, and various nonprofit and advocacy organizations—that need to be brought together and deal comprehensively with the topic of theDivide. Together, these groups can foster a greater understanding of the Divide’sdimensions and contribute significantly to the policy process.

3. Concluding comments

This symposium issue of Government Information Quarterly provides readers with avariety of perspectives regarding “ rurality.” While the percentage of the U.S. populationaffected by “ rurality” is small, the land mass covered by rural communities is large. Anumber of issues result from exploring this topic, including the need to recast the debatesurrounding the Digital Divide—and how best to provide communities with the ability toresolve Divide issues within their areas.

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of “havenots” in rural and urban America. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Available at: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm. Accessed February 20, 2003.; U.S. Departmentof Commerce. (1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide.Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications andInformation Administration. Available at: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm.Accessed February 20, 2003; U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling throughthe net: Towards digital inclusion. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Available at: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm. Accessed February 20, 2003; U.S. Department ofCommerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of theInternet. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, National Telecommunicationsand Information Administration. Available at: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm. Accessed February 20, 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002, p. 91.3. The Bush. Administration reduced funding for the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration’s Technology Opportunity Program (formerly known asthe Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program) to $12.4million in 2002 and $15.4 million in 2003 –after the President recommended elimi-nation for the program. The FY 2004 budget again recommends elimination of theprogram. The Bush Administration also recommended the elimination of funding for

190 J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191

the Department of Education’s Community Technology Centers (CTC) Program inFY 2003 and 2004. Congress restored $32.5 million in FY 2003 for the CTC program.

4. Federal Communications Commission. (2003). (2002)., Feb. 7). FCC releases report onthe availablility of high-speed and advanced telecommunications capability. Washington,D.C.: Federal Communications Commission. Available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/2002/nrcc0201.html. Accessed, Feb. 13.

5. Bertot, J.C., McClure, C.R., and Owens, K.A. (1999). Universal service in a globalnetworked environment: Selected issues and possible approaches. Government Infor-mation Quarterly, 16(4), 309-327.

6. Blau, A. (2002). Access isn’ t enough. American Libraries, 33(June/July): 50-52.Eisenberg, M., and Berkowitz, R.E. (1990). Information problem-solving: The Big6™skills approach to library & information skills instruction. Worthington, OH: Lin-worth Publishing, Inc.

7. See note 3.8. There are a number of ways in which to define “ rural.” A standard approach is to use

the Office of Management and Budget Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) approach,which defines an “urban” community as (1) one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants,or (2) a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (of at least 50,000 inhabitants) and atotal metropolitan population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). All otherareas are considered “ rural.” For additional information on defining an MSA, seehttp://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html. Accessed Feb-ruary, 25, 2003).

9. For. (2003). additional detail on the E-rate program, see the website of the Schoolsand Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company at http://www.sl.universalservice.org/. Accessed February 22.

10. Additional. (2003). information on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) is available at http://www.nclb.gov/. Accessed March 1.

11. See note 3.12. Krim, J. (2003). Bell firms pledge to fight new FCC rules: Voice-network sharing to

be fought in court. Washington Post, February, 25, E1.13. The. (2003). mission of the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) is “To lead

Texas in the development of an advanced and sustainable telecommunications infrastruc-ture that stimulates equitable access and universal connectivity through grant awards topublic schools, institutions of higher education, libraries, and authorized healthcare facil-ities.” http://www.tifb.state.tx.us/About_TIF/Mission.htm. Accessed March 1.

14. See http. (2003). //www.gatesfoundation.org/libraries/default.htm for details regard-ing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation library support initiatives. Last accessedFebruary 23.

15. McClure, C.R., Ryan, J., and Bertot, J.C. (2003). (2002). Public library Internetservices and the digital divide: The role and impacts from selected external fundingsources. Tallahassee, FL: Information Use Management and Policy Institute. Avail-able at: http://www.ii.fsu.edu/publications.html. Accessed February 28.

16. Ibid.

191J.C. Bertot / Government Information Quarterly 20 (2003) 185–191