The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: For those planning to be part of the roundtable discussion. Please feel free to join the roundtable, so we can join you in the discussion. If you're here for other reasons, of course, please carry‑on. For those that would like to join us, please do!
Right. Okay.
Well, we'll start this session and perhaps just a little bit by way of background is that this session really is prompted by some work that is being done in the context of the G20 under the South Africa's presidency, which has a core pillar which has been focus order the digital economy working group is on equitable digital inclusion.
And this very much builds on the previous G20 work done in Brazil, which looked at extending conceptions and measuring meaningful connectivity as developed by the Broadband Commission and the Digital Cooperation Road Map which was looking at issues very much of affordability in addition to universal access at a period of time. And then, of course, the meaningful connectivity as developed by the ITU for the Brazilian G20. Looking at what do you require besides a sort of minimal broadband connection. And so the concept of meaningful connectivity included in the Brazilian case, issues of quality. Issues of affordability. And then, also, some acknowledgment from the really extraordinary demand work that is a teak does across Latin America and Brazil. Some of the issues of digital skills. Basic skills you need in order to be able to meaningfully access the internet.
Under the south African G20 presidency, concept of meaningful connectivity have been extended to include the after scope factors that the meaning connectivity work under the Brazilian presidency was looking at. Including what people did online. Which are extensively covers in the ICT Africa and a acknowledged partner to the south African government for the G20 and working with the ITU on extending the conception under the presidency.
So there we're looking at some of the Brazil scope issues including limitations on people's action to transact financially. You able to hear? Okay.
Measures around being able to, for example, digital inclusion. Transact digitally online. Able to be aware of some of the security efforts that might exist online. Able to effectively protect your data. Those kinds of things. So we look at a lot more thing than just the connectivity issues. Where you're able to access government services, whether you have digital ID. It's an extension beyond connectivity survey. It fulfills the requirements of the ITU International Standardization.
So the important part of this complimentary aspect was saying "despite the evidence we've had of these primary demand side constraints, which are attached to affordability, but are not limited only to affordability issues." Especially when you talk about digital inclusion. Not simply connectivity. So the results of the data, both in Brazil and southeast Asia, the way it's been doing with partners at Learn Asia and across Africa, shows main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device.
Okay. So that's within a whole regulatory business model that cost of that device. As currently is regulated, et. cetera. Unaffordable to the majority of Africans. In fact, little chance of being affordable for existing conditions for a lot of the populations. The barriers for data, which are made as barriers to access. But the main barriers is the price of the device. And there are many things one can do to reduce the device. The question would be whether it's enough to be affordable.
What we see, when people are online, or have access to a device, they are unable to use that device meaningfully. So, for example, in our microenterprise surveys, we see that low number of people in the south African case, for example, not all across, actually have a smart device. They're only able to use it for ‑‑ or use it for WhatsApp. They're unable to use the whole array of small business apps that now exist, for example. And so I think the important part of this is that the ‑‑ because these surveys are nationally representative and we can model them. We can see that the main drivers of internet access news. The main determinant of whether you'll have access, and how you're able to use it, the intensity of use, scope of use is correlates with education. So your level of education, which is ‑‑ which correlates with income, of course, employment and income, will determine whether you have access to the internet and the degree to which you're able to use it meaningfully. Or effectively. Or optimally. And certainly whether you can use it for not just transacting that but for purposes of production or well‑being of your home, et. cetera. So the main issue that has been presented was ongoing work by multilateral organizations within the broadband commission and across the U.N. is that there is a focus in addressing the digital divide on issues of connectivity. Current projects is very, very large multimillion projects trying to establish what investment is needed to ensure that the last 8% of the population, only 8% of the population aren't under current mobile broadband coverage. And so the challenge for us is we've got a least bit of countries throughout Africa, Rwanda, Mozambique about 95% coverage. Some 99%. They have less than 20% connectivity. I'm talking about digital inclusion. So basic level. Of course the economies need to be able to develop 4 and 5g and other business things. In terms of addressing inclusion problem, some of our challenges have been that we continue to look at costing 4G, 5G infrastructure that is needed to get universal, you know, coverage at a global level. When, in fact, we could be getting reasonably meaningful connectivity even at 3G but arguably at 4G. And we have a that across many countries. People are unable, nevertheless, despite being in that having coverage, to use the internet. They cannot afford it or they do not have the educational skills to use it meaningfully. And even more often quite basically. What we're trying with the initiative, under the G20 presidency South Africa is say let's respond to the now quite large scale evidence that the primary constraints on internet access are demand side constraints. And start shifting the discussion on the digital divide from a purely connectivity discussion with possibly a little bit of digital skills, digital literacy. That's not going to be sufficient to systemically move countries towards digital equality.
So shifting the discussion purely from a connectivity debate to a non-connectivity debate to actually saying how do we, firstly, identify digital inequality, how do we measure it? And what are the policy responses we need to address it.
I think this is the fundamental digital equality paradox a policy problem we've been facing. The Global Digital Compact tries to address. The multiple rounds of the G20 under India, South Africa, Brazil. Economies are trying to address, actually, as we layer these new technologies over existing structural and other inequalities, we are actually amplifying those inequalities. Unlike the old environment, one was doing it between the connected and unconnected. It's not only between the unconnected and connected, it's there. But, also, between those who are barely connected, on little bit of data, not meaningfully connected, and those able to transact effectively and participate in the economy. And those able to produce using these technologies.
With that, in the room here we have Carlos Rey‑Moreno who is from the APC but worked along intersections with various other NPOs over many years in the area of, umm, Ah, digital equality and inclusion and community networks. Specifically but going to talk about new developments around social enterprises today.
And then we also have Claire Sibthorpe, who is with the GSMA and the Mobile for Development Inclusive Development going to speak to us about GSMA's long standing work in this area.
And then we've got online Steve Song from the Internet Society. I think you might know Steve very well from various over things before.
And then we also have Gillian Marcelle, who is joining us, I think, from Germany today. But usual I will not there. Who is an independent consultant. But I think many of us will be known to us as working across Africa. Especially in the very exciting early days of mobile initially. It happened so fast. And involved in the policy and regulatory initiatives toward getting universal access both within multilateral organizations, but also technically advising operators and regulators across the continent.
So an exciting team. Which is, finally, ‑‑ we've have been joined by Sophie Maddens who works with the ITU. And has been very involved with the World Development Communications Conference and update us on who has been preoccupied with the extensive demands on regulators and, you know, the extended mandates they are facing with these rapidly‑diversifying technologies and the demands are rising from those.
So I think we are just going to start off with Sophie telling us about what the ITU is doing in this area. I think she has also been tracking what we've been doing within the G20 with the ITU partnerships and many digital areas.
Sophie, if you can tell us where some of the intersections between these issues that we discussed in the demand side constraints and some of the interesting regional deliberations you've had on these issues.
>> SOPHIE MADDENS: Good morning, good afternoon. I'll build on your introductory statements, Allison. You set the scene in a perfect manner. Because we all see how digital has and continues to impact all sector of our lives. Think of e‑health, e‑agricultural, and e‑government services. And the skills needed for adoption. And the infrastructure for access. Because it's really about access, adoption, and value creation. That's what the digital transformation is all about. We have 2.6 billion people not connected to the internet. There is and must be a sense of urgency with all these people still unconnected. That really is the core of our work. And the sense of urgency to connect the unconnected. But, also, to make sure that everybody has a meaningful experience through the connectivity.
Our concern is, as well, that the digital divide still persists in many areas. Rural, urban areas across income, gender, age groups. There are deep new divide that have emerged from vulnerable groups. Addressing that demand side is key. It's not just one of infrastructure development. At ITU, we work on infrastructure development. Expanding the connectivity is not enough. Having access or being online are not sufficient to benefit fully from the connectivity.
And today we see deep divides. We see the risk of creating a multi‑speed digital world, as you mentioned, Alison. The fear is a privileged few, those equipped with infrastructure, with skills, with the resources, with the expensive devices that they're the ones that drive and benefit from AI innovation, while marginalized or vulnerable communities and groups are left behind.
So that's why that universal and meaningful connectivity is important to consider and address that. It's enabling everyone to enjoy a rich and productive online experience at an affordable cost. It doesn't mean everybody needs to be connected all the time. But anyone can access the internet optimally, affordably, whenever and wherever they need. That must be an objective digital policy. As you said, UMC is built on six interdependent. Availability for use, affordability of devices, skills, and security. Each of these dimensions contribute to the meaningful digital experience and strength. One cannot compensate for weakness in the other.
So UMC has and must continue to be a vital policy objective. And let me highlight one issue here. Data is key to the success of this policy objective. Because you cannot fix what you don't know. Achieving UMC also requires a holistic strategy. So we think of infrastructure development, but, also, policy frameworks, education initiatives, and, of course, the multi stakeholder engagement. And let's go even further to ensure that no one is left behind. Which brings me to digital inclusion. Which is that holistic intersectional approach to promoting ICT and digital accessibility. So that we can together build digitally inclusive world for all. Regardless of age, gender, ability, or geographic location. That's why we at ITU are keen to share Best Practices, foster regional and global collaboration, so together we can build those inclusive societies, economies, and environments.
And we provide assistance to our membership to formulate, implement, and promote ICT policies and strategies for digital inclusion. We work to empower diverse groups, including youth, women and girls, particularly in rural, remote, underserved, and unserved areas and communities. And including older persons, like myself, persons disabilities, and persons with specific needs. And, of course, Indigenous people and communities. That to reduce the digital guide and enable everyone to actively participate in the digital world. I'll leave it at that for now. And come back with more thoughts.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for that, Sophie. We'll move on to Steve song to talk about it. Just reminding us on in the round, we want to identify what the problem is. Your take on what the problems are, and then we'll move to solutions in the next round. And then, also, invite the audience who want to participate or pose questions or listen. Feel free to join the conversation.
Steve, over to you.
>> STEVE SONG: Thanks, Alison.
We exist at a particularly critical point at the moment
in that with two conflicting trends. One is that the growth of access is plateauing. Right. And that is, you know, the reason for that is that we've connected the parts that are easy and to, you know, affordable to connect. And people can a business model to sustain connectivity there. The remaining 2.9 billion are going to require a different approach. At the same time you know, as you mentioned, telecommunications and the internet is a force multiplier. It's an amplifier. So those 2.9 billion people unconnected are falling further behind all the time as those with access actually, you know, profit from the benefits of access. So having a strategy now that focuses on the inclusion of everyone is absolutely critical. And I think this points to regulatory issues where we've been focused on promoting competition. Well, it's extremely important but we need to now go beyond competition and have strategies for inclusion.
And the existing models, which have been extraordinarily successful to date, especially mobile networks and their growth. You know, a tremendously important mechanism for providing affordable access. But there's limits to how far they can go and what they can do. And whether their business models are viable in the most challenging parts of the world.
And the way I like to describe this is, you know, if you think of connectivity as a jar you're trying to fill. You know, in every country, there are typically, you know, two or three or four mobile network operators and they're like stones. You're trying to fit into that jar. And you can fit, you know, three or maybe four stones in that jar. And the jar looks full. But, in fact, if you fill the jar with water, still more than 50% remains empty.
What is needed now is regulation that actually, you know, accommodates those smaller operators. Those differently‑shaped operators. Whether they're, you know, municipalities or cooperatives or nonprofits or national research and education networks. That can fill in those shapes in different ways. And, you know, another way of explaining this is to say, you know, you think of it like forest management. You know, no one ‑‑ monocultures have historically been extraordinarily unsuccessful. Very vulnerable and not the way to create a healthy ecosystem. In a healthy ecosystem, we want to protect small plants and small ‑‑ and new growth to create diversity in the ecosystem. We need to do the same thing with telecommunications and the internet. We need to protect small operators, and encourage their growth so they create, you know, different business models. They challenge affordability paradigms. And they go where large operators don't necessarily want to go. I'll stop there. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for that, Steve. I'm biting my tongue. To just urge you to look at the paper where we do applying the universal meaningful connectivity conception, not even our own more extended digital inclusion conception points out that the 2.6 unconnected, in terms of basic connectivity, as previously described. In terms of the application of meaningful connectivity. Which, umm, the G20 under Brazil courageously looked at Brazil and the universal access figure previously. The internet penetration figures previously above 80%. When they applied the meaningful connectivity formula, it went down to 20%. So using, again, the same extrapolation used 2.6 people unconnected. As Sophie points out, such bad data. It could be off by several hundred thousand. But that's another part we tried to promote. But the figure, more like the people who are really not digitally included, substantially digitally included is closer to 4 billion or 4.5 billion, in terms of the definition we viewed before. And that we are now using in the south African G20 process. It's getting the unconnected and not meaningfully connected online.
So, umm, Claire, perhaps if you'd come in there. Because Steve has mentioned some of the limitations of ‑‑ despite the success of the mobile operators, especially on the African continent. There are limitations on reaching the so‑called economic areas of subscribers.
>> CLAIRE SIBTHORPE: Thank you so much, Alison. I'm going to say the mobile perspective. It's the primary way, only way most people access the internet. And I think we also do these country surveys. If we look at the problem. In terms of mobile internet, 57% of the world is connected to mobile internet. Of the unconnected, if you break it down, there's only 4% who don't live in areas without mobile coverage. So the majority of those, 39%, which is 90% of the unconnected live in areas where there's covered but can't use it. So 90% of the people who are not connected, it's not a coverage issue. It's a fact that they have other ‑‑ face other barriers to using it. And the people who are unconnected, and I think we have mentioned ‑‑ it's been mentioned already. Predominantly people in rural areas, lower education, lower income, women, persons with disabilities, so we, for example, published our latest gender gap report which shows women in low‑income ‑‑ and the gender gap has stalled. We're not seeing, you know, a great deal of progress in that regard.
But in our surveys, we look at why are they, you know, why are people not using internet. Or not getting online. Once they're online, why are they using it in limited ways? And, you know, our research has similar findings. The biggest barrier to getting online is the affordability of device.
I'm struck by the number from Africa. If you, you know, in our analysis, we look at if you're in the poorest 20% of people living in Africa, it's costing 99% of your average monthly income to buy an entry‑level internet‑abled device. This is a significant problem that needs a lot of thought in terms of how to address it. It's not an easy solution. The other two top barriers to getting online is the affordability of device and the second is literacy and digital skills.
We ask people what is stopping them from using it more. Why it's limited. In the research it's showing, again, insecurity concerns big a issue. Affordability and data, also, emerges. We have to look at the barriers around affordability, skills, relevance, content, safety, and security issues. If we move the needle and get people online. And online it and using it to help meet their life needs. And it's that usage gap. It's that really is where we need to be focusing our efforts to really move the needle. And like segments like women who are, you know, lower income, lower education are disproportionately affecting. We look at analysis if you held the ‑‑ if women and men of the same income and education levels. There would be a gender gap because things like social norms and these other factors also play. You have to consider, you know, these structural inequalities and social norms and some of these big barriers. We need to think beyond coverage and need to think, you know, we need to think, you know, as a stakeholder and, you know, how we can address these barriers. As it's been said repeatedly in the panel. You know, now it's exacerbating inequalities. It's critical we move in the needle.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And before we carry‑on, I'm going to ask the audience, particularly to sort of prime themselves. We've been talking about and continue to talk about a lot of access solutions. Regulatory strategies to reduce prices and issues of affordability. I think a lot of this demand side evidence is demonstrating we can no longer solve the problem with siloed sort of central solutions. We can remove texts from mobile phones. We can do a number of things. But we need transfers of digital policies that will focus on our education challenges. These fundamental challenges that we are facing. Human development challenges. And, you know, gender questions as historically posed. Wanting to help with policy interventions that need to be focused at, you know, women that intersection of those multiple other inequalities. If you look overall at issues of rural deficits, in terms of access to the internet and compare it with gender. Rural is worse off. Obviously, a lot of women concentrated in the rural areas. If you look at some of our data with, you know, the issues of location and those kinds of things. If they were actually, you know, worse off than urban poor women because of the proximity. So we need nuanced interventions and interventions that are way beyond the telecommunications sector, historical sectors that look at the problem.
If we can go to Carlos Rey‑Moreno. Some of the problem setting has been stated. Please add to that. If you'd move to what you see as some of the possible solutions we can deal here on the access side. And then we are hoping for some really innovative responses on some of the nonaccess ways in which we can address the problem, as well.
>> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Thank you so much, Alison. And I want to go back to one of the points you mentioned. How much money is needed to close the divide. I believe there are too many conversations about costing. How much does it cost to close the digital divide. And I believe we're going to hear a new figure, at some point this year. And not that much about how the investment could be used differently. How to enable other mobiles. And also coming from the G20 Brazil, the digital investment infrastructure initiative on the ITU and several second‑tier development banks stated that stakeholders think beyond for‑profit models to cover 70% of the remaining access gaps. Financing the same, considering the same ways of building infrastructure is leading to some part of this inequality that we see.
Due to other practices, as we've heard. But it is surprising to also see that the Global Digital Compact is referring to investing in other networks to close the digital divide. Correct. Because, why? It happens some of the local networks go way beyond the transactional way we have understood the internet so far. A price or service and that is internet connectivity. Period.
These are models based on intentions, I would say, or bottom lines. Socio bottom lines, or environmental bottom lines that go beyond the transactional services. They provide social inclusion services. They provide transformational services. At the end of the day, create an economy, maintain the money locally. Develop the local skills required not only to run the particular local network, but to run other businesses in the community. That contribute to creating culturally relevant content and services. You see central networks, for instance, and contribute quite significantly to local innovation. We were talking about innovation before. The amount of innovation coming from the communities and the rural areas is astonishing. Addressing the rural community needs and problems. Yet systems are more proposing that these rural people go and contribute to the economies as we see them in urban areas and not to the problems they're facing locally.
So thinking through how that supply and demand meet with this type of interventions that stimulate economies locally. I think is also a way of thinking about equitable digital inclusion. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We'll come back to that. Before we go into speaking further on the solutions. Any questions from the room as we also try to gather some questions online. I know we have a number of people online. Any questions or comments from the room, at this point? Okay, Leslie, what do we have online?
Okay. While we gather some of the online questions, we are also going to ask Gillian Marcelle to come in. If you can also add to your extensive experience on what some of the problems are. But also move on to what you see as some of the solutions, which I know you bring a lot of thought into.
>> GILLIAN MARCELLE: Certainly. Thank you so much, Alison, for the invitation to join this panel with so many pioneers.
Actually, I want to go in a different direction, if I may. Because I think it's important to actually put a theoretical framing this question of how do we actually achieve equitable digital inclusion. Because all of those promises and all of those words actually matter. And in listening to my colleagues, and I was listening very carefully, what I didn't hear come up is the root causes that lead to exclusion and lead to inequity. And the root causes in my view, are the fact that we have an extractive economic system, in which we are then trying to layer demand and supply side solutions.
So to my mind, equitable digital inclusion will be achieved when laws, regulation, policy, ecosystems, strengthen, entrepreneurship, finance, and investment take place. But if they do within the status quo, then nothing will change. And we will still have what we've call the unconnected last‑mile problems. And still be talking about the things we've been talking about for 25 years.
And my own work in this area has been, as Alison mentioned, from the policy and regulatory lens. I was also deeply involved in financing. Not financing at a small scale. But financing from the pioneers of the African Teleconference Revolution. And I say that there was innovation at a narrative level in that time, which is now nearly 25 years ago. Because when we were making models to look at whether or not investing in Nigeria was a good thing to do. There was no data. And so when I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that you can't get reliable information about the cost of a hand set or what you would price data at, that leaves out a fundamental issue which is risk.
We want to encourage the private sector to take risks. And to benefit from a return. And so whatever we do from the policy and regulatory domain should not exclude or leave out the fact that some private sector solutions and providers will succeed and others will fail.
And there should not be an attempt to stop that from happening. And the presumption that that is the way to connect the unconnected.
One final point. If a mobile hand set, like one I have here, is an asset. So a production and for well being, there are in existence alternative collaborative models for financing, which is what people need. In looking at the things we need to be doing, not only from a policy and regulatory side, we need to be looking at what are the enabling conditions that would allow for a variety of solutions that tackle all of the very good things I've heard from my colleagues. But do not assume that the direction of change is going to be coming from policy and regulatory only. Because that then leaves out a very important engine of change, which has been shown to work. And I'll leave it there for now and say a little bit more about what I think needs to be done so that we don't end up with a digital society that is anywhere like the United States where you've had Silicon Valley values and norms produce a digital economy that is about as toxic as we can possibly imagine. I'll leave it for now.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for. I'm hoping we'll get some responses to that.
I did want to draw your attention, those who had a chance to look at the issues paper to indicate that this is not only a policy and regulatory alternatives. We're looking at alternative business strategies, we're looking at cooperatives, social enterprises, which I'll come back to.
I think we are, though, looking at some of the public interest policy and regulatory failures that we've seen. And I think we are looking at new shifts that are acknowledging that despite the enabling conditions that have been created for the extraordinary investments that we've seen by mobile networks and fibre networks across the continent. The creation of these. We've neglected the demand side evaluation of resources that would recognise the critical resources, you know, as digital public goods and increasingly global public goods that require, you know, demand side interventions. If they are to serve as critical inputs in the economy. And to be universally accessible. As we require digital public goods to be.
One of the mechanisms that we think is a real travesty in the long theoretical and economic regulatory competition levers to be. Is the market views that have been barely conducted on the African continent. And the need to assist dominance in markets and effectively remedy that. I think there's an extraordinary evidence of the impacts of wholesale access regulation in opening up markets. That is being got to the point where it's meant to be implemented and would have changed the environment very differently to what it is now. And through the ethos of creating the certainty for investors and getting the certainty for investors, I would argue, Gillian Marcelle, there's an open conversation to that. The commercial supply spectrum that has gone without creating the public value, the common aspects that would have allowed greater inclusion. And I know, Steve, your work has focused on this. And now not only kind of wholesale, you know, facilities in the kinds of things. But, of course, very importantly with mobile operators in many parts of the continent being the dominant operators. No longer the old fixed networks. You know, access to APIs that would have changed the environment entirely. And wondered if you want to pick up on that.
>> STEVE SONG: Yeah. I think wholesale access is increasingly a massive barrier to the development of affordable access.
Typically, in many countries, it costs more to transit inside the country via fibre than it does to connect internationally. And that has to be ‑‑ there has to be mechanisms for bringing down the cost which is increasingly the highest burden of cost. Especially for small operators, in terms of operating costs. Things like structural separation, you know, breaking out the backbone from the incumbents and setting it up as a separate company is a great step forward. But I think there are even better things to do. One of my favourite examples is New Zealand who is the formally part of the incumbent and was separated out into a backbone network across New Zealand. And who have implemented effectively flat pricing across the country. So anywhere you can connect to a chorus network, you can appear at the price of the capital city or close to it.
It's a huge issue. We see in South Africa implementing the same thing. So universities connect to the national backbone network at the same price. No matter where they are. Rural or urban. If you were to implement those strategies for across, say, state‑owned backbones, you would unlock competition. You would incentivize small operators to deliver services in rural areas where they simply can't at the moment because of the cost.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks very much for that, Steve.
Claire, I was wondering if you want to come in on the regulatory mobile and what alternatives GSA is looking at addressing these and economic areas.
>> CLAIRE SIBTHORPE: Yeah.
>> MODERATOR: You have nontechnical or central strategies if you're supporting educational initiatives. Please.
>> CLAIRE SIBTHORPE: Yeah. As I said in the opening. I think the biggest issue in terms of connectivity is, you know, not the coverage. Obviously coverage is important. It's not only a coverage issue. And on the coverage point, I think, you know, where those areas where it's not economical for operators to cover, you know, looking at how they can be covered and the different models is important. I think we need to also really look at these coverages. The data shows coverage is not going to get people connected and using the internet. Coverage alone. Obviously, coverage is an important prerequisite. Alone it's not 90% of the people are not using are coverage. What we need to do is address things like affordability of devices. I think it's a range of strategies that can be done. Taxation is a big issue. Reducing taxation. Looking at innovative device financing schemes. Looking at subsidy schemes. Because, you know, the cost of these devices is not on its own going to get down to the level that the people who are not connected can afford.
So we need to think about that. But literacy and digital skills are also critical. And, again, I think that requires, you know, multi stakeholder multiagency intervention. We need to be building in digital skills, you know, across education and training programmes with the government and across, you know, ensuring that those things ‑‑ those initiatives help highlight, you know, how the internet is relevant for different segments. I think a lot of time we see in our research people say it's not for me because they see rural in the marketing or awareness campaigns. Urban men not necessarily inflecting themselves in their life needs. But making sure that the training campaigns build in elements around how to keep yourself safe and secure online and address the issues. I think it can't be done by one stakeholders. Mobile operators are doing this.
They're doing a range of device financing. Looking at data they get from networks as alternative credit scoring to provide device financing. Providing a lot of digital skills training. We have a tool kit which is a free opensource training content. But can be used to provide people the basic skills to get on the internet. Use it safely. It's now been used, you know, across 40 countries. Been trained in 75 million people now. We're trying. We found a lot of digital skills campaigns are focused on laptops and tablets. Those are not the devices. People are using their hands. They're not able to translate the training into ways they could use in their lives. We've tried to address that. Some of that gap.
But I think it requires, you know, interventions by quite a range of people. And I think we need to be focusing on these, as you said, the demand side areas and need to be thinking across stakeholder groups as to how we do that. To make sure that we are able to for people to get online and get online safely and meet and use the internet to meet their life needs. So ..
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Clare. Carlos, could you talk to us a little bit ‑‑ we've spoken about some of the failures regulatory failures and those things. And in regard to some of the more kind of systemic issues around, you know, change and things at scale around greater competition and through wholesale access and driving down prices.
When Steve was speaking in the beginning about, you know, a few big stones or just, like you know, lots of stones. I think as Steve often said, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom kind of model. The ability of niche innovations, community services, social implies services to break into the system had relatively high digital transactions costs. What do you see as the key levers there. If one accepts the way to address the challenges.
>> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Thank you so much. I think one of the most important one is the recognition. Insight into the value of diversifying the ecosystem of actors. We see the mind set of country‑wide operators can solve a certain problems. And, again, those are doing great. But only contributing or providing services from that transactional perspective that I was alluding to. And not entering into the transformational aspect that the internet can bring into the aspect. So that would be the one recognition. Because when those actors are provided with a regulatory environment. Here in Europe, there's a vast array for those providing fiberoptic, you name it, even private mobile networks in certain areas, you need to declare your activity, your provisional telecommunications services. In the Philippines, you need a congressional franchise. The Congress allows you need to be able to deploy infrastructure.
So reducing the regulatory barriers what you need to start some sort of business practice whether social or not, is going to allow for those smaller stones that Steve was alluding to actually grow.
I think what was said about we need to establish financing and investment models that allow localized operators to thrive. I have a feeling in the financial sector, a lot of interest has been on supporting the interest of capital and not supporting the interest of people. I think after WSIS, we need to recognise the financial models. Think through or understand how we can support operators, smaller sizes and understanding what are the needs of the smaller actors are critical. And there are starting to be some interesting models around this.
And lastly, capacity building. We are super proud to have launched last week the first goals with the ITU in Africa for technical promoters at the community level. After five additions in Latin America. And I think once you have that regulatory framework, you have the recognition. Once you have the regulatory framework. Once you have the novelty financing and investment in place, enough skills and enough awareness is around for people to take benefit and advantage of these financing and these regulatory interventions. We see this in Kenya. And more will come in Colombia and across the same number. In Brazil, that there has been a magnificent collaboration that are more than 50.
Right. When those things start to appear in all of those diversified actors that will was alluded to.
>> MODERATOR: I suppose some of the skepticism is scaling. It's great to see the capacity building. How many people can be trained. So, you know, what kind of more systemic opportunities there are. But I think some of the kind of collective response. So, you know, enables all of these smaller providers, it enables different kinds of capacity building. If one gets curriculum, actually you know, it's probably more entrenched in regulatory. Collectively we could see some outcomes. But I think one of the main challenges. One of the things that has been around, like demand stimulation. That the people now who are not online. Big challenges around awareness. It's little local language content for people. It seems to be a particular role for the social enterprise organizations, community organizations that have ‑‑ are able to produce content that could stimulate.
>> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Uh‑huh. So someone said yesterday was in relation to creating the same environment as that has been created for solidarity economy in other sectors. Agriculture, you name it. It's the scale. There would be enough products and trainings and whatnot, as you were saying. All of government approach. If this was a course that was in every country how someone could start a small business in their area around telecommunications as they do with agriculture or retail or whatever. And the same with financing mechanisms. We were talking this morning in Kenya you need at least 20% to get a loan. Because there is not that understanding. There's not that awareness in the financing sector locally that the small operators can do this. Engaging with local financing institutions so they can make products that are accessible for the small operators. It would be necessary for that scale. Going again to the thousand flowers blooming that Steve was talking about. We need to look systemically. Whether it was three or four philanthropic getting funding.
>> MODERATOR: I think some of the problems there's been a lot of investment focus in government. And across government. But, actually, what we need is a whole of society.
>> CARLOS REY-MORENO: Yeah.
>> MODERATOR: Hopefully government will play a more active role in creating that public value kind of environment that we want for this.
I'm hoping we can go on to some questions before we go back to Gillian. We'll take your response while we look. Leslie, I'm hoping you can see Peter. Can Peter hear me directly? Okay. So if we can line up some questions.
We have a question at our small roundtable. Please join us. Do you want to go ahead and we'll take one from the floor and then we'll go online.
>> GILLIAN MARCELLE: Certainly. What I wanted to come back to is the issue of dominance and your point about ‑‑ and I'm assuming you're talking about regulatory agencies in developing countries have not taken the opportunity to look at dominance and industry concentration and so on. in the tech sector.
Of course, we know exactly why that's the case. Because so much of what happens and what is called the digital space gets its way of being from what is happening in the United States. 25 years ago, a decision was made that deregulation, and not even applying, this will be in your wheel house, Steve, not even applying broadcast regulations to all of these platform companies. So the notion that tech should serve the public interest shifted. It shifted 25 years ago. And so we must acknowledge that. Because the reason that we are struggling with connectivity plus and so on is because people are being treated like consumers in a new liberal framing rather than citizen who have the right to communication and the rights to access. 25 years ago, we would be having a different conversation. 25 years ago, we also had pushed the multilateral organizations into recognising the concepts you're speaking. Global commerce, telecoms, and so on as global public goods. And we need to get back to that. Because if we don't and recognise just how far that shift has happened, and like when Nelson Mandela was saying in 1996 that there are more fixed lines in all of Manhattan than there are in all sub‑Saharan African. Now what we can say is there are people in the Bronx and New York who cannot get access to internet.
So it is the underlying economic system. Not even finance. The economic system says you treat people like consumers in a market for profit maximization. And then you layer everything on top of that. That's what I wanted to come back. All the things we're talking about, limits of regulatory power, the sort of the meatiness of those interventions also come from that shaping. And there are things we can do. We should not accept it's a foregone conclusion, but we must also see from where this has originated, as well.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We have a question from our roundtable. If you would introduce yourself. And I see somebody standing up there, as well. Please, if you want to join us, do!
Plead go ahead.
>> SPEAKER: Hi. Can you hear me? I'm coming from an initiative called Reuse. And I wanted to highlight because it's been discussed. When it comes to talking about inclusion, it makes sense to count in, let's say millions or billions. But when it comes to meaningful connectivity, you'll find the packets you get, but on what you do. The value and so forth. But, also, as commented. I mean, I haven't seen anyone connected the regulatory internet. It connects the device. So typically we're looking in community networks or in infrastructure to the last mile. But I think it's important to look at the last metre. It's when the action happens. When the meaningful part occurs.
So, yeah. Imagine we're talking about water. It's important to have water. It depends if I have a glass or toilet or a bowl. It's completely different. That's the meaning there. I'm swimming. I'm doing exercise or eating and I'm cooking my food. I think it's important to look at the last metre. And in the last metre, where there are devices is the same we have been doing projects. We go to schools in Uganda, and we replace mobile phones with laptops. Mobile phone is not useful for learning but laptop can be. It makes a difference.
Once we go beyond the challenge of bringing it in, then the next thing is which device. And, you know, it's interesting to see there are unconnected people but also there are unused devices. And then affordability, this is an interesting opportunity there are devices which are no longer used by one owner, but still they have a lot of years of lifespan. And then, I mean, refurbish them, collecting them, and giving them to people that need the device it shouldn't be the last model in the market can also help. Connecting the unconnected by supplying them used devices and helping the environment. So I mean, there are a lot of potential in the last metre. And, also, in creating affordable devices, which do not need to be manufactured again.
So I think it's ‑‑ yeah. It has been discussed. I think the use of the device makes a lot of sense. A lot of meaning to the user, of course. The user has to know what to do. But the device is not the same glass as a swimming pool.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for the input.
I think the, you know, the importance of, you know, connectivity and the device. These are absolutely necessary conditions. Nobody is say these access needs are cannot critical. I think we have it in the issues paper. Brazil, for example, has really interesting examples of recycling within the circular economy. Policy and practice that are kind of scalable. I think in many of our environments, they've been small project here for, you know, retraining people or something like that. So kind of getting those, you know, those innovation out of constraint that Africa is famous for. Models more effectively working to get the systemic scaling.
I am hoping that the questions ‑‑ some questions we have lined up here are going to deal with some of the nonaccess issues. But please go ahead anyway.
>> SPEAKER: Hi. So my name is Kevin Hernandez. And I work at the Universal Postal Union a U.N. organization that deals with the postal sector. My question is about the nonaccess issues.
So I think, and I want to thank you for all the solutions you put forward on the panel. They've been interesting. And specifically I want to thank ‑‑ I don't know your name ‑‑ but the person who mentioned something about community‑based organizations. They play a critical role in the last mile. Not just in connecting people, but also dealing with the immediate risks of digital exclusion. And then what do I mean by that? I mean in the case when someone is not connected and all the services in their country are digitalized and you can no longer access things in person. Where do people turn to? Usually a library. They turn to a post office. Might be offering government services or NGO turn into some other community‑based organization. But I don't hear many solutions that are put forward that kind of focus on connecting these intermediaries. Because these intermediaries play a big role in ensuring that the immediate effects of exclusion are not felt today. So we're not going to ‑‑ we're not going to connect all the unconnected any time soon. There are billions of them.
What do we do now to ensure that these kind of intermediaries are not left in a place where they're left to fend for themselves without any support. We need to support these intermediaries. And, also, I want to flag I work for the EPU and a project that aims to connect every post office to the internet. And leverage them for digital inclusion. So anybody who would like to learn more, you can come and find me. I have some concept notes about our project. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for that useful input and to say that, of course, a lot of work that has been done by APC in this area, and Steve ‑‑ but anyway. To emphasize if the importance of intermediaries hasn't been highlighted enough, it actually should be. We were talking about some of the high transaction costs for community services and those kinds of things is precisely to enable that intermediary, as you mentioned . I think another interesting policy aspect, the challenge has been not to allow the state to abdicate its responsibilities to, you know, ‑‑ we'll leave the community sorts off the little minimalist network. But actively support them as programmes and state responsibility to do that. Or to ensure that, you know, licensed operator, whatever, actually does serve the communities. I think it's important policy debate.
I'm still hoping for some grand strategy that is going to solve the underlying human development challenge. So let's go online and see what we have there. Peter, can you hear me? I keep looking at Leslie thinking he's got the connection to you. But can you hear me?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, yes. I can.
The useful comment from Ramune. "Local libraries when equipped with computers for public use contribute effectively to digital inclusion of communities they serve. Also digital literacy, online safety and privacy issues, as well as welcoming all people all ages to digital learning opportunities." Would you agree with that? I any of those forms intermediaries, like the post office, that we just heard about.
>> MODERATOR: Great. We've actually got a minute for each of the panelists. So I'm going to let them respond to each other. And then, also, just to take that last question, if you'd like to. Steve, would you like to go ahead.
>> STEVE SONG: Thanks, Alison.
I think there's a thread here that strikes me as very important. It relates to intermediaries such as post offices and libraries, but also to community networks.
That is the fact that we focus a lot on the capacity building of the consumer. Right. To be able to use the network. But we don't talk as much about the ability to build the network. And capacity building to build an own network. I came across a lovely quote from Richard, a great physicist of the 20th century. "What I cannot create I cannot understand" this is true of the internet, I think. It gives me pause when I think about solutions like Starlink. The remarkableness is also their flaw. In the sense that when you connect to Starlink. You turn it on and it connects to the internet and that's it. Which is remarkable. But it also means you don't know what an IP address is. You don't know what an antonymous system number is. You don't know how to build a network. And it's a loss of agency and control as a result.
So I think that national research and education networks that are building their own fibre backbones have the same potential exists for post offices and libraries. Not just to receive connectivity, but to be involved in the solution, in the provision of connectivity. I think there's a huge risk when organizations are not involved. When citizens are not involved. You get situations such as we see now with the agency responsible for assigning Ip addresses across African countries is in crisis. Because in order to participate, you need to be an internet service provider. You need to have an antonymous system number. You need to be an agent of building networks. If we don't actually focus and invest in that ability to invest, then we're further becoming, you know, consumers rather than citizen in this process.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Steve. Carlos, one minute, please.
>> CARLOS REY-MORENO: We live in a diverse world with diverse societies. In many ways, the internet has been homogenizing in the way that has been provided. And I think at the centre of this solution for inclusion. We need to embrace the diversity of solutions. As was saying, many people use the internet. We need to enable the capacity of diverse ways of engaging, building, using, et. cetera. The ecosystem is there to enable and support the diversity. The risk is there. People are willing to take the risk. People are willing to do these interventions.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Sophie, please. You've got, like, 25 seconds.
>> SOPHIE MADDENS: All right. You gave me a perfect segue. Because I've heard ‑‑ I think all of us agree we need a different mind set. We need a different mind set to close the gap. The difficult gap. That different mind set needs a different set of tools, skills, and processes. That approach and experimenting and need a variety of solutions and be bold enough to be able to experiment.
I think agility is key. Boldness is key. Having the necessary regulatory skills is key. And I've heard that cross sectorial collaboration. We need to think. If you think of digital financial inclusion, that's automatically working between the sectors.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you so much, Sophie. That was a nice summing up for us. We won't have time to do of highlighting some of the issues. We've got offline, Claire, 10 seconds response, please.
>> CLAIRE SIBTHORPE: I guess what we're alluding there's no one silver bullet. Everything we do needs to be grounded in the realities of people we're trying to connect and connect in a meaningful way. I think we need ‑‑ I think, also, what is critical is not only understanding people's needs and barriers, but, also, taking a holistic approach. It's not about just giving coverage or devices. We need to think about skills, relevant content, that ecosystem that Carlos talked about. We need to think about the barriers and grounded until the needs and areas of the different communities. And people from different communities are different and their needs are different and thinking about it in that way.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. I think we don't have a chance. Unless you ‑‑ we don't have time. If you want top have a 5‑second, 10‑second response, please go ahead.
>> GILLIAN MARCELLE: I think you should trust your own instincts, Alison. I think you know how we should re-centre sustainability development into the agenda for what is being called digital inclusion. Thank you for your leadership.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for joining us and for all the pioneering work over so many years.
Again, I can't help myself. Starlink comes down and you switch on the internet. But it also doesn't come free. Even though a lot of the discourse is that this is an incredible free service that is going to provide and solve our universality problems.
With lots of these important access solutions, but that are not, you know, that are community or collective access solutions is that should we face another pandemic. Which we inevitably will. If we should face it this month, this year. We are not going to be any better off than we were when the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at‑risk. Unable to digitally substitute. For the health risks and the economic risks associated with lockdowns. They could not get to community centres. They could not get to libraries. They could not get to schools. And they saw the greatest negative outcomes from being unable to mitigate that risk. Digitally.
So on ward and forward with the solutions. I'm looking forward for some of the non‑access solutions we can take forward into the final G20 equitable digital inclusion responding to evidence of demand side constraints. Thank you so much. Thank you to our fabulous panelists.
