Intel has announced its WiMax products and other companies are quickly following suit. WiMax is wireless networking that offers speeds up to 70 Mbps with close to 50 kilometer range. In contrast, WiFi, the most widely used wireless networking technology, offers speeds up to 54 Mbps with ranges of 75-100 meters. WiFi range can be extended with additional antennas, quite significantly in some cases, up to several kilometers. But, these are generally directional “line of sight” antennas, meaning that any potential user will have to have a direct unobstructed view of the antenna that they are connecting through. This is of course not very practical for rural use, for instance, except maybe here in the flat midwest plains of the US ; ).
In the words of Scott Richardson, GM of Intel’s broadband wireless division, “There are places on the planet that may never actually see cable and DSL.” This will certainly be the case and, I think, has always been assumed would be the case. The possibilities that this opens up for developing countries are numerous. What the actual impact is and when it happens remains to be seen. I certainly hope that something does happen and that it happens soon.

In a World Bank discussion paper titled “E-Finance in Emerging Markets: Is Leapfrogging Possible?” (Stijn Claessens, Thomas Glaessner, and Daniela Klingebiel, 2001) the authors analyse the technological and policy needs to promote electronic financial services. The paper is representative of the ways we can envision the benefits of cheap and easy access to technology. It goes further than much of the literature in this area in that it clearly states the anticipated outcomes of such an endeavour, policy concerns and necessary accompanying measures.
In my view this represents the ways leapfrogging can be promoted in an effective way, by emphasizing the following:
1. address specific issues instead of looking for cure-all development solutions,
2. anticipate the possible uses for the technology,
3. relate usage to anticipated outcomes.
I’m sure as I mull this over the next few days I can come up with more points, but these are the ones that immediately jumped out at me.

The Star Tribune last week included a piece from The Economist that addresses the problem of the digital divide (“Which comes first, cellular or the net?” Tuesday, March 15, 2005). Some interesting points mentioned in the article include the UN’s new “Digital Solidarity Fund” to fight exclusion from the information society. The article goes on to suggest that mobile phones are emerging as the technology with the greatest impact on development. Mobile telephony is a cheap and flexible technology that greatly improves communications and does not require that users necessarily be able to read or write. But, is that all there is? The article seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the digital divide is not only about being able to “reach out and touch someone”. Mobile telephony certainly is a step forward but it’s still a long way from being able to take part and benefit from the “information society”. The real purpose of the article is revealed in the last paragraph – “Rather than trying to close the digital divide through top-down IT infrastructure projects, governments in the developing world should open their telecom markets. Then firms and customers, on their own and even in the poorest countries, will close the divide themselves.” Does this mean that if Vodafone and T-Mobile are let in that they’ll take care of “the problem”?

Leapfrogging has been suggested as a means of accelerating development by bypassing the “stages” implied by traditional modernisation theories of development by adoption “off the shelf” technologies…

Continue reading →