Refuting objections to a Global Rural Network (GRNet) for developing nations (originally published in August 2004)
AbstractIn a previous article, we suggested that it is now time to undertake a Grand Challenge project: providing Internet connectivity for every village in every developing nation. Doing so would require perhaps a decade and billions of dollars for design and planning, procurement, installation and operation. Critics object that such a project would not be worth the effort and investment. This article considers nine objections to such an undertaking. 1. Internet connectivity would be nice, but it is not a high priority. 2. Internet service has been offered in rural areas of developing nations, and there is little demand for it. 3. There are no applications of interest or value to illiterate rural people who do not speak English. 4. There is no sustainable business model. 5. Developing nations lack the people and resources to do research. 6. Even if the world community can justify sponsoring the research leading to a concrete backbone plan, developing nations cannot afford to implement it. 7. Villagers cannot afford to use the network even if the backbone transport and connection are free. 8. Developing nations cannot afford high–speed connectivity — low–cost store–and–forward technology is more appropriate technology for a poor, developing nation. 9. We should focus on cities where there is already demand, not rural areas. We discuss each of these, and conclude with a brief outline of next steps.
How to Cite
Press, L. (2007). Refuting objections to a Global Rural Network (GRNet) for developing nations (originally published in August 2004). First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.1780
Authors submitting a paper to First Monday automatically agree to confer a limited license to First Monday if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. This license allows First Monday to publish a manuscript in a given issue. Authors have a choice of: 1. Dedicating the article to the public domain. This allows anyone to make any use of the article at any time, including commercial use. A good way to do this is to use the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication Web form; see http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2?lang=en. 2. Retaining some rights while allowing some use. For example, authors may decide to disallow commercial use without permission. Authors may also decide whether to allow users to make modifications (e.g. translations, adaptations) without permission. A good way to make these choices is to use a Creative Commons license. * Go to http://creativecommons.org/license/. * Choose and select a license. * What to do next — you can then e–mail the license html code to yourself. Do this, and then forward that e–mail to First Monday’s editors. Put your name in the subject line of the e–mail with your name and article title in the e–mail. Background information about Creative Commons licenses can be found at http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/. 3. Retaining full rights, including translation and reproduction rights. Authors may use the statement: © Author 2016 All Rights Reserved. Authors may choose to use their own wording to reserve copyright. If you choose to retain full copyright, please add your copyright statement to the end of the article. Authors submitting a paper to First Monday do so in the understanding that Internet publishing is both an opportunity and challenge. In this environment, authors and publishers do not always have the means to protect against unauthorized copying or editing of copyright–protected works.