Over the last few months I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what it really means to “be connected”.
One of the things I’ve learned while I’ve been in Asia is that we (or maybe just me) tend to evaluate the things around us based upon our own values, the values that we learned as children, and the values that we are measured by in our western societal cocoons.
For example, growing up in England I was taught that food had to be prepared in particular ways, shrimp didn’t have eyes by the time they reached the plate, the white meat was the best part of the chicken etc. Those that know me will confirm that I’m not a picky or unadventurous eater, but you still seek out foods that you know you will enjoy.
Dinner time in Asia can be a little shocking for the unsuspecting westerner, especially during the first few months of living here. The food doesn’t always look appetizing, measured by the values that we learn as children, and it is hard to find things that have been prepared “properly” – or at least in ways that you are used to.
One day, during a large group meal with friends in China I was pushed to try something new by a local colleague. I didn’t even recognize what it was, and my initial instinct was that I probably wouldn’t enjoy it. His sales pitch for the dish was a simple one, he said “a billion Chinese quite like it, so it can’t be all that bad”.
His point was a powerful one, and while the analogy does not translate perfectly to the thought I want to share about rural connectivity, he did open my eyes to the idea that I was judging the regional food by the values that I had learned over the years and needed to be more open to new ideas at the dinner table. As he said, if large populations really enjoyed what was being served then my values and instincts were probably telling me the wrong thing.
I’ve since begun to apply the same reasoning to other problems that cross my desk.
Here in Singapore to “be connected” means that we have somewhere between 12Mb and 100Mb arriving on our doorsteps, connected to a number of devices in the home that range from media centres and PCs through to wireless hand phones and other VoIP devices, much like connectivity in many other high income countries.
The average PC user in a high bandwidth environment rarely thinks twice about downloading a 400Mb service pack, or a 1Gb TV show. High data rate broadband is a luxury, but in some cases as I start to think through alternate means of moving data and transactions, probably not always a necessary one.
Taking that further, the model that we enjoy does not always translate well into a remote rural setting and we all see a lot of projects stalled as a result. The net result is that the populations of those small towns and villages end up with no connectivity, or very limited connectivity at a very high cost – and of course limited access to the applications that are used elsewhere without any thought or consideration.
So to deliver broadband to the most remote parts of the world we probably have to put aside the values by which we classify “good” broadband today and go back to some of the basics around what is really required.
I keep coming back to the idea that it might be time to rethink some of the ideas that we accept as norms for connectivity in today’s society and consider a simpler platform that scales with both application requirements and availability of global connectivity – delivering the same level of service regardless of where your local community fits on each of those two measures.
Many applications, including email, egovernment transactions, online educational material and many ecommerce transactions may not need the instant response that we expect from today’s wired world.
This does not mean that we should not consider high speed broadband a priority for every citizen around the globe, of course we should – the economic benefits to individuals, small business and corporations alike is well researched and documented.
It does not need to be said that the challenge of delivering connectivity to remote areas is huge, both in terms of logistics and cost.
Today, through the current model and design principals of the internet and the applications that it delivers, we’re basically asking small businesses in these rural areas to in some cases wait up to ten years while a national broadband plan takes hold before they can go online and make use of applications that are the accepted norms elsewhere in the world.
I am increasingly of the school of thought that it would be worthwhile thinking again about the way that we develop applications and the services that are needed to move data and transactions between them, designing a platform that is less dependant on fully connected bandwidth while still meeting the requirements of many applications that we use today or will build in the future under a different model.
The environment that we have today basically says that if you have broadband access then Internet applications work for you, if you do not have high speed broadband then probably they will not work.
If those applications do not work for you then you are increasingly disenfranchised from society and business.
I am sure you will agree, that just isn’t right.
For what it is worth, the answer to the question in my headline is an unequivocal yes, but the issue remains of how long will it take for the Internet to physically scale that far and what damage will be done in the mean time.
In the interim we can do better than just sit and wait…