Empathy for the digitally disenfranchised

Sometimes it’s easiest to simply respond to the loudest voices. There are lots of instances where we see government bodies respond to groups, large and small, making lots of noise.

That is completely understandable. It is natural for us to turn our heads in the direction of a loud noise, to soothe a screaming infant, to turn down the loud music that wakes us each morning.

The old squeaky wheel adage.

It is a tougher job to ensure that policies and regulations address the needs of those who aren’t shouting.

How do we ensure that someone deals with the needs of voices that can’t be heard?

For example, there are more than 2 million households in Canada that have no computer, let alone an internet connection. Who is representing these people at regulatory hearings and policy discussions?

Connected computers correlates with household income. Half of the households in the bottom 20% of income account for 1.25 million of the digitally disenfranchised. Half of the households that have no computer are those in the lowest income quintile.

Many of us have trouble relating to them.

I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with a reader who followed up on some of the Scotia Capital wireless myths that I posted last week. He was having difficulty with the arithmetic associated with comparing 2-year contracts in the US to 3-year contracts in Canada. When told that you can accelerate the upgrade date, he asked why would we bother with 3 year contracts then?

To which I responded “not everyone wants or needs a new phone or can afford to change every year or 2.”

According to the Scotia Capital report: “We think the three-year contract has actually led to low handset prices that helped smartphone penetration in Canada.”

It would be great if everyone had economic circumstances that enabled them to upgrade devices as frequently as manufacturers and application developers might prefer. However, many people have different priorities for their spending and prefer to spread out or defer the payments as long as possible.

With the virtual elimination of early termination fees in favour of accelerated device financing buy-outs, it is difficult to understand why the issue of 3-year contracts continues to surface. Such lengthy terms have proven to be the most popular choice when shorter terms were also offered. Long term contracts have provided initial cost advantages that Scotia Capital says contributes to higher penetration of smartphones. Will such low-cost entry options continue to be available?

Loud voices resulted in broadband stimulus packages that focus on funding for rural without consideration of economic need for transfers spending hundreds of millions of dollars without any consideration of the needs of low income Canadians. Where are the broadband stimulus programs for Canada’s urban centres?

While it is easiest to hear the loud voices in the room, it is just as important for policy makers to consider and respond to the needs of those who aren’t being heard at all.

Scroll to Top