Digital equality and internet inclusion

TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION: Barriers to internet access for economically and socially excluded urban communities

A study by theCentre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS)2015

Supported by Ford Foundation

www.netpehchaan.in

Internet penetration - Global

3 billion online by 2014: penetration rate 40.4% (Measuring the Information Society Report, ITU 2014)

Penetration in Europe 75%, America 66%, Asia-Pacific 32%, Africa 19% (ITU 2014)

BUT.

4.3 billion not yet online, 90% of them in the developing world. 3 out of 4 people online in the developed countries, 1 out of 3 in developing countries.

India is at the bottom of most indices when compared to other BRICS countries

Source: ITU 2014.* http://www.internetsociety.org/map/global-internet-report/

CountryRank*PercentageBrazil7451.6%China8645.8%India13915.1%Russia5761.4%South Africa8048.9%

Internet penetration India254.4 million by September 2014 (TRAI)350 million users as of June 2015; 17% growth in number of users between January-June 2015 (IAMAI) 2nd largest population online after China15.1% penetration, 129th rank on the ICT Development IndexIndia has 17.5% of the worlds population but only 8.33% of the worlds internet users. In comparison, China has 19.24% of the worlds population and 21.97% of the worlds internet users with 46% penetration 60% of internet users access the internet through mobile devices (IAMAI-IMRB 2015)Effective internet penetration in India is 6.19 per 100 as 178.67 million users are narrowband subscribers, and only 75.73 million are on broadband subscribers

Internet access not a privilege or luxury Internet - essential for education, communication, livelihoods, access to government services and entitlementsDigital inequality taps into existing socio-economic inequalities. The poor and marginalised lack the economic/social capital to go online. Information poverty makes them further marginalised. Its a vicious circleCCDSs study offers a reality check on the digital revolution Conflation of numbers connected with internet inclusion needs to be questioned

Internet for the urban poor Why?

Aim and Objectives

Aim:To understand internet access among low-income, marginalised urban communities and the factors facilitating or inhibiting their access

Specific Objectives:To understand inequality in internet access in low-income settlements of PuneTo understand how socioeconomic and infrastructural factors shape internet access for people residing in these settlements To study awareness and attitudes of inhabitants of low-income urban settlements towards the internetTo understand patterns of internet use among people in these settlements, andhow they are introduced to and explore the internet;To explore the quality of access available to themTo understand the enablers of and barriers to internet access among people in these settlements, and their aspirations to go online.

Research Methods

6 purposively selected low-income settlements of Pune city (PMC and PCMC)A mixed method approach was adopted:Quantitative survey (1634 Households) Households selected through systematic random sampling; respondents 16-70 yearsQualitative data collection: FGDs, in-depth interviews and case studiesReportage, photography, short films supplemented the research (available at www.netpehchaan.in) Insights were gained in the course of internet literacy workshop conducted in low-income settlements of Pune

6

Study Locations

Characteristics: Study population48.5% females, 51.5% males in the sample62% youth in the 16-35 age-groupAbout 80% of the study population literate, but less than 9% graduates and above 20% self-employed, about 19% in the service sector, 12.4% students, 34% non-workingSubstantial share of population (84%) from marginalized communities: SC, ST and religious minoritiesSettlements of varying wealth status Mahatma Phule Nagar and Ambedkar Nagar with majority of households in the lower wealth quintiles, Laxmi Nagar and Janata Vasahat with larger numbers in the upper wealth quintiles

ContinuedMajority (88%) live in their own housesAbout of the households live in pucca and semi-pucca housesMore than 90% of the houses have 1 and 2 rooms. HH assets: 89% own television86% have cooking gas connections2/5th own 2-wheelers & refrigeratorsOnly 11% have desktop/ laptop computers, 3.6% have tablets 1% own desktop computer with fixed internet, 4% own dongle/ data card97% own mobile phones; 34.5% own basic mobile phones while 69% have internet accessible phones Penetration of landline phones: poor (1.1%) Large majority of the households have cable / DTH TVAbout 1/5th (22%) of HHs have yellow (BPL) ration cards, 69% have orange (APL)

Internet penetration

Household MembersUSERSNON-USERSTOTAL106618%493382%5999100%Ever heard of InternetNot heard of Internet288658%204742%

Internet Penetration (connected Households)AT LEAST 1 USERNO USERTOTAL720

44%914

56%1634

100%

Primary RespondentsUSERSNON-USERSTOTAL56435%107065%1634

100%Ever heard of InternetNot heard of Internet50247%56853%

Internet users/ non-users by gender 16% of women are users compared to 58% of menBig gender gap

Internet users/ non-users by age

Internet use declines sharply with age Big age gap. Majority of users 64% in 16-20 age-group. Only 7% of the 35+ are users.

Internet users/ non-users by education

Sharp increase in internet use as educational level increases. 83% of graduates and above are usersonly 3% of those with primary education are users.

Internet users/non-users by occupation77% of students are users48% with more stable occupations in service are online

Internet users/ non-users by wealth quintileCorrelation between wealth and internet use: 23% of those in the lowest wealth quintile are users compared to 51% in the highest quintile.

Of 1,170 school-going children enumerated, 65% report computer training in schoolsFGDs with children in 11 schools revealed that there is a marked difference in ICT infrastructure and training among regular schools and e-learning schools or schools supported by CSR/ civil society interventions for digital literacyFew functional computers and large numbers of students per class limit hands-on experience of computersThis results in difference in childrens awareness of the internet and its uses as well as their confidence in ability to use the internetICT skills for school-going children

Use of media at household level

Most important source of information for households80% households depend on TV for news and information36% on newspapersOnly 11% on internet

17

Household expenditure on media consumption94% spend up to Rs 300 on TV48.6% spend more than Rs 300 on talk timeMajority of users (70.4%) spend up to Rs 200 on internet45% of households spend up to 5% of total monthly income on digital communication38% spend as much as 5-10%, indicating importance given to communications

PATTERNS OF INTERNET USE

Frequency of internet use

66% reported daily use of the internet More men (71%) access the internet every day as against women (52% )Although students form the biggest segment of internet users, their frequency of use is the lowest Frequency of use increases with improving economic status

Purpose of internet use

Awareness and use of online services, including e-governance services, is low

Only 8% of users said the internet had helped them get information about government services/ entitlements

21

Point of internet access

59% access the internet on mobile phones onlyIn the absence of mobile devices capable of data access, women are more dependent on public access points than men.

22

Perceived quality of internet access

Connectivity and speed: about 50% rate it good3/4 of users say the internet is affordableHigh level of satisfactionBUTInternet services consumed are limited to 300 MB or less and 1-7 days validityThese services suffice for messaging and social networking onlyRespondents use cybercafs for internet research, submission of online forms etc.

Quality of accessMonthly data transfer consumed

23

BARRIERS TO INTERNET ACCESS

InfrastructuralSocio-culturalEconomicAttitudinalGender

Infrastructural barriers Wired broadband is completely absent in low-income areas. Internet access is mobile cellular, mostly 2G, with average speeds of 60 kbpsInternet connectivity is higher where:Households possess any internet-accessible phone (61.6%)Households possess smart phones (77%)Unconnected households:93% of households with no phones85.3% of households with basic phones only

I had a dongle which I stopped using. It was too expensive. The cyber cafe is there but there is no privacy to use internet. So the mobile is the best option. (Male Internet user, 26, Married, college graduate, service) We dont have the internet in our mobile. The cybercafes are too far away and the family does not allow us to go out. (Female internet user, 21, unmarried, final year BA student)

MOBILE PHONE IS KEY TO CONNECTIVITY

Awareness of internet

35% of our respondents (n=1634) had not heard of the internetOf the 82% that are offline (n=4933), 42% had never heard of internetAwareness increases with education, decreases with age86% of respondents with no education have not heard of internet

Computer skills/Education

Likelihood of household being connected 3 times higher where one member has completed schoolHouseholds with at least one computer-trained member twice as likely to be connectedGreater use of net for education/livelihoods when users are educated to/above higher secondary level

Attitudinal Barriers 78% of non-users agreed that internet is as important as any other basic amenityLess than 10% feel that internet is not relevant for people in low-income settlements97% -- users and non-users -- want a public access point in their settlement

But 23% of non-users feel the internet has nothing useful for them, reflecting the lack of awareness about the diverse uses of the internet , and also the absence of local and hyper-local contentOver 60% believe the internet is addictive and has the potential for misuse

ASPIRATION73% of internet non-users aspire to go online in the future

Literacy and awarenessEver heard of internet (non user respondents)Computer use in the household by gender (n=1634)Gender Barriers Gender differences begin with literacy 70% women are literate compared to 87% of menMore men than women non-users have heard of internetComputer use in the family is dominated by males

Women have less access to mobile phones. They face family restrictions on use of mobiles. Also restrictions on movement outside the settlement, to cybercafs Majority women have basic mobile phones or feature phones onlyWomen lack economic capital to get infrastructure /buy net time at cybercafsMisconception that women cant handle technology Ownership of mobile phones by gender Gender Barriers (contd)

30

Gender Barriers (contd) Point of access

Expenditure on the Internet

In the absence of mobile devices capable of data access, women are more dependent on public access points than menWomen are able to spend less than men on internet services.

31

Men have this attitude towards women ..They say, Why do you need internet, you are at home'. Women are given phones to receive incoming calls only...Most men have android/ smartphones, women get simpler ones (Woman internet user, 23 years, unmarried, college graduate, service)

People in our settlement dont like to see girls on the mobile all the time because it does not look good. People in our settlement have certain views about girls and the community thinks that if girls are on the mobile they are not conforming to community culture(Woman internet non-user, 45 years, married, not educated, domestic worker)

I feel proud that though I am married, I still get a chance to use the internet....Most of the girls do not get permission to use the internet. Both my mothers family and my in-laws' family use the internet, so it is a plus point for me. (Female internet user, 24, married, educated up to Standard 9, homemaker)

Patriarchal barriers Gender Barriers (contd)

Reported barriers to internet access

NON-USERS

33

Enabling factors for internet access

ConclusionSharp digital divide in the city if at least 5/10 residents of Pune city are online (IMRB-IAMAI studies), less than 2/10 individuals in the low-income study sites use the internetDigital inequality overlays economic and socio-cultural exclusionSlums and marginalised low-income areas have severe infrastructural constraintsClear links between economic deprivation and internet exclusion: The poorest are the most likely to be offlineThose with low levels of education more likely to be digitally disadvantaged. Patterns of use are also related to educational levelLack of ICT skills is a major barrier to internet useBig gender divide; big age barrier Attitudinal barriersTwo levels of digital inequality: 1) Digital divide between internet haves and have-nots; 2) Capability divide.

Towards internet inclusionDigital inclusion policy must be organised around EQUAL access, QUALITY access, and capacity to ADOPT and make FULL USE of the technology. Not just around numbers connected Focus on infrastructure-provisioning for underserved and marginalised urban areasPublic access points for affordable, high-speed internet Support and incentives, particularly from the state, required to meet the needs of low-income populations Policy/ programmes to bring digital empowerment and ICT skills to the most digitally-excluded groups, particularly womenSystems for equal access to information, and equal opportunities to use that information, must be an integral part of e-governanceRaising awareness of the internet, its multiple benefits, and safe useBuilding relevant (local) content and services; addressing social acceptability

THANK YOUAlthough diffusion of internet is accelerating, greater internet penetration will not automatically ameliorate digital inequality. Any long-term and meaningful digital inclusion policy must aim to provide equal internet access to all.Contact:Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS) C/12, Gera Greens, NIBM Road, Kondhwa, Pune 411 048, India.Phone No: 91-20-32342047/26852845Email: hutokshi@ccds.inVisit us at: www.netpehchaan.in