This is only part of the mission of the One Laptop Per Child Foundation; the OLPC does not mention the word “market” on its website.  The OLPC project is an endeavor that attempts to decrease the digital divide against students in countries that cannot afford computing equipment.  The project and the organization were brought to the world’s attention at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland in 2005.  Funded by organizations like AMD, eBay, Nortel Networks, and the like, it was bound to be a huge success:  enticing prices that governments around the globe would agree with and profit to boot. 

The idea is outstanding.  However, it may be that the capitalist actions taken by Intel in pursuing this “untapped market” as described by its own website is the best way to get those computers out there.  As OLPC Project founder stated, the list price of the laptops is expected to decrease when the organization receives more orders for laptops. Intel may be onto something here by entering the competition.  It is tough to read that OLPC was taking losses earlier when it was selling the laptops for less than they were costing to make, and hoping that orders would increase to make up and bring down the cost of production.  The school systems should reap the benefit of this competition; the prices are driven down and this may free up more money to buy a larger volume of laptops.

The Boston Globe reported in 2007 that as the nonprofit organization was having difficulty lowering the cost of the laptops while gaining profits, Intel and Asus Computer International of Taiwan were already introducing their own cheap laptops.  Asus and Intel’s move into the “nonprofit” business of selling affordable laptops to developing countries for use in school systems creates a competitive market that I think will result in the collapse of the OLPC, but not its vision. 

What OLPC did was shed the light on an untapped market of buyers.  The issue with OLPC and its vision is that it is primarily an altruistic one, at least at its front, whereas Asus and Intel are primarily for profitability.  OLPC has “rejected the idea of selling its laptops as a retail product in affluent nations” (Boston Globe), whereas the larger corporations have not.  Asus has already waded into the market of richer communities, where its marketers see a large market of users.  I believe that while the endeavor and the purpose of One Laptop Per Child is upstanding and promotes a global village and a step forward in the state of education for developing countries, maybe it should be left to corporations and competition should be encouraged to drive prices down and make laptops more available to those countries.  The best way is to let the manufacturers compete. 

Bray, Hiawatha.  “Cheap laptop as money maker.”  Boston Globe: Technology.  November 14, 2007.

 ”One Laptop per Child.”  Wikipedia entry.  Can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child

Stern, Joanna.  “Intel vs. OLPC:  A Battle of Good Wills.”  Laptop Magazine, April 24, 2007.  Can be found at http://archive.laptopmag.com/features/Intel-vs-OLPC-Battle-of-Good-Wills.htm

I also am more inclined to get my news from the larger newsites because I tend to discuss things happening nationally and internationally more than locally, especially at the water cooler with co-workers.  All of the news sites had many ads.  I think it was the North Jersey Record that opened up with an ad and I had to get rid of it before entering the site.  I believe the Columbus Dispatch had the most ads, and a lot of flash ads.  Those are the ads that are most distracting; I just like to get into the website and find the news, and the ads just slow things down sometimes. 

Speakeasy’s Home VoIP and Broadband service would cost me $83.90/month, compared with VoIP & cable (no free international calls) for $85, and also compared with the phone company with DSL (no domestic long distance or International long distance free) for $107, depending on the service provider. 

I think the one of the few things that would have me sold on this package is the voice quality.  I’d love to have guaranteed crystal-clear voice quality and I’d definitely love to make international long distance calls.  Except I would have no reason to call any of those 22 countries covered under the free worldwide calling.  If it included the Philippines and Mexico I’d probably be more swayed.  The international phone calls do not include calls to mobile phones.  This, I think would be a drawback for folks that make calls into countries where the POTS technology is expensive and lacking whereas cell technology is more affordable, accessible, thus, way more cell phone users than landline users.  

I’m not even sure if these prices include the equipment; I couldn’t find a price list for equipment but I did see ads for rebates and discounts for equipment.  And then the more I navigated through the website and looked at varying prices the more confused I got, which compels me to back off.  I think that speaks to my reluctance to get rid of the services I already have the unfamiliarity of this technology.

Link to my slide on slideshare.net

Bibliography

Strickland, Jonathan.  “How YouTube Works.”  Found at http://computer.howstuffworks.com/youtube.htm

“Beauty queen’s blonde moment.” The Daily Telegraph.  August 27, 2007.

“YouTube.”  Wikipedia, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

The dullest one was the Orange County Register.  Except for that nice looking orange where the IE icon would be (what is that called, anyway?), the page reminded me of an electronic newsletter, too crowded with so many headlines, the sections squished together.  I would take a wild guess that this is really a local newspaper that also needed an electronic front.  There should be a suggestion box where the owner asks, what do you think of our site? 

The PE and the North Jersey Register both had slides showing the headlines right as you arrive at the website, so I think that these papers are possibly large newspapers that many locals go to for national news, and that they are updated in real time.  The Tulsa World had so much focus on sports, the sports was the latest news, and a picture of a basketball game was the featured picture in the latest news section.  If

The other thought that comes to my mind is that kids that don’t have Internet at home have to stay extra hours at school trying to do the work that they need to do with Internet access, while other kids have gone home to hang out with their families and finish up at home.  There are many different scenarios as to the social repercussions of such circumstances, but I am hoping that as this article was written in 2006 and the numbers are dated 2003, Internet has become more accessible and more of these children now have computers at home, with Internet access.  I wonder what the feasibility is in Internet access becoming a regulated service like phone lines are.  If that happened then along would come assistance plans for families that would need the help to afford it.  Just a wishful thought. 

The article brings out the SARI project as a positive example of how Internet can be brought to rural areas and shows the cost-benefit analysis of doing so.  I guess what I came away with reading about the SARI project was that there are ways that providers can cut the costs of financing and running the operation, including getting the subscribers to pay for a fraction of the network costs.  It is interesting to read that the UN is also bringing to attention the idea that policy-makers should make Universal access a priority; this idea advocates giving license exemptions to small businesses, which makes me wonder how the larger telecom companies react, since they must pay substantial license fees for their services, which reminds me of the two-tier system that I read about some time ago.  The article brings out the benefits of Internet access in terms of economic and political freedom; it also makes the case in the SARI project that these folks in the rural areas want and are willing to pay for Internet access.  What I would be interested to follow up on is if these state-of-the art improvements to technology have in fact lowered the costs of access and thus increased profitability for the providers. 

I admit that I must be privileged if I cannot imagine a digital divide where there are people who do not have convenient access because potential providers do not find it profitable.

 Questions:

1) What are Americans’responsibility in making Internet access universal?  Should we be responsible?  Why or why not?

2) In what ways can we gauge the benefits of the Internet divide decreasing?

3) What would happen if Internet service providers became completely regulated?  How would it affect the speed and availability to households?

 The RealClimate site has the format of a blog of all things climate science.  Its sidebar, situated on the right, has the widgets:  Recent Comments; Inline Responses; Categories (all listed, unhidden); Contributors; Highlights (popular posts); Other Opinions (Blogroll); Science Links (external links); translations; Email Notification (a subscribe link); Other (for blog authors to log in or write a new post); and Meta – RSS feeds.  The translations seem to work only on selected texts. 

The top bar shows 6 tabs, which all light up when you run your mouse across them:  home; about; index; people; archive; start here.  The index link shows a list of all the posts indexed under different categories; the archive link just shows each month hyperlinked.  Perhaps since this site is in blog style it would have been easier to show the hyperlinked months on the front page, instead of creating a new page just for a list of months.  In blog fashion the most recent post is at the top of the page when you arrive at the site.  At the bottom of each post has a “share this” link, a link to post a comment, and a link that shows bloggers that linked to the post with their own reaction post. 

The writing style of the RealClimate posts seems informal:  a bunch of respected scientists in the field writing commentary on a blog – commentary on conferences they have attended relevant to climate science, commentary on articles written by other scientists, and more.  In one article titled “What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?” dated January 30 and filed under Climate Science, the author discussed a “climate change” conference that turned out to be sponsored by a research institute fronting for the fossil fuel industry; the purpose of the conference was to generate attention and coverage by the media.  In another article, “The IPCC model simulation archive,” posted February 4, is about climate models and model simulations and goes beyond my comprehension.  RealClimate seems to serve as a social networking site: the audience is very interactive and apparently  consist of a community of fellow scientists and other scholars, from what I can tell in much of the dialogue in the comments:  people contributing their thoughts, ideas and expertise.  Perhaps given the subject matter, the website is not updated every day. 

The ACLU website is a political activist.  Upon arriving at the site I am greeted with an imbedded ad to sign a petition to tell congress to say no to wiretaps and telecom immunity; invited to enter my e-mail to sign the email.  Very discretely under this ad there is a hyperlink to their user agreement and privacy statement.  In the center of the website under the petition ad there are headlines.  They are not up to the minute; the most recent article is dated February 27.  The top bar shows 6 tabs:  About the ACLU; Supreme Court; Legislative Update; Action Center; Donate Now; and Newsroom.  On the right sidebar there are tabs of 21 different issues that may concern me, the visitor.  When I click on one tab, Reproductive Freedom, I get to a page that offers printable materials, invitations to send letters to Congress and others, breaking and latest news.  There are links on the right to related issues: abortion, birth control, sex education, religion, and general.  Most of the articles seem to be authored by internal sources:  the latest news were all press releases. 

I think the site works for visitors who share similar views, and visitors who are possibly searching for information about the organization’s stances on issues.   The articles and especially the coverage of court cases are written in the ACLU’s voice and view, so if a visitor was looking for information on both sides he would have to look elsewhere for detailed information about the opponent’s view, except that of course if he were to do that the same one-sided content would be posted there.  But the ACLU does not seem to hide its agenda and shows the actual court cases and written opinions and etc. by the court, most especially the Supreme Court.  I think it’s a useful website for a person who is trying to find more information on an issue that he feels similarly about.  I am estimating that a person with strong conservative views on a lot of the issues might disagree with everything he reads or be just plain offended by the site. 

Also, on the home page there is a left lower bar for visitors to “get involved”:  tabs for signing up, becoming a member, donating, and taking action, are all on this blue bar. 

Personally I enjoyed both sites very much; as a non-expert I came away feeling like I learned a lot of interesting things.  The ACLU site is designed to mobilize readers; the RealClimate site seems to be for that community of scientists and subject matter experts.