JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 7, JULY 2013 1

A Bi-National Perspective of Digital Inclusion in Brazil and in the United States

A. M. Oliveira and T. Menezes
Abstract Digital inclusion is an emerging cooperative strategy between private and public sectors to provide a path to digital empowerment by establishing infrastructure, providing training, and building a sustainable support structure. It can also be defined as the opportunity to access the Internet, and to educational and professional opportunities tied to this access. Previous evidence on the subject indicates that Digital inclusion can cause significant social and economical impacts to any society. This article aims to describe and made a comparative analysis of these impacts with a bi-national perspective. Brazil and the U.S, have complementary challenges and assets related to digital inclusion. The unique complementary challenges and opportunities in the U.S. and Brazil make the investigation in this paper an ideal opportunity to foster cross-cultural learning and improvements to develop a workforce to address needs in both countries. We also compare technical and social-economical impact of digital inclusion in Brazil and in the U.S, and present some of the major achievements and challenges of implementing a public policy of digital inclusion in both countries. The results presented here indicate that the digital divide is still a great challenge faced by both countries, reinforced by the contrasting evidence of large growth in Internet access and in diversified uses of ICTs as well as the continuity of large inequalities. Index Terms Information and Communication Technologies, Digital Inclusion, Digital Divide, Community Informatics, Telecenters, ICTs in Brazil.

1 INTRODUCTION

he twenty-first century can be described as the information age, when the capacity to communicate is a key to human development in many levels. In recent years, interest has grown in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a tool for education, economic development, and social well-being in developing regions of the world. Digital inclusion is an emerging cooperative strategy between private and public sectors to provide a path to digital empowerment by establishing infrastructure, providing training, and building a sustainable support structure. Studies have consistently shown that individuals with access to ICTs tend to have more education, higher incomes, and higher status occupations than do those without such access. This holds true in the U.S., as well as globally, as pointed out by results from the World Internet Project [1]. On the other hand, Digital Divide refers to exactly the opposite: the lack of access to the Internet, and to educational and professional opportunities tied to this access. The segment of the society with limited access to computers and internet are disadvantaged as to compete for jobs, to communicate and get connected to people, to learn and improve their professional/technical skills. The term Global Digital Divide is distinguishable from the Digital Divide. The Global Digital Divide is the rapidly growing disparities in the utilization, expenditure, and availability

of technology on a worldwide scale. The global digital divide involves economic, educational, and social aspects that influence the levels of information communication technology development in each country [2]. According to the 2002 World Economic Forum report on the global digital divide, 88% of all Internet users are from industrialized countries counting for only 15% of the worlds population [2],[3]. From the political point of view, the problem can be elaborated in three aspects: global divide, social divide, and democratic divide [4]. The definitions in [4] focuses on the gaps of Internet access only covering international and domestic levels, and finally narrows down to individual engagement, mobilization and participation. However, due to constant technology development, the scope of the issue is expanding continually [5]. In [6]-[7], the authors broaden the scope of the issue to include four major aspects: access, skills, economic opportunity and democratic divide. In the following sections of this paper, we take into consideration these four categories to compare several aspects of digital inclusion in Brazil and in the United States.

Despite of the fact that the United State is a developed country and Brazil is still a country in development, digital divide is present in both countries. However, the digital inclusion public policies in each country have be oriented towards different aspects. Since the late 1990s, the Brazilian digital inclusion public policy has been oriented to wards social participation, job skills, citizenship, and the A. M. Oliveira is with the Michigan Technological University, Houghton, building of a public ICT infrastructure, while in the U.S. MI, 49931, USA. these public policies have been more economically orient T. Menezes is with the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, ed, geared towards access, and training with a focus on Brazil. job skills [8]. The main reasons for digital divide in both countries may also differ, ranging from disparity in Inter-

net access related to geographic location (rural versus urban areas) and infrastructural limitations, to inequality of income distribution and other social indicators. The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administrations recent Digital Nation report [9] indicates that while virtually all demographic groups have experienced increasing access to broadband Internet, historic demographic disparities among groups have persisted. Globally, computer literacy is now a required skill for all kinds of jobs, including occupations traditionally considered non-technical. Economic competitiveness for the United States will rest on our ability to provide the 21st century workforce with digital empowerment: the ability to use the wealth of resources in computing and the Internet to learn, communicate, innovate, and enhance wealth [9]. However, despite the apparent ubiquity of the Internet in American life, approximately 30% of the U.S. population still does not use it [10]. Digital inclusion is of such current importance in the U.S. that President Obama laid out goals for improvements in his 2011 State of the Union address. Hence, it appears that the digital divide constitutes a real barrier to overcoming poverty and broadening opportunities worldwide. The group responsible for the Internet governance in Brazil is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.BR). The CGI.BR is multi-stakeholder organization composed by members of the government, the enterprise sector, the third sector and the academic community, in which the representatives of the civil society are chosen democratically to participate directly in the deliberations and debate the priorities for the development of the Internet, together with the government representative [11]. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee mission includes: Coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) and registration in the <.br> domain; Establishing strategic directives related to the use and development of the Internet in Brazil; Collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet services, including indicators and statistics. In 2005, through the creation of its ICT Studies Centre (CETIC.br), CGI.Br started a national project for the development of indicators for the Brazilian Internet, which led to the first national survey on the use of ICT in Brazil. Annual surveys followed after 2005. In the United States, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) conducted the first survey to assess Internet usage among what the study deemed the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' of American society in 1995 [12]. Over the past decade, the trends in access and usage of ICT between the groups of United States haves and have-nots have been investigated. Several of the demographic access and usage gaps have narrowed, while others continue to show a lack of connectivity for the group; these include gaps on the basis of race and ethnicity, and income [13]. Similarly to other countries such Brazil, the public policy makers in the United

States have identified the digital divide as a concern in need of a remedy, since ICTs have the potential to improve individual Americans lives [13]. Although frequency of Internet use among all Americans has risen (26% in 2002 used the Internet for more than an hour per day compared to 48% in 2009), still almost one third of Americans are not connected to the Internet [14], [15]. In addition to a divide in access to connectivity, researchers have identified a skill, or knowledge, divide that demonstrates a gap between groups in the United States on the basis of technological competency and digital literacy [6]. The effort by the United States' government to close the digital divide has included private and public sector participation, and has developed policies to address information infrastructure and digital literacy that promotes a digital society in the United States [5]. Here we describe and analyze social and economical impacts of digital inclusion with a bi-national perspective. Brazil and United States are the two leading economies of the northern and southern parts of the western hemisphere, what make this comparative analysis an opportunity to understand issues that can lead to improvement in the general standard of living in both countries. We also compare technical and social-economical impact of digital inclusion in Brazil and in the U.S, and present some of the major achievements and challenges of implementing a public policy of digital inclusion in both countries. The results presented here indicate that the digital divide is still a great challenge faced by both countries, reinforced by the contrasting evidence of large growth in Internet access and in diversified uses of ICTs as well as the continuity of large inequalities.

2 ECONOMICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF DIGITAL

INCLUSION

Brazil and the U.S. have complementary challenges and assets related to digital inclusion. The United States has well-known strengths in technological innovation and development, particularly in the area of ICT. Yet, the U.S. faces lesser-known problems in connecting sizable segments of the population to digital technology. In contrast, it is generally acknowledged that Brazil experiences many of the common issues facing developing nations in bringing basic services, including ICT, to most of its population. At the same time, Brazil has quietly established a reputation for quality work in technology, both in academia and industry. Furthermore, ICT professionals in Brazil have been active and creative in addressing the large digital inclusion issues confronting them. The unique complementary challenges and opportunities in the U.S. and Brazil make the investigation in this paper an ideal opportunity to foster cross-cultural learning and improvements to develop a workforce to address needs in both countries. The economical aspects of digital inclusion are directly related with individual and business access to the broadband Internet. The economical impact of the lack of broadband access to Internet in the U.S. was recently in-

vestigated by the Digital Impact Group (DIG) and by the Econsult Corporation [16]. The study served as basis to estimate the cost of lack of broadband access (key aspect for digital divide) in different areas of the society. According [16] to calculate the cost of the digital divide, it was considered that lack of broadband access: 1. Limits access to goods and services, resulting in higher costs for households; 2. Reduces access to education and inhibits learning among children; 3. Increases job search costs, which lowers both earnings and the chance of finding a job; 4. Reduces access to health information; and 5. Increases the costs associated with household financial management.
Economic Impact Category Health Care Education Economic Opportunity Civic Engagement EGovernment Energy Public Safety and Emergency Response Transportation Personal Financial Management Consumer Benefits Personal Communications and Entertainment Total Estimate of annual cost of Digital Exclusion $15B $4B $15B Too diffuse to quantify $2B $100M $4B $100M $2.5B $5B $7.5B $55.2B Intersection with FCC National Purposes Heal th Education Economic opportunity Energy Government/Civi c engagement Public safety

access to the digital world (digital inclusion). This group is expected to sum earnings of $15 billion in the whole nation (considering an average job salary of $30,000 per year). A government that provides online services for citizens to pay online bills and fees, to file tax returns and to process administrative paperwork is called e-government. If these online services, that already exist, reach the excluded communities, additional cost saving can be accomplished. Considering an excluded community, it is estimated that the average cost for a person with transportation and parking is around $4.5 a month, multiplying this value by the total number of people in those excluded communities nationwide, the government can achieve $2 billion in cost-cutting of travelling and personal time spent on the process of making a physical visit [16]. Another large economic impact is in the health sector. By increasing the access to health information, health service information and health services, it is possible to avoid health service cost to providers and users, in addition to increase in quality of life and personal satisfaction. Access to digital information has not only an economic impact but also a very important role in connecting people and overcoming social barriers. In a powerful information society, communication patterns, flow of information, social norms and practices can be exchanged and transferred effectively [5]. The economical and social benefits of having access to the information available from cyberspace are crucial for different purposes to different people. Everyday life activities such as education, business transactions, personal communication, culture and entertainment, job search, and career development, can become faster, more efficient, and cheaper. The access to the cyberspace also includes the opportunity to engage people to participate in civic/social movements. Therefore, digital inclusion is a basic need for people in society of this century; as such it should be considered as an important factor for education, citizenship and social justice. According to [7], access to digital resources can promote social inclusion, and therefore it will be important for governments at all levels to support initiatives that promote digital inclusion. Both in the U.S. and in Brazil, the most excluded class is the low income one, particularly because of the relatively high cost of Internet access, which is prohibitive costly in Brazil (several times higher than in the U.S.)[8]. Any investigation of social aspects of digital inclusion should include: 1) examining the barriers that underserved members of the community must overcome; 2) defining the main elements that lead to social inclusion using technology; 3) identifying the major aspects of digital literacy; and, 4) defining the linkages between digital inclusion and social disadvantage, which can help guide future research and policy interventions. In [18], the author presents a way to connect digital inclusion to social inclusion through an effective learning approach for digital inclusion situated in the social context of the learners

Table 1: Number of economic impact. The blue cells indicate what issues from the FCC national purposes are affected by each area improved by digital inclusion [16]. M: million, B: billion.

Table 1 shows the areas affected by the digital exclusion and the six purposes of the National Broadband Plan created by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission [16]. The cost for lack of access to broadband Internet is very high, especially in the areas of health care and economic opportunities, in both cases the have-nots segment of the population would be clearly benefited by having access to meaningful information online. In the area of education, research indicates that children with Internet access have higher standardized test scores, graduation rates, and earning potential [17]. That represents $ 4 billion of earning potential growth, just for the 40 million digital excluded in the U.S.. For the economic opportunites, the impact is even greater than in education, with the increase in the ability to search for jobs and applying for them online, and participating on virtual assessments. According to [16], more than 40% of the unemployed people in the U.S. are digitally excluded (which is even higher than the percentage average for the national digitally excluded rate, 35%), and from these unemployed group, 10% get access to new jobs through having

and based on activities of project development that address issues of these social contexts. In [19], the authors perform a quantitative study to evaluate how Telecenters have helped rural communities to improve digital literacy and promote social change. The findings of this study confirm that the investigated rural communities use ICTs for entertainment, to engage in civil participation, and to practice professional skills, creating opportunity that foster human development.

3 Digital Inclusion in Brazil In Brazil, the linkage between social inclusion and the information society is evidenced in the public policy directives and initiatives. In 1997, the Information Society Working Group developed guidelines for the Brazilian information society program with the objective of integrate, coordinate and provide actions for the utilization of technologies of information and communication to contribute for social inclusion of all Brazilians in the new society and, at the same time, contribute so that the economy have conditions to compete in the world market [20]. The resulting document, the green book, received the input from professionals from diverse areas, professors, business people, and civil society, as an attempt to identify the countrys critical areas related to ICT, as: 1. Science and technology dissemination of scientific information and technology; 2. Education focusing on distance learning and digital libraries; 3. Culture preservation of local identities and use of ICTs to publicize them; 4. Health use of telemedicine and health care information; 5. E-Commerce guarantee of a safe interface for ecommerce; 6. Education for the information society technology education and fostering of the digital culture.
Since 1998, the number of Internet providers has increased and the cost of access has lowered. In addition, there was an increase in free Internet services, and public access telecenters across the country, funded by federal, state and local governments. Created in 2000 (Law 9.998) as an important movement toward social/digital inclusion, the Fund for the Universalization of Telecommunications Services (FUST), requires that all telecommunications companies give 1% of their revenues to the fund. Although controversial at its creation, since 2005 the rate of planning and implementation of FUST funded initiatives has increased with funds primarily going towards telecenters, telecommunications infrastructures, technology for the deaf and hearing, among other projects. In addition to the FUST, the Brazilian government has developed the Computer For All program where the government subsidizes low or no interest loans that allow low income families to purchase computers paying small installments every month for a few years. 3.1 The Brazilian Telecenters and LAN Houses

Telecenters are designed to provide free Internet access for economically or geographically (rural) disadvantaged population unable to acquire ICT access on their own. They are 100% funded by the Brazilian government or are partnership telecenters with the civil society. Some telecenters offer additional services including: digital literacy and/or employment training, space for community meetings, e-government services, among other digital services. Telecenters sites are selected based on areas with the highest degree of social exclusion as defined and measured by the Human Development Indicator (IDH). In the partnership telecenter model, the partnering organization are responsible for all financial matters and up-keep related to the physical space, while the municipality maintained responsibility for providing the equipment, installation, proctor training and digital literacy instruction [21]. According to the CGI.Br, in addition to telecenters, 48% of the low-income Brazilians who access the Internet today do so through LAN-Houses. LAN stands for Local Area Network. The LAN-houses where originally created to allow people to play multi-players games. LAN-houses that previously existed only in wealth neighborhoods in Brazil have become common in poor communities. The LAN-houses computer and Internet access cost $0.50 to $1.50 per hour, and has become a place for citizenship, egovernment services, and even education [22]. Some public services are also emerging from the LAN-houses such as payment of utility bills, tax return services, support to write resume and to seek for employment online. 3.2 Numbers of digital inclusion in Brazil Despite of the increase in the percentage of householders with computer and Internet access in Brazil (see Fig. 1), only 73.9 million people have access to Internet at any environment (home, work, etc); it represents less than 40% of the total population. From those 73.9 million only 67% have access to Internet from home. Fortunately the number of users accessing Internet from home has increased significantly in the last few years, with access speeds usually higher than 512 kbps. Broadband connection represents 71% of all the Internet connections [22].

Figure 1 - Percentage of Householders with computer and Internet access in Brazil [22].

In Brazil, the economic conditions of the population clearly affect the numbers of users in different economic groups. The first group of households has a monthly in-

come up to 10 times the Brazilian minimum wage (around $3400 US dollars) and the average of access is 20.4%. The second group, with monthly income up to $6800 dollars, 81.2% of the households has access to Internet. And in the last group, with monthly income above $6800, 93.1% of the households have access to Internet [22]. Another factor to limit the access to broadband Internet is the geographic location. The southeast region states together correspond to more than 56% of all the houses with Internet access, while the states in the northern region represent only 3.39%. This factor however is also directly related to the economic condition of the householders. While in northern region the average monthly income is around $1030 dollars, in the southeast region is $1474 [22]. 3.3 Brazilian Government Programs In Brazil, most of the programs have the federal government as the main manager or sponsor, however, some states and towns may run their own programs. The main public programs for digital inclusion are part of the National Broadband Plan (or in Portuguese Plano Nacional de banda larga - PNBL). It includes other programs such as the Telecenters (Telecentros). The National Broadband Plan has 3 different branches: individual access, collective access and mobile access. With the individual access, it is expected to reach 30 million urban and rural broadband access points by 2014. It is also expected to reach 100% of all the public schools, government offices, libraries and create a hundred thousand new telecenters for the collective access, by 2014. Similarly, for mobile access it is expected 60 million, including voice/data and exclusive data modems [23]. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to encourage private companies to provide broadband access. In addition, the government acts providing the collective access through public offices and telecenters, in this way attempting to decrease social and regional barriers. Most of the current services are directed to classes A and B, households with an average monthly income higher than R$3700. This indicates how the social and economic barriers create lack of opportunities for people to have access to broadband, therefore new investments are necessary to provide broadband access to the society layers other than A and B, especially in locations with less than a hundred thousand people. In rural areas the main service provider is the National Rural Telecommunications Plan, since it is not attractive for private companies invest their money in a place with few users. To make broadband access universal, several investments will be necessary, whether from public or private funds. It is estimated that the Brazilian government will spend something around $7.8 billion dollars from 2010 to 2014, around $10 million dollars in taxes exemptions. On research and development will invest around $1.09 billion. For the capitalization of the Telebrs (the public company that will manage the Brazilian national broadband plan) will spend more $2.01 billion. And $4.68 billion on loans through the Development National Bank (BNDES Banco Nacional do

Desenvolvimento). This fund will be specially used for loans to telecommunication companies [23]. The plan also includes expansion and optimization of the National Fiber-Optic Network. The maps in Figure 2 indicate the current network and the goal for 2014. Currently, the network serves 15 Brazilian state capitals and the Brazilian capital, Brazilia, having 11,357 km. By 2014 it is expected to reach 25 state capitals, with a total of more than 30,000 km. The main purpose of the National Fiber-Optic Network implemented in 2010 was to implement the backbone of the network, serving to 15 state capitals and bringing backhaul to 100 cities, offering access points for the government use for education, health and security. The Network is also available for small and large service providers to offer their plans with much lower investments. Most of the Network actually belongs to public companies such as Petrobras and Eletronorte. The Brazilian Federal Government will lease the Network through the Telebrs, the public company managing the National Network.

Figure 2 Brazilian National Fiber-Optic Network 2010 (left) and 2014 (right) [23].

4 Digital Inclusion in the United States In general, the Internet access in United States has grown significantly in the last 15 years, from less than 20% in 1997 to almost 70% in 2009 (Figure 3). However, more recently this grown has slow down, with statistics of a national survey showing that in 2009 less than 65% of all adults have access to broadband at home (high speed Internet)[25]. From the 35% of the U.S. population that do not use Internet the majority comes from specifics groups of the society that have been socially and digitally excluded, those groups are: low incomes families (that make less than $20,000 a year), people with no high school degree, rural Americans, older Americans (65+), people with disabilities, African Americans and Hispanics. It is clear that geographic location, economic conditions and ethnicity are agents of the digital exclusion, and therefore the digital inclusion will just be possible when the broadband Internet overcome these challenges. The Census results in Figure 4 confirm once again that economic condition is a very important agent in the digital exclusion, the percentage of Internet users increases as the families income increases. Low income families have significantly lower percentage (around 35%) of Internet users than average income families (around 70%) [14]. Comparing the percentage of Internet users from the years of 2009 and 2007, there is a small increase; however the ratio remains the

same. Other factors that can be indirectly related to the economic condition are the geographic location of these families, and ethnicity. Geographically speaking, the population is separated into two groups: rural and urban area. In Figure 5, it is clear the difference between rural and urban areas in United States, where rural area has a higher number of people and households with no broadband. Despite of the improvement on the digital inclusion between 2007 and 2009 but the difference between rural and urban area remains almost the same.

Hispanic Americans are the groups with higher broadband access rates. On the other hand, Hispanics, Native Americans and Black Americans still have less than 50% of their population with broadband in 2009 [14]. This ratio remains similar to 2007; the only difference is that Hispanic and Native Americans switch position; however that is not statistically significant. In Figure 6, a comparison of the different ethnic groups in the U.S. along with their percentage of broadband access is presented.

Figure 6 - Individual use of broadband at home by race [14]. Figure 3 - United States percent of Households with Computers and Internet Connections. Years 1997-2009. [14]

Figure 4 - Home broadband use by family income in the United States, 2007-2009 [14].

Figure 5 Individual and households without broadband in rural and urban areas in the United States, 2007-2009 [14].

Considering the ethnic aspect, Asian and White Non-

4.1 United State government programs The government considers broadband to this century as important as electricity was a century ago. In order to overcome the challenges previously discussed, the Federal Government, through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), created in April 2009 a national plan to make broadband Internet universal, available and affordable to every American [14]. This plan is called: The National Broadband Plan, the first American national plan for broadband. The plan goals include: to reach the people who do not have access to broadband and/or do not subscribe, teach people who dont have the skills to use it, and make the U.S. a world leader in mobile innovation (mobile fastest and most extensive network, among others). Actions from the government will be taken in four different fronts, as described by the executive summary of the plan [24]: a) Establishing competition policies among the service providers; b) Ensuring efficient allocation and use of government-owned and government-influenced assets; c) Creating incentives for universal availability and adoption of broadband; d) Updating policies, setting standards and aligning incentives to maximize use for national priorities. To establish competition policies, the government may publish collected data on the market-by-market information on broadband pricing and competition. In addition to that, the government will review the wholesale competition rule. For the second group of actions, 500 MHz of spectrum will be available for broadband in the next 10 years, as well as increasing research in new spectrum technologies. An optimization of the infrastructure will be another focus of these actions. One of the incentives for the universal broadband will be called Connect

America Found (CAF) where the government will invest billions of dollars to accelerate the implementation of broadband in uncovered areas. Another incentive is the National Digital Corps, to ensure that Americans can have access to digital culture. And finally, the government will update policies, set standards and align incentives in order to reach the six national priorities: Health Care, Education, Energy and Environment, Economic Opportunity, Government performance and Civic Engagement, Public Safety and Homeland Security. Each of these areas has considerable benefits of a universal broadband.

tion and the price per Mbps is quite interesting. When the ratio between the offered broadband and the price of monthly subscription is taken into consideration, the cheapest technology is the fiber. In this case, the subscription is more expensive but the downstream and upstream rates are much higher. Figures 6 and 7 show the cost differences for three different technologies. Another interesting analysis is that all the wired technologies decrease the price in six months, and its prices tend to keep decreasing. In summary, the cost of implementation is a very important factor but the price per Mbps is in equal importance.

5 COST ANALYSIS OF DIGITAL INCLUSION

TECHNOLOGIES

In Brazil, the broadband technology Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) is more popular than Cable Modem [23] while in United States Cable Modem and DSL lead together [28], this pre-existing infrastructure (either telephone or cable TV network) can be determinant to the cost of each technology in each country, so the prices may vary and a specific technology can be cheaper than the other in one country and more expensive in another country. For digital inclusion to become implemented in its full extent, it is necessary to provide broadband access to all people in the society regardless their economic background, the technology used for the broadcasting need to be efficient and as cheap as possible to make sure that even low income families will be able to access it. Therefore, in order to choose the best technology to overcome these barriers it is necessary to consider the cost benefit of how many people will in fact have access to it and the speed of the broadband connections. Considering wireless and mobile broadband technologies, the 4G is the one providing better performance in data rate and mobility, however the cost to implement this network right now is still high, since in this case it is necessary to upgrade most of the existing towers and build new radio base station to provide signal to the areas where there is no service providers yet. Thus, it is not viable to use 4G to provide broadband access for the entire U.S. For wired technologies, DSL and cable are the cheapest for the end user, however the average offered speed is much lower than the FFTx. Fiber-based FFTx is the fastest and most expensive broadband wired connection available. The main reason is that the infrastructure for DSL and cable is already available in most parts of the U.S., so the cost of implementation is really low; the second reason is because it is easier to work with copper wires than with fiber-optic cables. For instance, the optic fiber connections require relatively expensive devices, while with copper wires it is cheap to splice and connect cables. However, as an emerging technology, FTTx tends to become cheaper as it reaches more end users. The comparison between the average monthly subscripFigure 6 - Worldwide average monthly subscription by technologies [29].

Figure 7 - Worldwide average price per megabit by technology [29].

Considering all the technologies that we investigate, the one offering better price per megabit is fiber-optic, at the same time that is one of the most expensive technologies to install. Therefore, the depending on the application, the decision for the technology of choice must be carefully evaluated. Different technologies can and should be used simultaneously in different areas with different needs in both Brazil and United States in order to promote digital inclusion.

6 COMPARISONS BETWEEN BRAZIL AND THE

UNITED STATES

Over the years the technological differences between United States and Brazil had slowly decreased, however

there is still a considerably large difference between the two countries. The main differences between the current situation in Brazil and United States are: the price per Mbps, the average offered speed and the spreading of broadband in the country. The digital divide worldwide in 2008 is illustrated in Figure 8, and it is evident the different positions of Brazil and U.S. in the world. While United States has rates compatible to developed countries, Brazil still struggle with less than 50% of Internet users.

of the reasons for this difference is the broadband access cost. Figure 9, shows the cost for broadband access for several countries. It is clear the discrepancy of the broadband price in Brazil, where the average price per Mbps can cost almost 20 times more than in United States. On the other hand, the price in U.S. is still higher than other countries. For instance, the average price per Mbps in U.S. is 14 times more expensive than in Japan [26]. One of the main goals of the Brazilian National Broadband Plan is to reduce the price of broadband Internet access, making the prices accessible to the entire population. The goal is to offer at least 512Kbps for $22 dollars a month, i.e., $40 dollars per Mbps, which is still much higher than the average prices in United States. From the United State government point of view, the prices per Mbps offered right now are still considered high, and there are clearly digital gaps among the United States population. Therefore, one of the goals of the U.S. government is to invest in research and lead the world on telecommunication technology, with the fastest and most extended mobile network. Currently, countries like Japan and South Korea became the main references on telecommunication technology. Their broadband plans are considered benchmarks models studied by other countries all over the world. Since Brazil and United States are large countries, both countries have issues with providing broadband to remote areas with lower population density. Private companies do not want to invest on areas with only few possible clients. In addition, when these companies bring the infrastructure to remote areas, their prices are very high. To deal with this issue, the Brazilian government established a National Network, which would provide much cheaper infrastructure to service providers to offer their broadband service. On the other hand, the American National Broadband Plan focus more on cutting fees and making rules to make it cheaper to set new infrastructure elements, such as poles, conduits, ducts, among others.

Figure 8: Digital Divide in the World (2008) [27].

7 FINAL REMARKS
The levels of digital inclusion in Brazil and United States are very different, while United States has 65% of the householders with broadband access, Brazil only has 27.8%. The price per Mbps is much higher in Brazil, and it is an important factor that holds Brazil from moving forward faster. In 2009, the price of Mbps in Brazil could cost up to 20 times the Mbps in U.S. [14], [26]. The U.S. advantage in infrastructure is notorious, but Brazil is catching up and is the leading country in ICT initiatives in South America. Brazil has experienced a significant increase in the total number of Internet users and a large diversification of Internet services, as well as the growth of broadband home access. The Brazilian Federal government addresses some of the challenges for digital inclusion by motivating service providers to bring broadband to rural areas, to less popu-

Figure 9: Average price per megabit (in dollars) [26].

As far as the numbers of broadband users, Brazil and United States also face different realities, U.S. has almost 65% of all the householders with home broadband access, while Brazil has less than 30%. The two different realities require appropriate solutions and plans to overcome the gaps. Therefore, the governments of both countries developed plans with different goals and actions, but with the digital inclusion as the key element for their plans. The average speed provided in United States, 14.6 Mbps, is much higher than the average in Brazil, 0.25Mbps. One

lated neighborhood, and low income families. The Brazilian government actions are more direct and require more investment than the U.S. ones. These actions include the implementation of several thousand new kilometers of fiber-optic network, while the American national broadband concentrate more efforts on cutting fees and regulating new solutions to make the infrastructure implementation cheaper for the service providers. However, the infrastructure alone does not solve the problem of the digital divide, with also requires digital education. In some cases, people may have the financial means and the availability of the service, but they do not subscribe to Internet services because they are not familiar with the benefits that Internet can bring, or they do not know how to use it. In the United State, 37% of the non-Internet users have no interest or believe that they do not need Internet connection at home [7], [14]. In contrast to some remarkable improvements, as evidenced by the analysis presented here, the digital divide is still a reality in both Brazil and U.S. In Brazil, the proportion of the adult population with home internet access is still very low. Social differences in access and use are pronounced, and the use of ICTs for daily basis activities is still limited to a small portion of the Brazilian population. It is necessary to invest on research to enhance the current technologies and create alternatives to overcome both the technical barriers (such as distance limitations) and socioeconomic barriers. To overcome the digital divide and support the development of both countries, it is necessary to use several different technologies simultaneously, each one responsible for a specific area. Fiber should be chosen whenever possible, since it represents the best price per megabit. For remote and inaccessible areas satellite may be the only option for some time, but it may be possible to arrive at an area nearby with fiber and from there use some other wireless technology, such as WiMAX. Without any doubt, digital inclusion requires financial investment. However, it is clear that the rewards for this investment are beyond measure, not only economically but also in quality of life. In the present era of digital highways any country seeking for development needs to invest in social-digital inclusion. The digital divide in Brazil is seen as the countrys social exclusion and class division. The government, the civil society, and the private sector recognize ICTs as tools leading to social justice, citizenship, and local development. The Brazilian regulatory frameworks are centered in public intervention and public-private partnerships. In the U.S., the approach is pro-market, and whenever digital divide is accepted as a reality, it is linked to minoritys access, or to a rural/urban divide, but never to class issues [4], [8].

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

[15] [16] [17]

[18]

[19]

REFERENCES
[1] [2] World Internet Project, http://www.worldinternetproject.net. 2012. J. Pick and R. Azari, "Global Digital Divide: Influence of Socioeconomic, Governmental, and Accessibility Factors on Information Technology," Information Technology for Development, [20]

vol. 14, pp. 91-115, 2008. V. B. Mbarika, T.; Raymond, J., "Growth of Teledensity in Least Developed Coutries: Need for a Mitigated Euphoria," Journal of Global Information Management, vol. 10, 2012. P. Norris, "Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide," Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. S. Choemprayong, "Closing Digital Divides: The United States' Policies," International Journal of Libraries and Information Services (Libri), vol. 56, pp. 201-212, 2006. K. Mossberger, C. Tolbert, and M. Stansbury, "Virtual Inequality: Beyonf the Digital Divide," Georgetown Univeristy Press., 2003. M. Ribeiro, "Inclusao Digital e Cidadania. (In Portuguese)," www2.faac.unesp.br/blog/obsmidia/files/Maria-TherezaPillon-Ribeiro.pdf. (2012) J. Straubhaar, J. Spence, K. Gustoffsen, M. Rios, F. Ferreira, and V. Higgins, "Comparative analysis of information society discourse and public policy responses in the United States and Brazil," Revista LOGOS 28: Globalizacao e comunicacao international, vol. 15, pp. 84-104, 2008. Digital Nation - Expanding Internet Usage. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA). www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/.../NTIA_Internet_Use_Report_Fe bruary_2011.pdf (2012) M. Wynne and L. Cooper, "Power Up: The Campaign for Digital Inclusion," Microsoft, www.microsoft.com/digitalinclusion, 2011. CGI.BR. Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 2012. http://cgi.br/english/index.htm. 2012. (1995, Falling through the net: A survey on the "have nots" in rural and urban America. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) J. Sautter, R. Tippett, and S. Morgan, "The Social Demography of Internet Dating," Social Science Quarterly, vol. 91, pp. 554575, 2010. (2010, Digital Nation - 21st Century America's Progress Toward Universal Broadband Access. (NTIA). Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_r eport_Feb2010.pdf E. Wenger, N. White, J. Smith, and K. Rowe, "Technology for communities," CEFRIO Book Chapter v 5.2, 2005. The economic Impact of Digital Exclusion. Digital Impact Group, 2010. www.econsult.com/company_profile.htm. Jackson, L., Eye, A., Biocca, F., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Does the Internet Use Influence the Academic Performance of Low-Income Children? Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 429-435. F. Akhras, "Situating Learning for Digital Inclusion in the Social Context of Communities," The Journal of Community Informatics, vol. 7, 2011. P. Prado, M. Camara, and M. Figueiredo, "Evaluating ICT adoption in rural Brazil: a quantitative analysis of telecenters as agents of social change," The Journal of Community Informatics, vol. 7, 2011. T. Takahashi, "Sociedade da Informacao no Brasil: Livro Verde (Green Book)," Ministry of Science and Technology - Brasilia, 2000.

10

[21] Programa Nacional de Apoio a Inclusao Digital nas Comunidades. http://www.inclusaodigital.gov.br/telecentros (2012). [22] Balano do governo 2003-2010. DadosGov.-Presidencia da Republica Federativa do Brasil. Available: https://i3gov.planejamento.gov.br/textos/livro4/4.6_Inclusao _Digital.pdf (2012). [23] (2009, Plano Nacional para Banda Larga. Ministrio das Comunicaes. Available: http://www.mc.gov.br/images/pnbl/obrasil-em-alta-velocidade1.pdf (2012). [24] Federal Communications Commision - National Broadband Plan. Retrieved from http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. (2012) [25] Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics. (2010). PewInternet.http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/201 0/PIP_December09_update.pdf. (2012) [26] Incluso digital - Comparativo mundial da internet banda larga. Presidencia da Republica Federativa do Brasil. http://multimidia.brasil.gov.br/inclusaodigital/geral1.html (2012). [27] Digital Divide in the World. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8568681.stm (2012). [28] Analyse, Summarize, Nationwide. National Broadband Map. http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide (2012). [29] Consumers worldwide getting a better deal on broadband. ITU Telecommunication/ICT Statistics. ICT STATISTICS NEWSLOG. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/newslog/Consumers+Worldwide+Getting+A+Better+D eal+On+Broadband.aspx. (2012) A. M. Oliveira is an Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering Technology program at Michigan Technological University. She received the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA, in 2005. Dr. Oliveira is a member of the IEEE Photonics Society, the IEEE Women in Engineering Society, and the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). Dr. Oliveira research interest includes communication systems, digital signal processing, statistical analysis of communications systems performance. Dr. Oliveira has authored and coauthored 14 archival journal papers, 2 book chapters, 41 conference papers, and 16 professional presentations, and 11 invited talks/seminars. T. Menezes is with the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.