Technology will continue to advance rapidly and poorer people (where they do not have internet access) will be even more disadvantaged as their relatively weaker skill set condemns them to falling even further behind. A joined up investment strategy is needed not just the internet alone.
I agree with other comments that these questions are too emotionally loaded and do not provide for a middle ground option
Yes Access to Internet should be a basic human right through the help of the governments. The Internet can improve people’s lives, so it is important for the government to make it affordable for people who could otherwise not access and use it.
86% would be good if social safety nets could cover basic internet access for the poor to allow them grow their economic strength . People, whether workers or school kids, without internet skills, computers skills, will be left behind everywhere. There's enough public money to fund safety nets. As we know too well the issue is that too much of the public money goes to subsidies for the rich. Better targeting, not affordability, is the issue to address and manage it for the poor people to access it easily to help them improve their lives.
Fenohasina - 9 years ago
If you think of the provision of internet as the provision of public goods which are non-rivalrous goods and have positive economic values, you are not really subsidizing it to the poor but providing some basic needs. Subsidy sounds to have a negative connotation given the inefficiencies in governance that it can entail and its costs but it is more of the provision of public goods that are necessary to the society.
David Palma Paz - 9 years ago
El internet fué creado en sus inicios para la educación. Hoy mucha gente tiene un movil pero sin acceso a internet y si lo usaran para la educación ( a lo mejor una hora diaria) en vez de5 horas en redes sociales, los problemas serian resueltos de manera diferente. Hay problemas domesticos donde los gobiernos no pueden actuar de inmediato y sin embargo he visto como la sociedad se ha solidarizado y ayudado en el caso de un transplante de organos, una tragedia de la naturaleza, o simplemente para comprarle un pantalon y una camisa a un niño que no tiene uniforme para ir a la escuela. La cuestión es que tenemos que crear conciencia en los ciudadanos que el abuso en el uso del internet puede ser contarproducente desde problemas fisicos, hasta problemas familiares o con los amigos por comentarios mal encausados en redes sosciales. El internet es maravilloso,facilita las compras, acorta las distancias con nuestros familiares y amigos, nos da la posibilidad de estar virtualmente donde nunca lo podriamos hacer físicamente y sin embargo mucha gente le da otro sentido: Propagación de pornografia libremente, propagación de venta de armas, comisión de delitos, eliminación de personas que te caen mal mediante el bullyng, etc. Las personas menos agraciadas economicamente (con el accesos a internet) podrian enterder el mundo y a las personas que tienen otros ingresos de otra manera y no solo como una vida llena de dolor y de sufrimiento a la cual han sido destinados por mandato divino o como un castigo por lo que hicieron sus antepasados. Los gobiernos tambien tendrian la ventaja de saber tendencias u opiniones sobre su trabajo, conocer donde se necesita más infraestructura o servicios básicos; la eduación (que ellos deben proporcionar a la población) sería mejor al tenet un apoyo en el uso del internet o al ser esta 100% virtual.
Luis Trevino - 9 years ago
The Internet enables people to connect within each other, raise awareness even to the government itself if a public service or a policy is not properly functioning, and potentially breaks political and mas media monopolies in both developed and developing countries.
Beatriz Moreno - 9 years ago
LA INTERNET debe ser subsidiada dependiendo de la infraestructura que haya, pero es casi ya un derecho especialmente de los niños, porque muchas veces no hay bibliotecas en ciertos lugares y sólo así tienen acceso a la información.
Luciano - 9 years ago
It is great to be able to offer Internet to everyone; the issue is whether the governments are really able to do so, especially to select Internet as a priority over other services.
William - 9 years ago
I think Steven sums the argument up very well below. 'Teach a man to fish....'
Steven - 9 years ago
The survey questions are very emotionally loaded. The internet should never be described as a right, however, I believe the internet is a powerful tool and if the poor can access it in an affordable way it empowers them. As such, governments would be wise to invest in internet infrastructure. However, if safe water supplies, sanitation and primary health services are not available the money would be better spent on those items.
In the perfect world there should be a balance between spending money which empowers the poor to SURVIVE (e.g. basic health care, clean water) and those things which enable them to THRIVE independently (e.g. education and internet access)
Gaurav - 9 years ago
A point to ponder: The voters on this poll are more likely to be more frequent users of the Internet and may be more likely to consider the Internet a necessity than the median world citizen, and definitely far more than the median developing country citizen.
Michael - 9 years ago
The Internet is not a luxury
Paula - 9 years ago
I am curious as to why the question was framed in terms of the internet, specifically, rather than in terms of ICT. The 2012 ICT4D report, after all, was entitled "Maximizing Mobile."
Elaine - 9 years ago
It would be interesting to see the cost-benefit analysis of whether a dollar spent on a basic services (which mainly benefits an individual) or a dollar spent on internet infrastructure (which benefits the community and has improves economic potential) leads to better outcomes overall. My sense is that the value for money will be higher on internet infrastucture than basic services.
Umesh Pala - 9 years ago
You know everything has advantage and disadvantage so internet also have both.
In developing countries it is agreatest advantage and forhe poor countries it is not recommended as we have to first think for their basic needs like food, clean water, education, transport and much more basic facilities.
So it is our foremost duty to mitigate the problems in this countries and make sure that the poor people should also come to the dias and share their views and adopt the next generation software.
Rui Monteiro - 9 years ago
Last week I not feeling very comfortable with the alternative statements, but I could somehow vote for one of them. Today I simply can't --- your options are too extreme, and they do not help analists or decision-makers. I do not accept that "access to the Internet should be a basic human right". And I do not accept that "Internet is a luxury". And, most important, I do not accept being forced into this dichotomy --- as I do not consider that policy decisions should be based on referendum. Anyway, congratulations for bringing this topic to the broad WBG audience---even when not voting, colleagues will ponder and discuss the topics you raise.
Kari - 9 years ago
It would be good if social safety nets could cover basic internet access for the poor. People, whether workers or school kids, without internet skills, computers skills, will be left behind everywhere. There's enough public money to fund safety nets. As we know too well the issue is that too much of the public money goes to subsidies for the rich. Better targeting, not affordability, is the issue to address.
Technology will continue to advance rapidly and poorer people (where they do not have internet access) will be even more disadvantaged as their relatively weaker skill set condemns them to falling even further behind. A joined up investment strategy is needed not just the internet alone.
I agree with other comments that these questions are too emotionally loaded and do not provide for a middle ground option
Yes Access to Internet should be a basic human right through the help of the governments. The Internet can improve people’s lives, so it is important for the government to make it affordable for people who could otherwise not access and use it.
86% would be good if social safety nets could cover basic internet access for the poor to allow them grow their economic strength . People, whether workers or school kids, without internet skills, computers skills, will be left behind everywhere. There's enough public money to fund safety nets. As we know too well the issue is that too much of the public money goes to subsidies for the rich. Better targeting, not affordability, is the issue to address and manage it for the poor people to access it easily to help them improve their lives.
If you think of the provision of internet as the provision of public goods which are non-rivalrous goods and have positive economic values, you are not really subsidizing it to the poor but providing some basic needs. Subsidy sounds to have a negative connotation given the inefficiencies in governance that it can entail and its costs but it is more of the provision of public goods that are necessary to the society.
El internet fué creado en sus inicios para la educación. Hoy mucha gente tiene un movil pero sin acceso a internet y si lo usaran para la educación ( a lo mejor una hora diaria) en vez de5 horas en redes sociales, los problemas serian resueltos de manera diferente. Hay problemas domesticos donde los gobiernos no pueden actuar de inmediato y sin embargo he visto como la sociedad se ha solidarizado y ayudado en el caso de un transplante de organos, una tragedia de la naturaleza, o simplemente para comprarle un pantalon y una camisa a un niño que no tiene uniforme para ir a la escuela. La cuestión es que tenemos que crear conciencia en los ciudadanos que el abuso en el uso del internet puede ser contarproducente desde problemas fisicos, hasta problemas familiares o con los amigos por comentarios mal encausados en redes sosciales. El internet es maravilloso,facilita las compras, acorta las distancias con nuestros familiares y amigos, nos da la posibilidad de estar virtualmente donde nunca lo podriamos hacer físicamente y sin embargo mucha gente le da otro sentido: Propagación de pornografia libremente, propagación de venta de armas, comisión de delitos, eliminación de personas que te caen mal mediante el bullyng, etc. Las personas menos agraciadas economicamente (con el accesos a internet) podrian enterder el mundo y a las personas que tienen otros ingresos de otra manera y no solo como una vida llena de dolor y de sufrimiento a la cual han sido destinados por mandato divino o como un castigo por lo que hicieron sus antepasados. Los gobiernos tambien tendrian la ventaja de saber tendencias u opiniones sobre su trabajo, conocer donde se necesita más infraestructura o servicios básicos; la eduación (que ellos deben proporcionar a la población) sería mejor al tenet un apoyo en el uso del internet o al ser esta 100% virtual.
The Internet enables people to connect within each other, raise awareness even to the government itself if a public service or a policy is not properly functioning, and potentially breaks political and mas media monopolies in both developed and developing countries.
LA INTERNET debe ser subsidiada dependiendo de la infraestructura que haya, pero es casi ya un derecho especialmente de los niños, porque muchas veces no hay bibliotecas en ciertos lugares y sólo así tienen acceso a la información.
It is great to be able to offer Internet to everyone; the issue is whether the governments are really able to do so, especially to select Internet as a priority over other services.
I think Steven sums the argument up very well below. 'Teach a man to fish....'
The survey questions are very emotionally loaded. The internet should never be described as a right, however, I believe the internet is a powerful tool and if the poor can access it in an affordable way it empowers them. As such, governments would be wise to invest in internet infrastructure. However, if safe water supplies, sanitation and primary health services are not available the money would be better spent on those items.
In the perfect world there should be a balance between spending money which empowers the poor to SURVIVE (e.g. basic health care, clean water) and those things which enable them to THRIVE independently (e.g. education and internet access)
A point to ponder: The voters on this poll are more likely to be more frequent users of the Internet and may be more likely to consider the Internet a necessity than the median world citizen, and definitely far more than the median developing country citizen.
The Internet is not a luxury
I am curious as to why the question was framed in terms of the internet, specifically, rather than in terms of ICT. The 2012 ICT4D report, after all, was entitled "Maximizing Mobile."
It would be interesting to see the cost-benefit analysis of whether a dollar spent on a basic services (which mainly benefits an individual) or a dollar spent on internet infrastructure (which benefits the community and has improves economic potential) leads to better outcomes overall. My sense is that the value for money will be higher on internet infrastucture than basic services.
You know everything has advantage and disadvantage so internet also have both.
In developing countries it is agreatest advantage and forhe poor countries it is not recommended as we have to first think for their basic needs like food, clean water, education, transport and much more basic facilities.
So it is our foremost duty to mitigate the problems in this countries and make sure that the poor people should also come to the dias and share their views and adopt the next generation software.
Last week I not feeling very comfortable with the alternative statements, but I could somehow vote for one of them. Today I simply can't --- your options are too extreme, and they do not help analists or decision-makers. I do not accept that "access to the Internet should be a basic human right". And I do not accept that "Internet is a luxury". And, most important, I do not accept being forced into this dichotomy --- as I do not consider that policy decisions should be based on referendum. Anyway, congratulations for bringing this topic to the broad WBG audience---even when not voting, colleagues will ponder and discuss the topics you raise.
It would be good if social safety nets could cover basic internet access for the poor. People, whether workers or school kids, without internet skills, computers skills, will be left behind everywhere. There's enough public money to fund safety nets. As we know too well the issue is that too much of the public money goes to subsidies for the rich. Better targeting, not affordability, is the issue to address.