The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, edited by B. M. Compaine. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2001. xvii + 357 pp., $29.95. ISBN 0-262-53193-3.
The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, edited by B. M. Compaine. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2001. xvii + 357 pp., $29.95. ISBN 0-262-53193-3.
复制标题
《数字鸿沟：面对危机还是创造神话》，B. M. Compaine 编辑。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Anthony G. Wilhelm
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anthony G. Wilhelm
数字鸿沟的绰号很可能最终导致了一个历史空白，就像20世纪20年代的高中运动一样。争论从衡量谁可以使用x技术，到了解哪些应用程序将造福社会，从关于使用模式的讨论，到对信息技术国产化的影响和结果的更深入分析。在这一点上，数字鸿沟提供了一个耐人寻味的历史快照和一些经久不衰的理论见解。考虑到当前经济和政治气候中明显的不连续性，这本书也具有历史共鸣。急剧的经济低迷削弱了这本书的技术乐观主义者的论点，他们将20世纪90年代鼎盛时期的市场视为向所有美国人传播数字机会的无懈可击的先锋。此外，2001年美国的政治改造也对过去的政策造成了彻底的打击，因为在布什政府中，“数字鸿沟”一词似乎是一个不受欢迎的人，太多地承载着克林顿-戈尔支持的数字鸿沟议程中的再分配基调。这本书的相关性也与技术传播的快速步伐有关，特别是描述了关于技术差距状况的最新统计数据和数据的章节。考虑到互联网时代和网络岁月的流逝，试图以书籍的形式捕捉最新的市场研究相当于一个失败的提议。结语中捕捉到的来自美国商务部的“漏网之鱼”数据已经被取代，几乎没有特约作者谈论尖端的无线宽带信息和通信工具，如第三代无线或Ka波段卫星，这两种工具都为S提供了巨大的机遇，但也给无法负担或使用这些新服务的社区带来了相当大的障碍。书中播下了一些精彩的辩论，并在书的中间提出了有趣的理论见解。米尔顿·米勒的文章将普遍服务政策等同于财富再分配，做出了重要贡献，但他关于市场排他性基础设施发展战略的优点的论点仍未得到充分发展。穆勒的立场是，最有效的普遍服务政策是那些“建立一个开放的，有竞争力的经济”(第181页)回避了马克·库珀和吉恩·金梅尔曼在他们的章节中提出的两个有效的经验观点。首先，快速的行业整合迅速削减了有生存能力的市场竞争对手的阵容。其次，在那些幸存下来的通信公司中，它们的部署往往会避开低收入和农村社区。库珀和基梅尔曼提出了一个关键问题，那就是我们是时候“停止假装竞争即将到来”(第203页)。市场显然至关重要，但监管机构和立法者在确保公共利益得到保护方面的作用也是如此。这位编辑一开始就摆出了他的底牌，试图在我们翻开第一页之前消除数字鸿沟。本杰明·孔帕因认为，互联网的崛起类似于20世纪电视和广播等其他技术的发展，如果政府的角色得到整齐的限制，释放市场力量来促进竞争，互联网将继续以最有效的方式推出。这位编辑向我们挑战，在我们轻率地接受信息和通信工具作为一项基本权利之前，必须先弄清楚它们的好处。对于致力于这个问题的研究人员、倡导者和政策制定者来说，这是一个需要牢记的重要观点。不幸的是，特别是编辑和这本书的作者总体上很少分析信息和通信技术对经济福祉或教育进步的影响，从而
The moniker of the digital divide may very well end up having lled a historical lacuna, like the high-school movement of the 1920s. Debate has steadily shifted from gauging who has access to x technology to understanding what applications will bene t society—and from conversations about use patterns to deeper analyses of the impact and outcomes witnessed from the domestication of information technologies. In this light, The Digital Divide provides an intriguing historical snapshot and some enduring theoretical insights. The book also has historical resonance given the discontinuities apparent in the current economic and political climate. The precipitous economic downturn has undermined the argument of the book’s technological optimists who viewed the 1990s heyday markets as the unassailable vanguard in spreading digital opportunity to all Americans. The nation’s political makeover in 2001, moreover, has also delivered a clean blow to the policies of the past, since the term “digital divide” appears to be persona non grata in the Bush Administration, too heavily laden with the redistributive tenor of the largely Clinton–Gore-endorsed digital divide agenda. The book’s relevance is also tethered to the rapid pace of technological diffusion, particularly the chapters describing the latest statistics and data regarding the state of the technology gap. Given that Internet time and Web years y by, attempts to capture the freshest market research in book form amounts to a losing proposition . Already, the “Falling through the Net” data from the U.S. Department of Commerce captured in the epilogue have been superseded, and hardly a whisper is heard from contributing authors about leading-edge wireless broadband information and communications vehicles, such as thirdgeneration wireless or Ka-band satellite, both of which afford great opportunitie s as well as posing considerable hurdles to communities that are unable to afford or avail themselves of these new services. Some good debates are sown and interesting theoretical insights are made in the book’s middle. Milton Mueller’s article equating universal service policy with wealth redistribution makes an important contribution , yet his argument regarding the merits of a market-exclusive infrastructure development strategy remains underdeveloped. Mueller’s position that the most effective universal service policies are those that “build an open, competitive economy” (p. 181) eschews two valid empirical points raised by Mark Cooper and Gene Kimmelman in their chapter. First, rapid industry consolidation has quickly trimmed the playing eld of viable marketplace competitors. Second, of those communications companies that survive, their deployments tend to shy away from lowincome and rural communities. Cooper and Kimmelman raise the critical concern that it is time we “stop pretending that competition is right around the corner” (p. 203). Markets are obviously critical—but so are the roles of regulators and lawmakers to ensure that the public interest is protected. The editor lays his cards on the table at the outset, attempting to exorcise the digital divide before we have turned the rst page. Benjamin Compaine suggests that the rise of the Internet is akin to the development of other technologies in the 20th century—such as television and radio—and will continue to roll out most ef ciently if the role of government is neatly circumscribed and market forces are unleashed to foster competition. The editor challenges us to be clear about the bene ts of information and communications tools, before we move into headlong acceptance of them as a basic entitlement. This is an important point for researchers, advocates and policymakers who work on this issue to keep in mind. Unfortunately, the editor in particular and the book’s authors in general offer very little analysis of the impact information and communications technologies are having—say, on economic well-being or educational advancement—to allow