David mentions that there is little evidence of the impact of mobile initiatives, but isn't communications itself considered a social good? Isn't the ability to communicate easily and cheaply with your loved ones improve the quality of life, or are we defining "development" strictly in economic terms?

Also, in the article posted, it mentions a mobile phone in development by the Emerging Market Handset Program that costs less than $30. However, many pay-as-you-go providers currently offer phones for less than that (Tracfone for example, offers a phone for $9.99) How are they able to do that?

1) I suspect that development here is pretty strictly economic-- if you can talk to your loved ones but all they can say is "we're hungry!" that's not necessarily huge progress.

2) I suspect that the phones on offer are priced so low because they make up the money on the calls. I didn't have a chance to read the emerging handset program article but that $30 would probably be the real price of the device, which can then be further offset by the cost of calls.

I think if we are talking about starving people, obviously they have other concerns than communications - but that is perhaps a rather simplistic view of "the poor". I am also thinking about the poor South African villager who has moved to the city to try to make money to support his family. Having the ability to talk to his family can make the separation less painful and thus improve his quality of life in a difficult situation.

Just because a technology is not necessarily directed to the poorest of the poor doesn't mean that it has less value.

Hi Brad, You make a very good point about communications and the high social value of being able to easily get in touch with friends and family. I think that the demand for this type of communication was much higher that anyone anticipated; that combined with 'pay as you go' schemes that match the cash flow needs of low income consumers have been the key drivers for cell phone adoption around the world (of course along with the falling costs of technology). This ease of communication has enabled other immediate impacts like the ability to call ahead to make sure that the person that you want to meet is going to be there, the tractor part that you need is in stock, and the government office that you need to visit is open!

These all happened relatively organically. Now that so many people have cell phones, the next question to ask is: are there organized ways that the mobile phone can be used to better meet the needs of low income communities?

The Tracfone is amazingly cheap and I think that the business model evolves around subsidizing the phone and making it up on the minutes (Tracfone fee is $0.20 per minute; my service on ATT is about $0.02 per minute, though you must commit to their 2 year contract). By lowering the initial investment Tracfone is able to tap into those with very limited incomes or limited cell phone needs in the US. For those who better understand Tracfone, please weigh in.

Interestingly, earlier this month, Nokia, announced its lowest-cost handset to date, the 1202, which will sell for about $32. And sometime next year, for as little as $50, the 2320 Classic and 2323 Classic will allow users to set up e-mail accounts and surf the web, capabilities only available on more expensive phones today. My India contacts tell me that unlimited web surfing is available in India for just over $4 per month.

When I was in South Africa I often received text messages and recorded messages that had a public service context. These included information about government services and information about public health issues. I am not sure if they are still doing that, but that seemed like an effective way to reach people.

I am not sure about the Tracefone model. Sure they charge a lot for the minutes, but the monthly fee (if you don't use your phone more than 30 min per month) amounts to about $10 per month. So for the person who only occasionally uses their phone this is a very cheap service. Does anyone know whether it costs more to the phone company to keep a phone active (monthly service fees) or when people use their phones a lot (per minute fees)? The economic models used by the cell phone companies interest me a lot. Any good papers or links would be appreciated.

1. billion of the world's 6.7 billion people are "connected" through cell phones.

There are many social bottom lines as well as issues that arise from both the developed and developing world's use of this technology.

In the US for example, over 500 million cell phones are retired each year, creating electronic waste that contaminates drinking water. To curb this issue, we created a free program called Recycle to Eradicate Poverty. It allows anyone in the US, via www.onemillioncellphones.com, the opportunity to recycle their old cell phones to fund microfinance loans to the poor.

Mobiles have penetrated to even those villages that have no electricity and no landlines and hence kudos to the technology. However, to allow the technology to penetrate more its cost must be cut down for the BOP or innovative tailored schemes should be launched that increase consumption at reasonable prices. Perhaps transfer some money from the TOP users under a 'philanthropic' call-scheme!!!!!

Hi Brian, The most recent stats I have seen are that over 3.4 M people have cell phone subscriptions and that roughly 80% of the world is within 'connectivity reach' of a cell phone signal. These numbers don't account for families (or other groups) that share one phone, or for subscribers that have multiple phone numbers, but certainly the penetration is huge.

Congratulations on your work with onemillioncellphones. My old phone was recycled, but I will be sending my old ink cartridges to Phone raiser!!

Before we leave the economic benefits of “high social value” and delve totally into nuts-n-bolts, can I interject for possible consideration notions which might be related? When ICT and mobile applications first burst on the scene one of the buzz words which came with them was ‘disintermediation’ which acts on models for development in a sort of a stand-it-on-its-head fashion. By that I mean rather than technology becoming solely a tool for increasing economic benefits by increasing returns, there are benefits to be found in decreasing expenses. I think I’ve yet to see a broad-based media metric (or any tracked metric), like the DOW or Nasdaq, say, which regularly or broadly graphed the cost-savings or decline in expenses offered by ICTs. But ask those who have benefited from the disintermediation effects of ICTs…or those who have seen their businesses and organizations vanish as a result. And when sustainability is at the center of so many economic discussions nowadaze, this aspect of “reducing our footprint” could be a powerful element, perhaps?

Also, speaking of social-value metrics, are we framing this discussion in terms of GNP measures, or GNH…the Gross National Happiness…like, say, Bhutan does?

Then, too, are there socially-related, watershed or state-change shifts going on among mobile-phone users themselves which create or eliminate possible development opportunities? See, for example: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3781136 If one is hoping to derive some economic development benefit from a market, how that market itself is changing can be of critical importance if one hopes to achieve success.

Oh, and then there’s this perspective from my part of the mobile BoP world. Not sure how it fits this discussion, or if it even does. Perhaps just something about the law of unintended consequences? http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=106657

Mike

I think there is actually sufficient evidence re the impact of mobile initiatives.

The following link is to a UN Foundation – Vodaphone Group Foundation Partnership paper, which outlines a study re "Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in Mobile Use by NGO's" ..; http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/business/2008/unvodaphone.pdf

Another appropriate resource: "Mobile Phones and Social Activism - An Ethan Zuckerman White Paper" http://mobileactive.org/mobile-phones-and-social-activism-ethan-zuckerman-white-paper

Another supporting resource (video): "Will social networking on mobile devices take off?" from the AlwaysOn Summit at Stanford University, http://news.zdnet.com/2422-13568_22-212560.html

And from Ethan Zuckerman's blog, "Social lions, fiscally-literate mobile phones", where he mentions a plan -Emu- which teachs youth thru a reward system investment / $ management skills : http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/07/29/social-lions-fiscally-literate-mobile-phones/

Recently @ the annual bioneers conference in San Rafael, CA (which has live-feeds via satellite @ a number of locations in cities across the U.S.), author and environmentalist Bill Mckibben - founder of www.350.org - utilized the cell phone to rally activists from locations across the U.S. via the simple text tool to challenge our recent U.S. Presidential canidates to focus on the issue of climate change, and the U.S. role in global climate talks in Poland: more info: http://connect.bioneers.org/forum/topics/1233360:Topic:42342.

My intention is not to inundate the discussion-board with links!; but I do want to support my point with credible resources. Look forward to following this disscussion further.

Received this today via listserve I’m on. Given the topic and talent here, thought it worth posting. m

From: "Dave Ferguson" Date: 18 November 2008 1:08:09 PM Subject: Opportunity to compete in a USAID Challenge to Bring Innovation to USAID and win a $10,000 grant Reply-To:

This is USAID's first - ever open source challenge for the chance to win a $10,000 grant for the idea for the best mobile phone application to solve a pressing international development issue. We're trying to incubate innovation at USAID through nontraditional sources, and you can help. Please enter the 2008 USAID Development 2.0 Challenge or funnel this announcement to your listservs to encourage budding innovators you know to enter at www.netsquared.org/usaid! There are only two weeks left to present your most innovative ideas for a mobile technology application to address pressing issues in food security, health, or other socioeconomic areas in developing countries. Your entries will be judged by a renowned panel of experts from the public and private sector and foundations, and you could win a $10,000 grant. Your idea could be used in a developing country by USAID to improve the work that it does to help people prosper. Please share the attached document that explains the USAID Development 2.0 Challenge with anyone you know who may be interested . The deadline for entries is November 28th.

If you're simply interested in the open source challenge process, please visit www.netsquared.org/usaid and click on the Project Gallery to review what's there. Your comments and suggestions on each entry can help to create the most sustainable solutions for international development.

Dave Ferguson Ferguson Strategic Technology Services LLC office 703-880-6720 Washington DC Metro Area skype: ddferguson5

Another sign that the barrier to entry is falling comes from the MTN Group, a South Africa-based carrier, that has operations in 17 countries in Africa including Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa, and four countries in the Middle East including Iran, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

Last week it confirmed that it has dispatched a team of engineers to China to source mobile phones that the company can sell for $10 in Africa, one of the world’s fastest growing mobile markets. (http://www.redherring.com/Home/25543). They are also trying to develop a smartphone that will sell for about $40 retail.

Whether or not they will be successful and how well the phone will meet user's needs is still in question, but this is an exciting development!

Ken Banks raises some important questions, and challenges some of our ICT4D "do gooder" assumptions, in this relevant PC World post: http://www.pcworld.com/article/154274/mobile_finance_indigenous_ingenious_or_both.html

He asks: "Should technology solutions aimed at the developing world, and mobile solutions in particular, seek to build on and enhance indigenous, traditional activities

economic or otherwise -- or, where necessary, is it okay just to replace and lose them?"

It is easy for us to get caught up in Western notions of what works and what doesn't, what scales and what doesn't, and how do you measure impact? As Banks' points out, it's also important to address questions of cultural imperialism and replacement of indigenous systems.

I just came across some more recent stats that I wanted to share (from the International Telecom Union website athttp://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2008/29.html)

ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré announced in late September that worldwide mobile cellular subscribers are likely to reach the 4 billion mark before the end of this year. Since the turn of the century, the growth of mobile cellular subscribers has been impressive, with year-on-year growth averaging 24 per cent between 2000 and 2008. While in 2000, mobile penetration stood at only 12 per cent, it surpassed the 50 per cent mark by early 2008. It is estimated to reach about 61 per cent by the end of 2008.

Thoush this 61 per cent penetration rate suggests that at least every second person could be using a mobile phone, this is not necessarily the case. Keep in mind my earlier caution: these numbers don't account for families (or other groups) that share one phone, or for subscribers that have multiple phone numbers. Also as the ITU points out, the impressive growth in the number of mobile cellular subscribers is mainly due to developments in some of the world’s largest markets, particularly the BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

thanks for the link to the post PLamb, Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom explore related thoughtrains in their recent book

The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.