Introduction

As consumer products are introduced, adoption rates tend to vary across socioeconomic groups. In the case of computers and Internet access, these gaps have been termed by many the "digital divide." People with higher incomes and more education have substantially greater rates of access to technology. Likewise, whites and city-dwellers are more likely to have computers and Internet access than non-whites and those who live outside metropolitan areas. As with many other products and services, technology is not equally distributed.

Over the past five years, a series of digital divide reports by the U.S. Department of Commerce¹ has focused attention on the issue and led to a variety of programs aimed at increasing the number of Americans owning a computer and connected to the Internet. But in spite of a surfeit of data on the issue, interpretation of these numbers has yielded anything but consensus. On the one hand, liberals, seeking stronger government action have used the data to paint a pessimistic picture, pointing to figures that suggest the gaps between rich and poor and between whites and minorities are growing. In contrast, conservatives seeking to challenge any case for intervention, have painted a much more optimistic view, arguing that uptake rates are growing for even the poorest. As government considers how it might respond to gaps in computer and Internet access, it needs to base its decisions on clear thinking that objectively examines what has happened with past technologies, what is happening now, what is likely to happen, and what, if anything, justifies government action.

This paper places the issue of technological diffusion in historical perspective -- first, by analyzing the extent to which various technological divides have changed over recent years and, second, by comparing changes in the rate of penetration of these technologies with four earlier innovations -- telephones, radios, televisions, and VCRs. While history is not a perfect guide to the future, it can help us predict how rapidly technological adoption will occur.

For example, if today's social commentators were transported back 50 years when TV was in its infancy, they would have seen what might have been called a "TV divide" between rich television owners and poor non-owners. Yet 10 years, later the TV divide was essentially bridged as the number of Americans with television sets skyrocketed. On the other hand, if those same commentators were taken back 75 years, they would see another divide, this time over telephone service, that would not get bridged for more than 50 years, after government universal service requirements shaped the marketplace. Today, a key question is whether the so-called "digital divide" is more likely to follow the path of the TV or the telephone. Historical comparisons suggest that while the current gaps in computer ownership and Net access have risen over the past few years, they will soon begin to narrow as most Americans adopt these technologies.

With a better sense of digital divide trends, we can determine the proper role and timing of possible government intervention. For the time being, there is no compelling rationale for the government to subsidize computer purchases and Internet access for individuals. Broad subsidization is not warranted at a stage when many non-users could afford to become users if they wished to. Instead, government should work in partnership with the private sector to support access to computers and the Internet in schools, community centers, and other public places.

Moreover, even if technological gaps persist, this alone will not justify government intervention. Other technologies, such as the automobile, remain unequally distributed, yet no government reports have been commissioned to look at ways to reduce the number of carless households. The case for intervening to raise rates of computer ownership and Net access will only be made if we can establish more compelling reasons, such as boosting education and training and facilitating digital government. We believe that case can be made. As a result, if it appears that in the longer run, the few people not on the Internet are offline not because they choose to be but because they can't afford it, public subsidies of personal access may make sense. But we are still several years away from knowing whether this will be the case. This paper makes four recommendations for how governments should deal with differential access to computers and the Internet. PPI proposes that Congress and the Bush administration:

• Create a program to fund nonprofit initiatives that leverage private sector funding and talent to provide disadvantaged communities and individuals with access to computers and the Internet. Current federal digital divide efforts have largely failed to build on and leverage successful private-sector-led efforts across the nation. Allocating some funds on a matching basis can leverage and expand many of these very successful efforts.
• Create regional technology access and distribution centers where vendors could make their products and services available to community-based groups and at which follow-up support and technical assistance could be provided.
• Create a digital brigade within AmeriCorps to educate citizens in disadvantaged communities about technology.
• Monitor gaps in broadband access between different demographic groups and geographic areas.