KEYNOTE ADDRESS, Tim Kelly (infoDev, World Bank) | Presentation

SESSION 1: Mobile Internet Use, Chaired by Francois Bar (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California)

- The iPhone and Mobile Access to the Internet, Richard Ling (Telenor/IT University of Copenhagen) and Pål Roe Sundsøy | Paper | Presentation

- New Paths: Exploring Mobile-only Internet Use in South Africa, Jonathan Donner (Microsoft Research, India) and Shikoh Gitau (University of Cape Town) | Paper | Presentation

- Internet and Online Media Usage on Mobile Phones Among Low-Income Urban Youth in Cape Town, Tino Kreutzer (Center for Film and Media Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa) | Paper | Presentation

SESSION 2: Trends in Mobile Usage: Part I,  Chaired by Tim Kelly (infoDev, The World Bank)

- Mobile Phones Use and Social Network Development Among Small Malaysian Retailers,  Tom Erik Julsrud, Grace Roldan and Andrew Wong (Telenor Research & Innovation, Norway and Malaysia) | Paper | Presentation

- Social Influence in Mobile Phone Adoption: Evidence from the Bottom of Pyramid,   Harsha de Silva and Dimuthu Ratnadiwakara  (LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka) | Paper | Presentation

- Education, Mobile Phone Use and Production Decisions: A Rural Case Study in Peru, Aileen  Agüero (DIRSI – Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP), Peru) | Paper | Presentation

SESSION 3:  Trends in Mobile Usage: Part II, Chaired by Rohan Samarajiva (LIRNEasia)

- Mobile Teens in Taiwan, Yi-Fan Chen (Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, College of Arts and Letters, Old Dominion University, USA) | Paper | Presentation

- The Strategic Use of Mobile Phones Among Poor People in Some Latin American Countries, Luis Fernando Gamboa (Department of Economics, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia) | Paper | Presentationarno

- Mobile Phones and Migrant Workers in Malaysia, Grace Roldan (Telenor Research & Innovation Centre Asia Pacific, Malaysia)| Paper | Presentation

SESSION 4:  Mobiles and Social Networking, Chaired by Grace Roldan (Telenor Research and Innovation Asia Pacific)

- Camera Phone and Photography Among French Young Users, Corinne Martin (CREM Metz University, France) | Paper | Presentation

- Political Involvement in “Mobilized” Society: The Interactive Relationships Among Mobile Communication, Social Network Characteristics, and Political Life, Scott Campbell and Nojin Kwak (Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan, USA) | Paper | Presentation

- Navigating Expansive Social Horizons: The Social Utility of Mobile Phone E-mail Among Japanese Youth, Jeffrey Boase (Department of Communication, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA) and Mito Akiyoshi (Senshu University, Japan) | Paper | Presentation

- GPS Mobile Social Networks: Reexamining Our Interactions with Urban Space, Lee Humphreys (Department of Communication, Cornell University, USA) | Paper | Presentation

SESSION 5:  New Mobile Applications: Mobile Health, Education, News and Information Services, Chaired by Harsha de Silva (LIRNEasia)

- Perceptions of the Mobile Device as a News Medium from a Cross-cultural Perspective, Oscar Westlund (Department of Journalism and Mass communication, Göteborg University, Sweden) | Paper | Presentation

- CellBazaar, a Mobile-based E marketplace: Success Factors and Potential for Expansion, Ayesha Zainudeen , Rohan Samarajiva and Nirmali Sivapragasam (LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka) | Paper | Presentation

- The Aceh Besar Midwives with Mobile Phone Program: Design and Evaluation Perspectives Using the Information and Communication Technologies for Healthcare Model, Arul Chib (Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) | Paper | Presentation

- Mobile Voices: A Mobile, Open Source, Popular Communication Platform for First-Generation Immigrants in Los Angeles, Francois Bar (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, USA), Melissa Brough  Sasha Costanza-Chock, Amanda Garces, Carmen Gonzalez, and Cara Wallis | Paper | Presentation

SESSION 6: Mobile TV and Cinema: Part I Chaired by Richard Ling (Telenor/IT University of Copenhagen)

- Comparison of Mobile TV in Singapore and Taiwan: A Social-technical System Approach, Trisha Tsui-Chuan Lin (Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) and Yu-Li Liu (National Chengchi University, Taiwan) | Paper | Presentation

- Towards A Realistic Assessment of Mobile TV Developments, Anders  Henten , Reza Tadayoni and Iwona Windekilde  (CMI, Aalborg University, Denmark) | Paper | Presentation

- “Lonely Adopters”? An Exploratory Study of Early Adopters of Mobile Television and their Mobile Phone Appropriation, Veronika Karnowski (Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung, der LMU München, Germany), Thilo von Pape (Université Paul-Verlaine, Metz, France) and Werner  Wirth (Universität Zürich , Switzerland) | Paper | Presentation

- GPSFilm:  Location-Based Mobile Cinema, Scott Hessels (School of Art, Design and Media, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) | Paper | Presentation

- Mobile Communication Uses in Television Narratives: An Exploration of Apparatgeist Theory, Emil Bakke (Ohio University, USA) and L. Meghan Peirce (Ohio University, USA) | Paper | Presentation

SESSION 7:  New Concerns Arising from New Technology, Chaired by Robin Mansell (London School of Economics and Political Science)

- Problems with Digital Inclusion and Public/Privacy Issues of Mobile Technology, Muneo Kaigo (Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Japan) | Paper | Presentation

- The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm, Keith N. Hampton , Oren Livio and Lauren Sessions (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, USA) | Paper | Presentation

- Managing Mobility: Location-based Services and the Politics of Mobile Spaces, Heather Maguire (Communications & Culture, York University, Canada | Paper | Presentation

The draft program for this one-and-a-half day preconference is now available. Twenty five papers were selected through a peer-reviewed process; papers based on research in 15 countries in five continents in on various aspects of mobile usage will be presented. Registration can be completed through the ICA conference website.

Mobile2.0: Beyond Voice?

Mobile phones are becoming increasingly important in bringing people into the Information Society.  It is widely accepted that the inhabitants of the future household will carry mobile devices that will be capable of voice and data communication, information retrieval and forms of entertainment consumption. Mobiles are now (and will increasingly become) payment devices that can also send, process and receive voice, text as well as images; in the next few years they will also be capable of information-retrieval and publishing functions normally associated with the Internet. Through such services and applications, industry experts predict that many in emerging markets will experience the Internet, or ‘elements’ of the Internet for the first time through a mobile phone, rather than a PC; mobile payments, mobile social networking, SMS voting are just a few examples of some of these services and applications.

Emerging markets appear to be following a different trajectory from developed markets; while the latter are moving forward via triple- and quadruple-play scenarios, the former are moving on paths that involve mobile phones as the key platform for bringing people affordably into the Information Society; something we describe as “2.0.”

This preconference will draw together research constituting evidence for and against this emerging Mobile2.0 narrative in the context of the larger social-science understanding of mobile-use behavior.  The preconference will also contribute to understanding emerging mobile use patterns.

The keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Tim Kelly, Lead ICT Policy Specialist at the World Bank. Papers will be presented by academics from the US, as well as Asia, Latin America, Europe and Africa.

The pre-conference is being organized by LIRNEasia (www.lirneasia.net).  For more information please contact sivapragasam[at]lirne.net

Draft program 1.7

ICA is an academic association for scholars interested in the study, teaching, and application of all aspects of human and mediated communication. The ICA is over 50 years old, begining as a small association of U.S. researchers and is now an international association with more than 4,300 members in 70 countries. The ICA includes 24 divisions and interest groups, each representing a special subfield of communication processes and phenomena.

ICA holds an annual conference at which several hundred research papers are presented and over 2,000 scholars from all over the world participate. LIRNEasia will organise a 1.5 day preconference workshop at the conference, entitled “Mobile2.0: Beyond Voice?” The call for abstracts can be viewed here.

The following letter by a reader to USA Today highlights similar concerns – may be in another context.

WHY SHOULD BROADBAND BE FREE?

James Lakely – Chicago

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin’s reference to the phone industry exposes the weakness of his argument to provide free broadband access in the USA.

Yes, copper phone lines were, for decades, “the main means of communication for millions of Americans.” But the government didn’t invent that technology, nor give it away for free. The market provided, and Americans paid for it via private transactions. Even if one views broadband as a public utility, why should it be free while Americans pay for basics such as water, garbage and, yes, phone service?

The FCC’s proper role is to regulate as lightly as possible so the market can develop innovative technologies while competition keeps prices affordable. Just as there is no free lunch, there is no “free” broadband.

(Open to comment)

As Jonathon Donner mentions , there is a distinct value to discussing related papers among a group of like-minded researchers for a day and a half. Discussion at ICA conferences proper is choppy and disjointed, and in some cases, there are more people who are presenting than in the audience. At a pre-conference, the conversation flows without distraction among a group of committed researchers.

Harsha and I thought it would not be a bad idea to respond to Rich Ling’s request that someone volunteer to organize the next event because we expect to have a whole lot of research findings related to mobile in hand by mid 2009, both from the Teleuse @ BOP 3 research and from the Mobile 2.0 research. But obviously, we cannot flood the sessions with our own research. What we want to do is to form a panel of reviewers to do double-blind review of extended abstracts, somewhat on the same lines as we do in CPRsouth . Obvious candidates are Rich Ling , Jim Katz (who gave the keynote in Montreal) and Francois Bar, who is leading an interesting research effort on mobile at U of Southern California. In addition I hope to invite some colleagues from DIRSI and RIA . We will ensure that developed-country topics as well as developing-country topics will be featured. The Chicago meeting should be of interest to IDRC as well. Once the advisory committee is formed, we hope to disseminate the call for abstracts through all the above networks

In the case of Singapore, we will try to get some of the regional operators and equipment manufacturers to participate, in addition those working on mobile issues within CPRsouth.

Some participants at the preconference had expressed interest in forming a Special Interest Group and laying claim to time inside the conference program. Having been too immersed in the political economy of scholarly communication in my previous life, I indicated to Rich that we have no interest. Of course we would have absolutely no objection to anyone else taking the lead on forming a Special Interest Group.

Suggestions are welcome.

There is clear consensus that our nation’s ability to compete in the high speed broadband world is essential to our economic future. Unfortunately, the Administration and the Federal Communications Commission continue to rely upon inadequate, highly-flawed data to assess the marketplace for high-speed Internet access. The Administration’s “mission Accomplished” rhetoric does not match reality:

* According to a September 2007 Pew Internet & American Life Project phone survey, roughly half of all Americans don’t have broadband at home. Half is far from universal.
* Fewer than 25% of New Yorkers in rural areas have access to broadband service and nearly two-thirds of people living in New York City lack access to affordable, high-speed broadband. Some New York City neighborhoods — like Sunset Park, Red Hook and Hunts Point — don’t even have affordable access beyond a dial-up connection
* Ten percent of Chicago area residents do not even have access to DSL service
* Broadband growth in the US is slowing — down 15 percent from last year’s pace
* The Administration has argued that while the U.S. may be behind in percentage of subscribers, we are the #1 in the world in total number of subscribers – thus we have won. But news from China suggests that it now has 122 million broadband users — the highest number in the world.

When the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) first collected data on broadband penetration in 2001, the US ranked 4th among the 30 nations surveyed. In June 2004, President Bush noted that America then ranked 10th amongst the industrialized world in per capita broadband penetration. “That’s not good enough,” he said at the US Department of Commerce. “We don’t like to be ranked 10th in anything. The goal is to be ranked 1st when it comes to per capita use of broadband technology. It’s in our nation’s interest. It’s good for our economy.” According to OECD June 2007 data, After several years of steady decline in the rankings, the US ranked 15th among industrialized nationals in broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants..

Powered by ScribeFire.

Municipal Wi-Fi | Reality bites | Economist.com

IT WAS supposed to democratise the internet and turn America’s city-dwellers into citizen-surfers. In 2004 the mayors of Philadelphia and San Francisco unveiled ambitious plans to provide free wireless-internet access to all residents using Wi-Fi, a technology commonly used to link computers to the internet in homes, offices, schools and coffee-shops. Across America, hundreds of cities followed suit. Yet many municipal Wi-Fi projects have since been hit by mounting costs, poor coverage and weak demand. This week Chicago became the first big city to abandon its plans for a city-wide network. “Everyone would like something for free,” says Chuck Haas of MetroFi, a supplier of municipal Wi-Fi systems. But the numbers do not add up.Most city governments did not want to build or run the Wi-Fi systems themselves, so they farmed the job out to specialist firms such as EarthLink and MetroFi. These companies initially agreed to bear all expenses, expecting to sign up 10-25% of each city’s population for a fee-based wireless service. In some places this was to have been supplemented by a free service at lower speed, or supported by advertising. Some cities also planned to subsidise access for poor residents.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA) and LIRNEasia have partnered to conduct an in-depth baseline sector analysis of the BPO sector in Sri Lanka, to assess its direct, as well as indirect impacts on the country, and to identify opportunities and constraints for its growth.

The preliminary findings of the analysis will be presented at the colloquium. The finalized country report will be available publicly and it is envisaged that it would constitute an essential input in the formulation of effective policies that would catalyze sector growth.

The study tries to understand three main areas – infrastructure, labor and govt provision of services. For example where the industry is today, what kind of jobs have been created, the infrastructure issues part with electricity and communications, the HR issues (whether there are enough people and whether these people had the necessary transport etc to to come into work, etc), tax relief, etc.

What is a BPO?
A BPO is defined in this study as an independent entity that took on an entire process that was outsourced (eg: HSBC Call Center). This excluded the software (eg: Virtusa) and garment industries (eg: MAS).

Nuwan – as in garment sector, is a cost center considered a ‘BPO’?

Harsha -No

The company has to be an ITES & separate legal entity to be considered in the survey; resultantly, only less than 30 companies were eligible, and 21 were surveyed.

Astron was the first BPO (entered in 1983, previously known as ‘Data Entry International’). In the earlier days, they used to do data entry, but they were not online at that stage. It is one of the largest employers; presently, Astron & HSBC are the largest employers ; other BPOs don’t employ large numbers. Some of them have as little as 3 employees only.

Can it be concluded that a lot of these companies come in as BPOs only to enjoy the tax holiday they get?
Harsha – The tax incentives have been available since 1989 and I don’t think this has had any effect on the spurt of BPOs opening up in 2003-2005.

The final study will try to relate the policies that may have affected (if at all)the sector to the growth in the sector.

The findings….
Reasons for locating in Sri Lanka: The main reasons that BPOs cited for locating in SL were low labor costs, low operational costs, and tax incentives.

Investments: BPO investments in Sri Lanka Investments are mostly made by offshore BPOs. Onshore investments are a total of equipment and labor costs only as they do not invest in land and buildings (except for the large offshore BPOs).

[Offshore - the process is outsourced outside of your country. Onshore - the process is outsourced within the country.]

Sujata: Is there a difference between offshore and onshore employment? Dilshani: This will be covered in detail in the final report.

Services on offer: Almost half the companies offer accounting services.

Most of the BPOs in SL are non-captive (not a part of a parent company; they bid for work independently); this may explain the concern for security in SL and SL’s image. THey are also concerned about transport facilities in the country.

Employment:
Astron & HSBC employ large numbers. Some of the others are planning on increasing employment ; but when they have 2-3 employees and increase it by 2-3 more people then the growth rate will be 100%, which may be misleading cause their sizes are very small.
Harsha: we can ask BPOs how many years they have been in existence and ask them how many employees they have

Nuwan – is ther a correlation between the number of employees & investment, turnover (e.g 3 employes could be running 10 servers, which is a lot of work!)

Dilshani – we tried to find out turnover in terms of export earnings but they have not responded.

Helani – perhaps SL is just a location for many small BPOs, unlike india who has many big ones. Is there a difference in the reasons for setting up in SL between offshore & onshore? Why would local BPOs locate themselves in Sri Lanka? It can’t be cheap labor and operating costs, can it?

Dilshani – there were no differences in the reasons cited between the two groups. its cost based.

Sriganesh (in Chicago)- even in india, altho offshore investments are large, ..>??? Its the policy environment that encourages BPOs to locate. Eg. getting land.

Nuwan – we started much later than India; shouldn’t we compare india at year 1 with SL at year 1, rather than india & SL in year 2006.

Harsha – we don’t have the data.

Luxman – SL liberalised far earlier than India.

Sriganesh – anomalies in the data? e.g. most companies say they give compulsary training in speech/language. why is this necessary, unless the BPOs are predominantly call-centers?

Divakar – what are the policy persepectives that can be taken from this? what can be done from a policy perspective to encourage BPOs? what barriers can be removed?

Harsha – Zoning – e.g have BPO parks or zones. this will for e.g sort out the transportation problems, along with other infrastructure problems.

Divakar – in SL we don’t have the scale of operations to make transportion for BPO workers economical.

Luxman: Infrastructure issues will depend on scale of operations.

Dilshani – the political environment at the time of survey (straight after terrorist attack on army chief) may have impacted the results (high concern for security situation in country, law and order and also maintaining SL image abroad)

Siganesh – perhaps the data can be verified against BOI data and ITESA.

“Despite WiFly’s ubiquity — with 4,100 hot spot access points reaching 90 percent of the population — just 40,000 of Taipei’s 2.6 million residents have agreed to pay for the service since January. Q-Ware, the local Internet provider that built and runs the network, once expected to have 250,000 subscribers by the end of the year, but it has lowered that target to 200,000.

That such a vast and reasonably priced wireless network has attracted so few users in an otherwise tech-hungry metropolis should give pause to civic leaders in Chicago, Philadelphia and dozens of other American cities that are building wireless networks of their own.

Like Taipei, these cities hope to use their new networks to help less affluent people get online and to make their cities more business-friendly. Yet as Taipei has found out, just building a citywide network does not guarantee that people will use it. Most people already have plenty of access to the Internet in their offices and at home, while wireless data services let them get online anywhere using phones, laptops and P.D.A.’s.”