In today’s society, going minutes without checking Snapchat, Twitter, or Instagram may feel like torture to some. While Internet addicts cannot survive without platforms like Google and Facebook, Google and Facebook are trying to make sure that the internet cannot survive without them either.
Although certain websites are so popular in Internet-saturated countries like the United States that they have become verbs (e.g. “to Google”), this phenomenon does not necessarily hold true in other parts of the world. Take the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that researchers have called an “archipelago of disconnection” due to its meager 31.2 percent Internet penetration rate (the percentage of the population that uses the internet). Compared to more developed continents like North America, which boasts a staggering 89.1 percent Internet penetration rate, Africa is ripe for development in Internet infrastructure.
Technology companies are eager to seize this opportunity. Facebook and Google are already setting up networks of accessible Internet in underserved communities, and more companies will inevitably follow suit. While it is unclear whether a drive for profit or a genuine philanthropic spirit has motivated these actions, the effects of Internet access will in either case dramatically reshape Africa’s economic, societal, and political development.
Aid for Ages
The augmentation of telecommunications technology is just one item in a diverse portfolio of international aid to Africa. For decades, the international community has devoted tremendous amounts of money into African development through other means, targeted at reducing poverty in a continent where 47 percent of the population lives on $1.90 a day or less. Just this year, the World Bank allocated a record $57 billion to Sub-Saharan African countries for development over the next three fiscal years. The majority of this money, around $45 billion, will go towards anti-poverty programs, emergency assistance, and famine relief.
Instead of ending government dysfunction, poorly-directed aid and debt repayments have trapped African nations in an endless cycle of corruption, poverty, and civil conflict. Whether it is forcing countries to pay back debts, propping up authoritarian leaders by giving them money, or putting local African farmers out of business due to food imports, international aid has categorically failed to help African countries become economically independent. John Mbaku, professor at Weber State University and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution told the HPR that “what most [African nations] want is resources so they can improve domestic capacity for production.” Unfortunately, international aid is targeting short-term benefits, disregarding long-term investments that would boost this domestic capacity.
This is where the private sector comes in. Not only is more aid funneled through private companies than through charities, but corporations are using their own money to invest into developing nations. These efforts range from blatantly self-interested to believably philanthropic: Starbucks provides a training program for coffee farmers in Rwanda and Ethiopia while companies like Dell, HP, and Verizon donate products and manpower to disaster relief efforts.
Private sector aid has proved more effective than public sector aid in many ways. Developing a nation’s domestic economy is crucial for setting up the country for future success and independence, and corporations help facilitate economic development by creating chains of investment into emerging markets, providing guidance for small businesses, and working with local governments to construct infrastructure. Because the public sector does not have as much expertise in managing and growing businesses, the world is moving quickly towards private sector aid as the preferred means for African development.
Wi-Finally!
If, as Mbaku states, improving domestic capacity is crucial to development, then no form of aid is more valuable than Internet infrastructure investment. At least, this is what companies like Facebook and Google believe. Following the lead of companies like Telecom and Microsoft, Facebook and Google have been racing to build broadband Internet infrastructure in Africa. Facebook, in partnership with companies like Samsung and Qualcomm, launched Internet.org in 2013, which provides affordable Internet access to less developed regions through the app Free Basics. They are also pioneering Express Wi-Fi and Uganda Fiber Build to streamline and construct Internet networks, respectively.
Similarly, Google rolled out an initiative called Project Link, building fiber networks and last-mile WiFi infrastructure to service cities and rural areas. The initiative has since been placed under the umbrella of CSquared, an independent entity representing the joint partnership of multiple corporations. Google is also pioneering Project Loon, which entails “a ring of balloons, flying around the globe on the stratospheric winds, that provides Internet access to the earth below.” Although it sounds loony, this cutting-edge technology could be the silver bullet for providing internet to isolated areas.
In spite of their ostensible charitability, Facebook and Google’s actual intentions remain nebulous. As Steve Song, founder of the WiFi-building social enterprise Village Telco commented, “It can be a little bit complicated in terms of understanding what’s being done purely as a for-profit investment and what is being done as a philanthropic exercise.” Facebook and Google have proclaimed altruistic intentions. Facebook states that their goal is “to extend the benefits of connectivity to diverse, local communities”, while Google explains that they are “support[ing] the needs of entrepreneurs, innovators, and corporate offices.” However, as for-profit corporations, these companies must also be compelled by a profit incentive. Africa’s population is essentially an open market of 1 billion potential Instagrammers or Gmailers, and it makes sense for corporations to try to expand their user base. They might even be collecting data to get ahead on the race for data analytics in Africa.
Whatever their motives, Google and Facebook have been very successful in expanding Internet access. Google’s CSquared covers over 1,600km of fiber networks across Uganda and Ghana, and Facebook’s Internet.org has brought 40 million people online. In some areas, these initiatives have made big tech synonymous with the Internet itself. A survey conducted by Quartz media revealed that 65 percent of Nigerians say “Facebook is the Internet,” while many of those surveyed asserted that they used Facebook but not the Internet. This indicates an incredibly successful, if somewhat sneaky, business model by Facebook.
To Connect or To Disconnect?
Expanding Internet access in and equal and unrestricted format can provide countless benefits. Mbaku cited improved education, health services, business, and political participation as some beneficial results of widespread Internet usage. If educational materials can be cheaply accessed through the Internet, schools will have far more resources at their disposal. In addition, networks of communication equip the cohesion needed to provide and distribute medical information. As Song observed, “People die less from malaria the closer they are to telecommunications networks because they can get help.”
Perhaps most notably, broadened Internet access can promote democracy and economic growth. The World Economic Forum reports that “a 10% increase in broadband penetration in low- and middle-income countries can result in a 1.38% increase in economic growth.” This is attributed to a boon in online businesses, mobile banking, or improved access to knowledge crucial to running a company. Meanwhile, improved access to information can spur political participation and government accountability. Mbaku stressed the importance of awareness in creating change, arguing that “the more people that are aware of their rights…the more likely that the people in that country would want to fight the government to protect those rights.”
Unfortunately, the Internet provided through projects like CSquared or Internet.org may not reap all of these possible benefits. For example, Facebook’s Free Basics app was previously banned in India for “infring[ing] the principles of net neutrality” by letting users access Facebook without charge but not other websites. Facebook did not learn its lesson. The African version of Free Basics maintains Facebook’s power to restrict access to any information or websites it deems unsavory. Because many of the mobile providers partnering with Facebook are partially or fully state-owned, the government holds regulatory power as well, potentially turning Free Basics into another platform for propaganda. ‘Gbenga Sesan, executive director of the digital rights advocacy and educational enterprise Paradigm Initiative, condemned the practice of limiting website access in an interview with the HPR, saying, “We shouldn’t be giving them half a loaf of bread just because they’re poor.”
Facebook disagrees with these accusations. A statement to the HPR from Facebook’s Uche Ofodile, regional head of Africa for Express Wi-Fi, asserts that technologies like Free Basics, Express Wi-Fi, and fiber build “can bring the cost of connectivity down [and] increase capacity and performance in order to bring more people online.” Certainly, Express Wi-Fi is partnering with hundreds of local entrepreneurs, and the fiber build in Uganda will bring 3 million people online. It is difficult to condemn such improvements in Internet availability regardless of the strings attached.
Google has faced its own share of controversy as well. Not only is its Project Loon very difficult to develop, but the technology is currently facing a derailing lawsuit and political complications in becoming global. Data collection from CSquared benefit Google’s analytics but raise concerns about consumer privacy. From a broader perspective, Google’s endeavors to improve Internet access do not address the key obstacle of smartphone or laptop availability and may shift focus from more important issues like malaria prevention.
The economics of cheap Internet also are not be as straightforward as anticipated. Rather than boosting entrepreneurship, the availability of the Internet may “stunt innovation and limit the opportunities for African entrepreneurs, making online technology another industry on the continent dominated by big foreign companies.” Facebook and Google could monopolize the telecommunications market in Africa, effectively closing the door to competition and breeding dependency.
The end result of these initiatives by Facebook and Google will depend on their actions and intentions going forward. If these companies partner too closely with governments or become overeager, they risk endangering freedom of speech or monopolizing a burgeoning African market. But if Facebook and Google commit themselves to net neutrality, affordability, and outreach, they could immensely transform sectors of African society, ranging from education to healthcare to governance.
Bringing hundreds of millions of people into the digital sphere is an enormously complex task. As Song remarked, “Right now, all the technology that we need to connect everyone already exists. What we don’t have is a policy regulatory environment that allows for this diversity of technologies to operate.” The Internet technologies that Facebook and Google are rolling out in Africa have incredible potential, but the competition of government, corporate, and public interests form a difficult network to navigate. The world is at a technological tipping point. Our Internet giants should push it in the right direction.
Image credit: Wikimedia/Victor Grigas