What is the effect of digital divide

The historical roots of the digital divide in Europe reach back to the increasing gap that occurred during the early modern period between those who could and couldn't access the realtime forms of calculation, decision-making and visualation offered via written and printed media.[12] Within this context, ethical discussions regarding the relationship between education and the free distribution of information were raised by thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Immanuel Kant and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). The latter advocated that governments should intervene to ensure that any society's economic benefits should be fairly and meaningfully distributed. Amid the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, Rousseau's idea helped to justify poor laws that created a safety net for those who were harmed by new forms of production. Later when telegraph and postal systems evolved, many used Rousseau's ideas to argue for full access to those services, even if it meant subsidizing hard to serve citizens. Thus, "universal services"[13] referred to innovations in regulation and taxation that would allow phone services such as AT&T in the United States serve hard to serve rural users. In 1996, as telecommunications companies merged with Internet companies, the Federal Communications Commission adopted Telecommunications Services Act of 1996 to consider regulatory strategies and taxation policies to close the digital divide. Though the term "digital divide" was coined among consumer groups that sought to tax and regulate Information and communications technology (ICT) companies to close the digital divide, the topic soon moved onto a global stage. The focus was the World Trade Organization which passed a Telecommunications Services Act, which resisted regulation of ICT companies, so that they would be required to serve hard to serve individuals and communities. In 1999, in an effort to assuage anti-globalization forces, the WTO hosted the "Financial Solutions to Digital Divide" in Seattle, USA, co-organized by Craig Warren Smith of Digital Divide Institute and Bill Gates Sr. the chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It was the catalyst for a full scale global movement to close the digital divide, which quickly spread to all sectors of the global economy.[14] In 2000, US president Bill Clinton mentioned the term in the State of the Union Address.

During the COVID-19 Pandemic

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide issued stay-at-home orders that established lockdowns, quarantines, restrictions, and closures. The resulting interruptions in schooling, public services, and business operations drove about half the world's population into seeking alternative methods to conduct their lives while in isolation.[15] These methods include telemedicine, virtual classrooms, online shopping, social interactions and working remotely, all of which require access to high-speed or broadband internet access and digital technologies. A Pew Research Center study reports 90% of Americans describe use of the internet as "essential" during the pandemic.[16] As life moved increasingly online, inequities created by the digital divide were exacerbated.

According to the Pew Research Center, 59% of children from lower income families were likely to face digital obstacles in completing assignments.[16] These obstacles included use of a cellphone to complete homework, having to use public WiFi because of unreliable service in the home, and lack of access to a computer in the home. This difficulty, titled the homework gap, affects more than 30% of K-12 students living below the poverty threshold, and disproportionally affects American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Hispanic students.[17][18]

A lack of "tech readiness", that is, confident and independent use of devices, was reported among the elderly; with more than 50% reporting inadequate knowledge of devices and more than one-third reporting a lack of confidence.[16][19] This aspect of the digital divide and the elderly became more concerning during the pandemic as healthcare providers increasingly relied upon telemedicine to manage chronic and acute health conditions.[20]

The pandemic also caused a digital divide between organizations who were or were not able to invest in digital technologies. Firms with more than 50 workers were more likely to begin investing in implementing or improving digital technologies than smaller firms. Organizations that invested in both advanced and basic digital technologies were also most likely to outperform during the pandemic. Small businesses were the most likely to fall behind, and less likely to have boosted their digital investments.[21][22]

There are manifold definitions of the digital divide, all with slightly different emphasis, which is evidenced by related concepts like digital inclusion,[23] digital participation,[24] digital skills,[25] media literacy,[26] and digital accessibility.[27]

A common approach, adopted by leaders in the field like Jan van Dijk,[28] consists in defining the digital divide by the problem it aims to solve: based on different answers to the questions of who, with which kinds of characteristics, connects how and why to what, there are hundreds of alternatives ways to define the digital divide.[29] "The new consensus recognizes that the key question is not how to connect people to a specific network through a specific device, but how to extend the expected gains from new ICTs."[30] In short, the desired impact and "the end justifies the definition" of the digital divide.[29] Some actors, like the US-based National Digital Inclusion Alliance, draw conclusions based on their particular answers to these questions, and defined that for them, it implies: 1) affordable, robust broadband Internet service; 2) Internet-enabled devices that meet the needs of the user; 3) access to digital literacy training; 4) quality technical support; 5) applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation and collaboration.[31]

Infrastructure

The infrastructure by which individuals, households, businesses, and communities connect to the Internet address the physical mediums that people use to connect to the Internet such as desktop computers, laptops, basic mobile phones or smartphones, iPods or other MP3 players, gaming consoles such as Xbox or PlayStation, electronic book readers, and tablets such as iPads.[32]

Traditionally, the nature of the divide has been measured in terms of the existing numbers of subscriptions and digital devices. Given the increasing number of such devices, some have concluded that the digital divide among individuals has increasingly been closing as the result of a natural and almost automatic process.[34][35] Others point to persistent lower levels of connectivity among women, racial and ethnic minorities, people with lower incomes, rural residents, and less educated people as evidence that addressing inequalities in access to and use of the medium will require much more than the passing of time.[36][37] Recent studies have measured the digital divide not in terms of technological devices, but in terms of the existing bandwidth per individual (in kbit/s per capita).[38][33]

As shown in the Figure on the side, the digital divide in kbit/s is not monotonically decreasing but re-opens up with each new innovation. For example, "the massive diffusion of narrow-band Internet and mobile phones during the late 1990s" increased digital inequality, as well as "the initial introduction of broadband DSL and cable modems during 2003–2004 increased levels of inequality".[38] This is because a new kind of connectivity is never introduced instantaneously and uniformly to society as a whole at once, but diffuses slowly through social networks. As shown by the Figure, during the mid-2000s, communication capacity was more unequally distributed than during the late 1980s, when only fixed-line phones existed. The most recent increase in digital equality stems from the massive diffusion of the latest digital innovations (i.e. fixed and mobile broadband infrastructures, e.g. 3G and fiber optics FTTH).[39] Measurement methodologies of the digital divide, and more specifically an Integrated Iterative Approach General Framework (Integrated Contextual Iterative Approach – ICI) and the digital divide modeling theory under measurement model DDG (Digital Divide Gap) are used to analyze the gap existing between developed and developing countries, and the gap among the 27 members-states of the European Union.[40][41]

The bit as the unifying variable

In 2010, it was suggested instead of tracking various kinds of digital divides among fixed and mobile phones, narrow- and broadband Internet, digital TV, etc., to measure the amount of kbit/s per actor.[38][33][43][44] This approach showed that the digital divide in kbit/s per capita was widening in relative terms: "While the average inhabitant of the developed world counted with some 40 kbit/s more than the average member of the information society in developing countries in 2001, this gap grew to over 3 Mbit/s per capita in 2010."[44]

The upper graph of the figure on the side shows that the divide between developed and developing countries has been diminishing when measured in terms of subscriptions per capita. In 2001, fixed-line telecommunication penetration reached 70% of society in developed OECD countries and 10% of the developing world. This resulted in a ratio of 7 to 1 (divide in relative terms) or a difference of 60% (divide in absolute terms). During the next decade, fixed-line penetration stayed almost constant in OECD countries (at 70%), while the rest of the world started a catch-up, closing the divide to a ratio of 3.5 to 1. The lower graph shows the divide not in terms of ICT devices, but in terms of kbit/s per inhabitant. While the average member of developed countries counted with 29 kbit/s more than a person in developing countries in 2001, this difference got multiplied by a factor of one thousand (to a difference of 2900 kbit/s). In relative terms, the fixed-line capacity divide was even worse during the introduction of broadband Internet at the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, when the OECD counted with 20 times more capacity per capita than the rest of the world.[38] This shows the importance of measuring the divide in terms of kbit/s, and not merely to count devices. In 2012, the International Telecommunication Union concluded that "the bit becomes a unifying variable enabling comparisons and aggregations across different kinds of communication technologies".[45]

Skills and digital literacy

Research from 2001 showed that the digital divide is more than just an access issue and cannot be alleviated merely by providing the necessary equipment. There are at least three factors at play: information accessibility, information utilization, and information receptiveness. More than just accessibility, individuals need to know how to make use of the information and communication tools once they exist within a community.[46] Information professionals have the ability to help bridge the gap by providing reference and information services to help individuals learn and utilize the technologies to which they do have access, regardless of the economic status of the individual seeking help.[47]

Location

Internet connectivity can be utilized at a variety of locations such as homes, offices, schools, libraries, public spaces, Internet cafes and others. There are also varying levels of connectivity in rural, suburban, and urban areas.[48][49]

In 2017, the Wireless Broadband Alliance published the white paper The Urban Unconnected, which highlighted that in the eight countries with the world's highest GNP about 1.75 billion people lived without an Internet connection and one third of them resided in the major urban centers. Delhi (5.3 millions, 9% of the total population), São Paulo (4.3 millions, 36%), New York (1.6 mln, 19%), and Moscow (2.1 mln, 17%) registered the highest percentages of citizens that weren't provided of any type of Internet access.[50]

As of 2021, only about half of the world's population had access to the internet leaving 3.7 billion people without internet. A majority of those are from developing countries with a large portion of them being women.[51] One of the leading factors of this is that globally different governments have different policies relating to issues such as privacy, data governance, speech freedoms as well as many other factors. This makes it challenging for technology companies to create an environment for users that are from certain countries due to restrictions put in place in the region. This disproportionately impacts the different regions of the world with Europe having the highest percentage of the population online while Africa has the lowest. From 2010 to 2014 Europe went from 67% to 75% and in the same time span Africa went from 10% to 19%.[52]

Even if a region or specific country has access to the internet they are not always equivalent in quality. Network speeds play a large role in the quality and experience a user takes away from using the internet. Oftentimes large cities and towns will have better access to high speed internet but more rural areas can have very limited or sometimes no service.[53] This also creates an issue of locking a household into one specific service provider because it may be the only carrier that even offers service to the area. This applies to regions that have developed networks like the United States but also applies to developing countries. However, developing countries' existing networks often exacerbate this issue even more, creating very large areas that have virtually no coverage.[54] In instances like this there are very limited options that a person could take to solve this since the issue is mainly infrastructure. They could either wait for the carrier to build the infrastructure in the area or they can move to an area with a connection. Despite this, technologies that provide an internet connection through satellite are becoming more common, like Starlink, but are still not easily available for people in the regions that need it the most.[55]

The gap in internet speeds is directly proportional to the area the person is in and can be the difference between a good experience or even an experience at all. Based on location, a connection may have speeds that are virtually unusable solely because a network provider has limited infrastructure in the area which emphasizes how important location is. To download 5GB of data in Taiwan it would take approximately 8 minutes while the same download would take 1 day, 6 hours, 1minute, and 40 seconds to download in Yemen.[56] Although there is still a large portion of the world's population without the internet, there are constantly developments being made to improve the infrastructure surrounding the internet and the percentage of people able to access the internet is steadily increasing globally.

Applications

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit group based in San Francisco, surveyed almost 1,400 parents and reported in 2011 that 47 percent of families with incomes more than $75,000 had downloaded apps for their children, while only 14 percent of families earning less than $30,000 had done so.[57]

As of 2014, the gap in a digital divide was known to exist for a number of reasons. Obtaining access to ICTs and using them actively has been linked to a number of demographic and socio-economic characteristics: among them income, education, race, gender, geographic location (urban-rural), age, skills, awareness, political, cultural and psychological attitudes.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Multiple regression analysis across countries has shown that income levels and educational attainment are identified as providing the most powerful explanatory variables for ICT access and usage.[66] Evidence was found that Caucasians are much more likely than non-Caucasians to own a computer as well as have access to the Internet in their homes. As for geographic location, people living in urban centers have more access and show more usage of computer services than those in rural areas. Gender was previously thought to provide an explanation for the digital divide, many thinking ICT were male gendered, but controlled statistical analysis has shown that income, education and employment act as confounding variables and that women with the same level of income, education and employment actually embrace ICT more than men (see Women and ICT4D).[67] However, each nation has its own set of causes or the digital divide. For example, the digital divide in Germany is unique because it is not largely due to difference in quality of infrastructure.[68]

The correlation between income and internet use suggests that the digital divide persists at least in part due to income disparities.[69] Most commonly, a digital divide stems from poverty and the economic barriers that limit resources and prevent people from obtaining or otherwise using newer technologies.

In research, while each explanation is examined, others must be controlled to eliminate interaction effects or mediating variables,[58] but these explanations are meant to stand as general trends, not direct causes. Each component can be looked at from different angles, which leads to a myriad of ways to look at (or define) the digital divide. For example, measurements for the intensity of usages, such as incidence and frequency, vary by study. Some report usage as access to Internet and ICTs while others report usage as having previously connected to the Internet. Some studies focus on specific technologies, others on a combination (such as Infostate, proposed by Orbicom-UNESCO, the Digital Opportunity Index, or ITU's ICT Development Index).

Economic gap in the United States

During the mid-1990s, the US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) began publishing reports about the Internet and access to and usage of the resource. The first of three reports is titled "Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the 'Have Nots' in Rural and Urban America" (1995),[70] the second is "Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide" (1998),[71] and the final report "Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide" (1999).[72] The NTIA's final report attempted clearly to define the term digital divide; "the digital divide—the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without—is now one of America's leading economic and civil rights issues. This report will help clarify which Americans are falling further behind so that we can take concrete steps to redress this gap."[72] Since the introduction of the NTIA reports, much of the early, relevant literature began to reference the NTIA's digital divide definition. The digital divide is commonly defined as being between the "haves" and "have-nots."[72][73] The economic gap really comes into play when referring to the older generations.

According to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults executed from January 25 to February 8, 2021, the digital lives of Americans with high and low incomes are varied. Conversely, the proportion of Americans that use home internet or cell phones has maintained constant between 2019 and 2021. A quarter of those with yearly average earnings under $30,000 (24%) says they don't own smartphones. Four out of every ten low-income people (43%) do not have home internet access or a computer (43%). Furthermore, the more significant part of lower-income Americans does not own a tablet device.[74]

On the other hand, every technology is practically universal among people earning $100,000 or higher per year. Americans with larger family incomes are also more likely to buy a variety of internet-connected products. Wifi at home, a smartphone, a computer, and a tablet are used by around six out of ten families making $100,000 or more per year, compared to 23 percent in the lesser household.[74]

Racial gap

Although many groups in society are affected by a lack of access to computers or the Internet, communities of color are specifically observed to be negatively affected by the digital divide. This is evident when it comes to observing home Internet access among different races and ethnicities. 81% of Whites and 83% of Asians have home Internet access, compared to 70% of Hispanic people, 68% of Black people, 72% of American Indian/Alaska Natives, and 68% of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. Although income is a factor in home Internet access disparities, there are still racial and ethnic inequalities that are present among those within lower income groups. 58% of low income Whites are reported to have home Internet access in comparison to 51% of Hispanics and 50% of Blacks. This information is reported in a report titled "Digital Denied: The Impact of Systemic Racial Discrimination on Home-Internet Adoption" which was published by the DC-based public interest group Fress Press. The report concludes that structural barriers and discrimination that perpetuates bias against people of different races and ethnicities contribute to having an impact on the digital divide. The report also concludes that those who do not have Internet access still have a high demand for it, and reduction in the price of home Internet access would allow for an increase in equitable participation and improve Internet adoption by marginalized groups.[75]

Digital censorship and algorithmic bias are observed to be present in the racial divide. Hate-speech rules as well as hate speech algorithms online platforms such as Facebook have favored white males and those belonging to elite groups in society over marginalized groups in society, such as women and people of color. In a collection of internal documents that were collected in a project conducted by ProPublica, Facebook's guidelines in regards to distinguishing hate speech and recognizing protected groups revealed slides that identified three groups, each one containing either female drivers, black children, or white men. When the question of which subset group is protected is presented, the correct answer was white men . Minority group language is negatively impacted by automated tools of hate detection due to human bias that ultimately decides what is considered hate speech and what is not.

Online platforms have also been observed to tolerate hateful content towards people of color but restrict content from people of color. Aboriginal memes on a Facebook page were posted with racially abusive content and comments depicting Aboriginal people as inferior. While the contents on the page were removed by the originators after an investigation conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Facebook did not delete the page and has allowed it to remain under the classification of controversial humor . However, a post by an African American woman addressing her uncomfortableness of being the only person of color in a small-town restaurant was met with racist and hateful messages. When reporting the online abuse to Facebook, her account was suspended by Facebook for three days for posting the screenshots while those responsible for the racist comments she received were not suspended. Shared experiences between people of color can be at risk of being silenced under removal policies for online platforms.

Physical and mental disability gap

Inequities in access to information technologies are present among individuals living with a physical disability in comparison to those who are not living with a disability. According to The Pew Research Center, 54% of households with a person who has a disability have home Internet access compared to 81% of households that have home Internet access and do not have a person who has a disability.[76] The type of disability an individual has can prevent one from interacting with computer screens and smartphone screens, such as having a quadriplegia disability or having a disability in the hands. However, there is still a lack of access to technology and home Internet access among those who have a cognitive and auditory disability as well. There is a concern of whether or not the increase in the use of information technologies will increase equality through offering opportunities for individuals living with disabilities or whether it will only add to the present inequalities and lead to individuals living with disabilities being left behind in society.[77] Issues such as the perception of disabilities in society, Federal and state government policy, corporate policy, mainstream computing technologies, and real-time online communication have been found to contribute to the impact of the digital divide on individuals with disabilities. Other type of disabilities that are not always considered are severe mental illnesses such as psychotic disorders (e.g., schizophrenia). Some of these patients who are also cognitively affected by their symptoms and medications, might suffer from function impairments resulting in less access to digital technologies [78]

People with disabilities are also the targets of online abuse. Online disability hate crimes have increased by 33% across the UK between 2016–17 and 2017–18 according to a report published by Leonard Cheshire, a health and welfare charity.[79] Accounts of online hate abuse towards people with disabilities were shared during an incident in 2019 when model Katie Price's son was the target of online abuse that was attributed to him having a disability. In response to the abuse, a campaign was launched by Katie Price to ensure that Britain's MP's held those who are guilty of perpetuating online abuse towards those with disabilities accountable.[80] Online abuse towards individuals with disabilities is a factor that can discourage people from engaging online which could prevent people from learning information that could improve their lives. Many individuals living with disabilities face online abuse in the form of accusations of benefit fraud and "faking" their disability for financial gain, which in some cases leads to unnecessary investigations.

Gender gap

Main article: Gender digital divide

Due to the rapidly declining price of connectivity and hardware, skills deficits have eclipsed barriers of access as the primary contributor to the gender digital divide. Studies show that women are less likely to know how to leverage devices and Internet access to their full potential, even when they do use digital technologies.[81] In rural India, for example, a study found that the majority of women who owned mobile phones only knew how to answer calls. They could not dial numbers or read messages without assistance from their husbands, due to a lack of literacy and numeracy skills.[82] A survey of 3,000 respondents across 25 countries found that adolescent boys with mobile phones used them for a wider range of activities, such as playing games and accessing financial services online. Adolescent girls in the same study tended to use just the basic functionalities of their phone, such as making calls and using the calculator.[83] Similar trends can be seen even in areas where Internet access is near-universal. A survey of women in nine cities around the world revealed that although 97% of women were using social media, only 48% of them were expanding their networks, and only 21% of Internet-connected women had searched online for information related to health, legal rights or transport.[83] In some cities, less than one quarter of connected women had used the Internet to look for a job.[81]

Studies show that despite strong performance in computer and information literacy (CIL), girls do not have confidence in their ICT abilities. According to the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) assessment girls' self-efficacy scores (their perceived as opposed to their actual abilities) for advanced ICT tasks were lower than boys'.[84][81]

A paper published by J. Cooper from Princeton University points out that learning technology is designed to be receptive to men instead of women. The reasoning for this is that most software engineers and programmers are men, and they communicate their learning software in a way that would match the reception of their recipient. The association of computers in education is normally correlated with the male gender, and this has an impact on the education of computers and technology among women, although it is important to mention that there are plenty of learning software that are designed to help women and girls learn technology. Overall, the study presents the problem of various perspectives in society that are a result of gendered socialization patterns that believe that computers are a part of the male experience since computers have traditionally presented as a toy for boys when they are children.[85] This divide is followed as children grow older and young girls are not encouraged as much to pursue degrees in IT and computer science. In 1990, the percentage of women in computing jobs was 36%, however in 2016, this number had fallen to 25%. This can be seen in the under representation of women in IT hubs such as Silicon Valley.[86]

There has also been the presence of algorithmic bias that has been shown in machine learning algorithms that are implemented by major companies.[clarification needed] In 2015, Amazon had to abandon a recruiting algorithm that showed a difference between ratings that candidates received for software developer jobs as well as other technical jobs. As a result, it was revealed that Amazon's machine algorithm was biased against women and favored male resumes over female resumes. This was due to the fact that Amazon's computer models were trained to vet patterns in resumes over a 10-year period. During this ten-year period, the majority of the resumes belong to male individuals, which is a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.[87]

Age gap

Older adults, those ages 60 and up, face various barriers that contribute to their lack of access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). Many adults are "digital immigrants" who have not had lifelong exposure to digital media and have had to adapt to incorporating it in their lives.[88] A study in 2005 found that only 26% of people aged 65 and over were Internet users, compared to 67% in the 50-64 age group and 80% in the 30-49 year age group.[89] This "grey divide" can be due to factors such as concern over security, motivation and self-efficacy, decline of memory or spatial orientation, cost, or lack of support.[90] The aforementioned variables of race, disability, gender, and sexual orientation also add to the barriers for older adults.

Many older adults may have physical or mental disabilities that render them homebound and financially insecure. They may be unable to afford Internet access or lack transportation to use computers in public spaces, the benefits of which would be enhancing their health and reducing their social isolation and depression. Homebound older adults would benefit from Internet use by using it to access health information, use telehealth resources, shop and bank online, and stay connected with friends or family using email or social networks.[91]

Those in more privileged socio-economic positions and with a higher level of education are more likely to have Internet access than those older adults living in poverty. Lack of access to the Internet inhibits "capitalism-enhancing activities" such as accessing government assistance, job opportunities, or investments. The results of the U.S. Federal Communication Commission's 2009 National Consumer Broadband Service Capability Survey shows that older women are less likely to use the Internet, especially for capital enhancing activities, than their male counterparts.[92]

However, a reverse divide is also happening, as poor and disadvantaged children and teenagers spend more time using digital devices for entertainment and less time interacting with people face-to-face compared to children and teenagers in well-off families.[93]

Social cognitive theory provides a possible explanation for an age gap in the digital divide because it suggests that self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by involvement in a task. Successful involvement increases self-efficacy while failure lowers it which is why when older individuals have less access to computers and the Internet, they have a much lower self-efficacy when it comes to computers. This in turn expands the digital divide because without access to computers and the Internet older individuals have fewer opportunities to find success with computer-related activities.[94] One way to decrease the age gap in the Digital Divide is to provide training for elderly individuals on using different digital devices. Training programs would get older individuals a foot in the door in the increasingly advancing digital age which would ultimately increase the confidence they have using digital devices.

In the United States, as of 2021 the gap has shrunk since 2005 with only 27% of people ages 65 and older not using the internet.[95] In Europe however, 51% of individuals over the age of 50 do not use the internet.[96] If the problem is non-internet users, the elderly would be a significant problem group. Despite this, product developers do not cater to the needs of the elderly who may have physical disabilities like a visual impairment that may hamper their ability to read the small text on the screen or keyboard keys. These are simple adjustments that product designers could be making would drastically improve the inclusivity for digital devices for elderly individuals thus decreasing the age gap in the Digital Divide. For countries like China which is projected to be an "aged society", a country that has 14% of the population over the age of 65, there is a spotlight on decreasing the age gap and creating more inclusivity for the elderly in the digital age.[97]

JD.com, an ECommerce company in China is working to decrease the divide with their 5G smartphone for the elderly partnership with ZTE. In 2021 they released a phone equipped with services such as, remote assistance capabilities, synchronized photo sharing, and fast medical consultation.[98] The remote assistance is particularly useful for elderly individuals that might need one of their adult children to manage their phones from a separate location. JD believes that their 5G services help connect the elderly to their families and the digital world. According to their research, 70% of elderly consumers believe children are indispensable in the care process and 68% want to spend more time with their children and their remote services make that connection easier.[98] During 2020, JD was able to connect elderly consumers with online shopping platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic through training programs on how to use digital devices like downloading apps, scanning QR codes, lining up for a hospital appointment early, and using mobile payments. The main idea of training is to give the elderly a foothold in the digital world and help them build confidence using new technologies.[98] This should eventually increase the self-efficacy of elderly individuals and decrease the age gap in the Digital Divide.

In 2014 Cisco Systems and Independent Age published a report that outlines a number of solutions for decreasing the age gap in the Digital divide.These include creating age-appropriate designs, emphasizing the need for technology, relieving anxieties.[99]

Global level

Main article: Global digital divide

See also: World Summit on the Information Society and Digital divide by country

The divide between differing countries or regions of the world is referred to as the global digital divide,which examines the technological gap between developing and developed countries.[100] The divide within countries (such as the digital divide in the United States) may refer to inequalities between individuals, households, businesses, or geographic areas, usually at different socioeconomic levels or other demographic categories. In contrast, the global digital divide describes disparities in access to computing and information resources, and the opportunities derived from such access.[101] As the internet rapidly expands it is difficult for developing countries to keep up with the constant changes. In 2014 only three countries (China, US, Japan) host 50% of the globally installed bandwidth potential.[33] This concentration is not new, as historically only ten countries have hosted 70–75% of the global telecommunication capacity (see Figure). The U.S. lost its global leadership in terms of installed bandwidth in 2011, replaced by China, who hosted more than twice as much national bandwidth potential in 2014 (29% versus 13% of the global total).[33]

Once an individual is connected, Internet connectivity and ICTs can enhance his or her future social and cultural capital. Social capital is acquired through repeated interactions with other individuals or groups of individuals. Connecting to the Internet creates another set of means by which to achieve repeated interactions. ICTs and Internet connectivity enable repeated interactions through access to social networks, chat rooms, and gaming sites. Once an individual has access to connectivity, obtains infrastructure by which to connect, and can understand and use the information that ICTs and connectivity provide, that individual is capable of becoming a "digital citizen."[58]

Economic disparity

In the United States, the research provided by Sungard Availability Services notes a direct correlation between a company's access to technological advancements and its overall success in bolstering the economy.[102] The study, which includes over 2,000 IT executives and staff officers, indicates that 69 percent of employees feel they do not have access to sufficient technology to make their jobs easier, while 63 percent of them believe the lack of technological mechanisms hinders their ability to develop new work skills.[102] Additional analysis provides more evidence to show how the digital divide also affects the economy in places all over the world. A BCG report suggests that in countries like Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K., the digital connection among communities is made easier, allowing for their populations to obtain a much larger share of the economies via digital business.[103] In fact, in these places, populations hold shares approximately 2.5 percentage points higher.[103] During a meeting with the United Nations a Bangladesh representative expressed his concern that poor and undeveloped countries would be left behind due to a lack of funds to bridge the digital gap.[104]

Education

The digital divide impacts children's ability to learn and grow in low-income school districts. Without Internet access, students are unable to cultivate necessary tech skills to understand today's dynamic economy.[105] The need for the internet starts while children are in school – necessary for matters such as school portal access, homework submission, and assignment research.[106] Federal Communication Commission's Broadband Task Force created a report showing that about 70% of teachers give students homework that demand access to broadband.[107] Even more, approximately 65% of young scholars use the Internet at home to complete assignments as well as connect with teachers and other students via discussion boards and shared files.[107]  A recent study indicates that practically 50% of students say that they are unable to finish their homework due to an inability to either connect to the Internet or in some cases, find a computer.[107] This has led to a new revelation: 42% of students say they received a lower grade because of this disadvantage.[107] Finally, according to research conducted by the Center for American Progress, "if the United States were able to close the educational achievement gaps between native-born white children and black and Hispanic children, the U.S. economy would be 5.8 percent—or nearly $2.3 trillion—larger in 2050".[108]

In a reverse of this idea, well-off families, especially the tech-savvy parents in Silicon Valley, carefully limit their own children's screen time. The children of wealthy families attend play-based preschool programs that emphasize social interaction instead of time spent in front of computers or other digital devices, and they pay to send their children to schools that limit screen time.[93] American families that cannot afford high-quality childcare options are more likely to use tablet computers filled with apps for children as a cheap replacement for a babysitter, and their government-run schools encourage screen time during school.[93]

Demographic differences

According to the 2012 Pew Report "Digital Differences," a mere 62% of households who make less than $30,000 a year use the Internet, while 90% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 had access.[105]   Studies also show that only 51% of Hispanics and 49% of African Americans have high-speed Internet at home. This is compared to the 66% of Caucasians that too have high-speed Internet in their households.[105] Overall, 10% of all Americans do not have access to high-speed Internet, an equivalent of almost 34 million people.[110]  As of 2016, the global effects of limiting technological developments in poorer nations, rather than simply the effects in the United States have been highlighted: rapid digital expansion excludes those who find themselves in the lower class. 60% of the world's population, almost 4 billion people, had no access to the Internet.[111]

Pew Research Center conducted another digital divide study between Jan. 25- Feb. 8, 2021. The results of this study found that about 25% of adults who make less than $30,000 a year do not own a smartphone, 43% of these adults do not have broadband internet access from their home and 41% do not own a tablet, such as an iPad.[112] All of this was found to be a given in households where adults make $100,000+ a year, often showing these homes to have multiple devices allowing access to the internet.[112]

It is also noted in the study that due to the lack of devices available within the home that connect to the internet, those households that earn less than $30,000 who do own a smartphone use that device to accomplish tasks higher income homes would normally reserve using a laptop or desktop computer to complete, such as applying to jobs.[112] Additionally, the survey also showed that 15% of all smartphone owning participants use only this device to access the internet, regardless of income.[113]

Facebook divide

The Facebook divide,[114][115][116][117] a concept derived from the "digital divide", is the phenomenon with regard to access to, use of, and impact of Facebook on society. It was coined at the International Conference on Management Practices for the New Economy (ICMAPRANE-17) on February 10–11, 2017.[118]

Additional concepts of Facebook Native and Facebook Immigrants were suggested at the conference. Facebook divide, Facebook native, Facebook immigrants, and Facebook left-behind are concepts for social and business management research. Facebook immigrants utilize Facebook for their accumulation of both bonding and bridging social capital. Facebook natives, Facebook immigrants, and Facebook left-behind induced the situation of Facebook inequality. In February 2018, the Facebook Divide Index was introduced at the ICMAPRANE conference in Noida, India, to illustrate the Facebook divide phenomenon.[119]

Internet access is a necessary first, but not sufficient condition for overcoming the digital divide. Access to ICT meets significant challenges that stem from income restrictions. As of 2009, the borderline between ICT as a necessity good and ICT as a luxury good was roughly around US$10 per person per month, or US$120 per year,[66] which means that people consider ICT expenditure of US$120 per year as a basic necessity. Since more than 40% of the world population lives on less than US$2 per day, and around 20% live on less than US$1 per day (or less than US$365 per year), these income segments would have to spend one third of their income on ICT (120/365 = 33%). The global average of ICT spending is at a mere 3% of income.[66] Potential solutions include driving down the costs of ICT, which includes low-cost technologies and shared access through Telecentres.[citation needed]

In 2022, the US Federal Communications Commission started a proceeding "to prevent and eliminate digital discrimination and ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service, consistent with Congress’s direction in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.[120]

Since May 17, 2006, he United Nations has raised awareness of the divide by way of the World Information Society Day.[121] In 2001, it set up the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Task Force.[122] Later UN initiatives in this area are the World Summit on the Information Society since 2003, and the Internet Governance Forum, set up in 2006.

In the year 2000, the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme launched its Online Volunteering service,[123] which uses ICT as a vehicle for and in support of volunteering. It constitutes an example of a volunteering initiative that effectively contributes to bridge the digital divide. ICT-enabled volunteering has a clear added value for development. If more people collaborate online with more development institutions and initiatives, this will imply an increase in person-hours dedicated to development cooperation at essentially no additional cost. This is the most visible effect of online volunteering for human development.[124]

Social media websites serve as both manifestations of and means by which to combat the digital divide. The former describes phenomena such as the divided users' demographics that make up sites such as Facebook, WordPress and Instagram. Each of these sites hosts communities that engage with otherwise marginalized populations. An example of this is the large online community devoted to Afrofuturism, a discourse that critiques dominant structures of power by merging themes of science fiction and blackness.[citation needed]

Libraries

In 2010 an "online indigenous digital library as part of public library services" was created in Durban, South Africa to narrow the digital divide by not only giving the people of the Durban area access to this digital resource, but also by incorporating the community members into the process of creating it.[125]

In 2002, the Gates Foundation started the Gates Library Initiative which provides training assistance and guidance in libraries.[126]

In Kenya, lack of funding, language, and technology illiteracy contributed to an overall lack of computer skills and educational advancement. This slowly began to change when foreign investment began.[127][128] In the early 2000s, the Carnegie Foundation funded a revitalization project through the Kenya National Library Service. Those resources enabled public libraries to provide information and communication technologies to their patrons. In 2012, public libraries in the Busia and Kiberia communities introduced technology resources to supplement curriculum for primary schools. By 2013, the program expanded into ten schools.[129]

Effective use

Even though individuals might be capable of accessing the Internet, many are thwarted by barriers to entry, such as a lack of means to infrastructure or the inability to comprehend the information that the Internet provides. Some individuals can connect, but they do not have the knowledge to use what information ICTs and Internet technologies provide them. This leads to a focus on capabilities and skills, as well as awareness to move from mere access to effective usage of ICT.[130]

Community informatics (CI) focuses on issues of "use" rather than "access". CI is concerned with ensuring the opportunity not only for ICT access at the community level but also, according to Michael Gurstein, that the means for the "effective use" of ICTs for community betterment and empowerment are available.[131] Gurstein has also extended the discussion of the digital divide to include issues around access to and the use of "open data" and coined the term "data divide" to refer to this issue area.[132]

Since gender, age, racial, income, and educational digital divides have lessened compared to the past, some researchers suggest that the digital divide is shifting from a gap in access and connectivity to ICTs to a knowledge divide.[133] A knowledge divide concerning technology presents the possibility that the gap has moved beyond the access and having the resources to connect to ICTs to interpreting and understanding information presented once connected.[134]

Second-level digital divide

The second-level digital divide, also referred to as the production gap, describes the gap that separates the consumers of content on the Internet from the producers of content.[135] As the technological digital divide is decreasing between those with access to the Internet and those without, the meaning of the term digital divide is evolving.[133] Previously, digital divide research has focused on accessibility to the Internet and Internet consumption. However, with more and more of the population gaining access to the Internet, researchers are examining how people use the Internet to create content and what impact socioeconomics are having on user behavior.[136] New applications have made it possible for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection to be a creator of content, yet the majority of user-generated content available widely on the Internet, like public blogs, is created by a small portion of the Internet-using population. Web 2.0 technologies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Blogs enable users to participate online and create content without having to understand how the technology actually works, leading to an ever-increasing digital divide between those who have the skills and understanding to interact more fully with the technology and those who are passive consumers of it.[135] Many are only nominal content creators through the use of Web 2.0, posting photos and status updates on Facebook, but not truly interacting with the technology.

Some of the reasons for this production gap include material factors like the type of Internet connection one has and the frequency of access to the Internet. The more frequently a person has access to the Internet and the faster the connection, the more opportunities they have to gain the technology skills and the more time they have to be creative.[137]

Other reasons include cultural factors often associated with class and socioeconomic status. Users of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to participate in content creation due to disadvantages in education and lack of the necessary free time for the work involved in blog or web site creation and maintenance.[137] Additionally, there is evidence to support the existence of the second-level digital divide at the K-12 level based on how educators' use technology for instruction.[138] Schools' economic factors have been found to explain variation in how teachers use technology to promote higher-order thinking skills.[138]

• Achievement gap
• Civic opportunity gap
• Computer technology for developing areas
• Digital divide by country
• Digital divide in Canada
• Digital divide in China
• Digital divide in South Africa
• Digital divide in Thailand
• Digital rights in the Caribbean
• Digital inclusion
• Digital rights
• Digital Society Day (October 17 in India)
• Global Internet usage
• Government by algorithm
• Information society
• International communication
• Internet geography
• Internet governance
• List of countries by Internet connection speeds
• Light-weight Linux distribution
• Literacy
• National broadband plans from around the world
• NetDay
• Net neutrality
• Rural Internet

• Center for Digital Inclusion
• Digital Textbook a South Korean Project that intends to distribute tablet notebooks to elementary school students.
• Inveneo
• TechChange
• United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force

  This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO Text taken from I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education, UNESCO, EQUALS Skills Coalition, UNESCO. UNESCO. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see this how-to page. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.

1. ^ "Falling Through the Net: Letter From William M. Daley". www.ntia.doc.gov. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
2. ^ Park, Sora (2017). Digital capital. London: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-1-137-59332-0. OCLC 1012343673.
3. ^ "2019 Broadband Deployment Report". Federal Communications Commission. June 11, 2019. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
4. ^ "FCC Underestimates Americans Unserved by Broadband Internet by 50% - BroadbandNow.com". BroadbandNow. February 3, 2020. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
5. ^ a b c Vogels, Emily A. (June 22, 2021). "Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
6. ^ Bukht, Rumana; Heeks, Richard (2017). Defining, Conceptualising and Measuring the Digital Economy. Manchester: Centre for Development Informatics Global Development Institute, SEED. ISBN 978-1-905469-62-8.
7. ^ "Overview of ITU's History (8)". International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
8. ^ Mann, S., & Hilbert, M. (2020). AI4D: Artificial Intelligence for Development. International Journal of Communication, 14(0), 21. https://www.martinhilbert.net/ai4d-artificial-intelligence-for-development/
9. ^ Lee, Kai Fu (2018). AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order. AI Superpowers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 19. ISBN 9781328546395.
10. ^ Campbell, Harry F.; Brown, Richard P. C. (May 2003). Benefit-Cost Analysis Financial and Economic Appraisal Using Spreadsheets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521528986. Retrieved November 9, 2020.
11. ^ Simon, Amanda (February 10, 2015). "Leading Foundations Join Together to Launch Initiative to Build a Stronger Digital Society". Ford Foundation. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
12. ^ Eddy, Matthew Daniel (2022). Media and the Mind: Art, Science and Notebooks as Paper Machines, 1700-1830. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. ^ Jackson, Dr. Kim (September 26, 2000). "The Telecommunications Universal Service Obligation (USO)". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
14. ^ Smith, Craig Warren (2002). Digital Corporate Citizenship: The Business Response to the Digital Divide. Indianapolis: The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. ISBN 1884354203.
15. ^ Sandford, Alasdair (April 2, 2020). "Coronavirus: Half of humanity on lockdown in 90 countries". euronews. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
16. ^ a b c McClain, Colleen; Vogels, Emily A.; Perrin, rew; Sechopoulos, Stella; Rainie, Lee (September 1, 2021). "The Internet and the Pandemic". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
17. ^ "The numbers behind the broadband 'homework gap'". Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
18. ^ "Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the Classroom". nces.ed.gov. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
19. ^ Kakulla, Brittne (2021). "Older Adults Are Upgrading Tech for a Better Online Experience". AARP. doi:10.26419/res.00420.001. S2CID 234803399. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
20. ^ "Health Literacy Online | health.gov". health.gov. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
21. ^ Bank, European Investment (May 5, 2022). Digitalisation in Europe 2021-2022: Evidence from the EIB Investment Survey. European Investment Bank. ISBN 978-92-861-5233-7.
22. ^ "Coronavirus' business impact: Evolving perspective | McKinsey". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
23. ^ "Dashboard – Digital inclusion". GOV.UK. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
24. ^ https://digitalparticipation.scot/[bare URL]
25. ^ "Tech Partnership Legacy". Thetechpartnership.com. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
26. ^ "Media literacy". Ofcom. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
27. ^ Rouse, Margaret. "What is digital accessibility? - Definition from WhatIs.com". Whatis.techtarget.com. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
28. ^ Dijk, J. van. (2020). The Digital Divide (1st edition). Polity.
29. ^ a b Hilbert, Martin (2011). "The end justifies the definition: The manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making". Telecommunications Policy. 35 (8): 715–736. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.06.012.
30. ^ Galperin, H. (2010). Goodbye digital divide, Hello digital confusion? A critical embrace of the emerging ICT4D consensus. Information Technologies and International Development, 6 Special Edition, 53–55
31. ^ "NDIA". 2017. Retrieved June 25, 2018.
32. ^ Zickuher, Kathryn. 2011. Generations and their gadgets. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
33. ^ a b c d e Hilbert, Martin (2016). "The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014". Telecommunications Policy. 40 (6): 567–581. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2016.01.006.
34. ^ Compaine, B.M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
35. ^ Dutton, W.H.; Gillett, S.E.; McKnight, L.W.; Peltu, M. (2004). "Bridging Broadband Internet Divides". Journal of Information Technology. 19 (1): 28–38. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000007. S2CID 11827716.
36. ^ Eszter Hargittai. The Digital Divide and What to Do About It. New Economy Handbook, p. 824, 2003.
37. ^ Kathryn zickuhr. Who's not online and why? Pew Research Center, 2013.
38. ^ a b c d Hilbert, Martin (2013). "Technological information inequality as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution of information and communication capacities between 1986 and 2010" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (4): 821–835. doi:10.1002/asi.23020. S2CID 15820273.
39. ^ SciDevNet (2014) How mobile phones increased the digital divide; http://www.scidev.net/global/data/scidev-net-at-large/how-mobile-phones-increased-the-digital-divide.html
40. ^ Abdalhakim, Hawaf., (2009). An innovated objective digital divide measure, Journal of Communication and Computer, Volume 6, No.12 (Serial No.61), USA.
41. ^ Paschalidou, Georgia, (2011), Digital divide and disparities in the use of new technologies, https://dspace.lib.uom.gr/bitstream/2159/14899/6/PaschalidouGeorgiaMsc2011.pdf
42. ^ Figures 11 and 12 in "Mapping the dimensions and characteristics of the world's technological communication capacity during the period of digitization (1986–2007/2010)". Hilbert, Martin. Working paper INF/15-E, International Telecommunication Union. December 2, 2011.
43. ^ Hilbert, Martin (2010). "Information Societies or "ICT Equipment Societies?" Measuring the Digital Information-Processing Capacity of a Society in Bits and Bytes". The Information Society. 26 (3): 157–178. doi:10.1080/01972241003712199. S2CID 1552670.
44. ^ a b "Mapping the dimensions and characteristics of the world's technological communication capacity during the period of digitization", Martin Hilbert (2011), Presented at the 9th World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting, Mauritius: International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
45. ^ "Chapter 5: Measuring communication capacity in bits and bytes", in Measuring the report Information Society 2012; ITU (International Telecommunication Union) (2012).
46. ^ Mun-cho, K. & Jong-Kil, K. (2001). Digital divide: conceptual discussions and prospect, In W. Kim, T. Wang Ling, Y.j. Lee & S.S. Park (Eds.), The human society and the Internet: Internet-related socio-economic Issues, First International Conference, Seoul, Korea: Proceedings, Springer, New York, NY.
47. ^ Aqili, S.; Moghaddam, A. (2008). "Bridging the digital divide: The role of librarians and information professionals in the third millennium". Electronic Library. 26 (2): 226–237. doi:10.1108/02640470810864118.
48. ^ Livingston, Gretchen. 2010. Latinos and Digital Technology, 2010. Pew Hispanic Center
49. ^ Ramalingam A, Kar SS (2014). "Is there a digital divide among school students? an exploratory study from Puducherry". J Educ Health Promot. 3: 30. doi:10.4103/2277-9531.131894 (inactive February 28, 2022). PMC 4089106. PMID 25013823.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2022 (link)
50. ^ "Digital Inclusion – Key to Prosperous & Smart Cities". Wireless Broadband Alliance. 2017.
51. ^ "With Almost Half of World's Population Still Offline, Digital Divide Risks Becoming 'New Face of Inequality', Deputy Secretary-General Warns General Assembly. Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". www.un.org. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
52. ^ "The Global Digital Divide | Cultural Anthropology". courses.lumenlearning.com. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
53. ^ "The digital divide - Ethics and law - GCSE Computer Science Revision". BBC Bitesize. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
54. ^ "Factors affecting the speed and quality of internet connection". Traficom. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
55. ^ Crist, Ry. "What is Starlink? Elon Musk's satellite internet venture explained". CNET. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
56. ^ "The global digital divide (article)". Khan Academy. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
57. ^ Ryan Kim (October 25, 2011). "'App gap' emerges highlighting savvy mobile children". GigaOM.
58. ^ a b c Mossberger, Karen; Tolbert, Caroline J.; Gilbert, Michele (2006). "Race, Place, and Information Technology (IT)". Urban Affairs Review. 41 (5): 583–620. doi:10.1177/1078087405283511. S2CID 18619121.
59. ^ Lawton, Tait. "15 Years of Chinese Internet Usage in 13 Pretty Graphs". NanjingMarketingGroup.com. CNNIC. Archived from the original on April 22, 2014.
60. ^ Wang, Wensheng. Impact of ICTs on Farm Households in China, ZEF of University Bonn, 2001
61. ^ Statistical Survey Report on the Internet Development in China. China Internet Network Information Center. January 2007. From "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 14, 2013. Retrieved July 5, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
62. ^ Guillen, M. F.; Suárez, S. L. (2005). "Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use". Social Forces. 84 (2): 681–708. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.649.2813. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0015. S2CID 3124360.
63. ^ Wilson, III. E.J. (2004). The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
64. ^ Carr, Deborah (2007). "The Global Digital Divide". Contexts. 6 (3): 58. doi:10.1525/ctx.2007.6.3.58. S2CID 62654684. ProQuest 219574259.
65. ^ Wilson, Kenneth, Jennifer Wallin, and Christa Reiser. "Social Science Computer Review." Social Science Computer Review. 2003; 21(2): 133-143 PDF
66. ^ a b c Hilbert, Martin (2010). "When is Cheap, Cheap Enough to Bridge the Digital Divide? Modeling Income Related Structural Challenges of Technology Diffusion in Latin America" (PDF). World Development. 38 (5): 756–770. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.019.
67. ^ Hilbert, Martin (November–December 2011). "Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics" (PDF). Women's Studies International Forum. 34 (6): 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001. S2CID 146742985.
68. ^ Schliefe, Katrin (February 2007). "Regional Versus. Individual Aspects of the Digital Divide in Germany" (PDF). Retrieved October 21, 2017.
69. ^ Rubin, R.E. (2010). Foundations of library and information science. 178–179. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
70. ^ National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the'have nots' in rural and urban America. Washington, D.C. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
71. ^ National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). Falling through the net II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1998/falling-through-net-ii-new-data-digital-divide
72. ^ a b c National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/1999/falling-through-net-defining-digital-divide
73. ^ National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the'have nots' in rural and urban America. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
74. ^ a b Vogels, Emily A. "Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption". Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 27, 2021.
75. ^ https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/legacy-policy/digital_denied_free_press_report_december_2016.pdf[bare URL PDF]
76. ^ "Americans living with disability and their technology profile". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Washington. January 21, 2011. Retrieved April 5, 2020.
77. ^ Lazar, Jonathan; Stein, Michael Ashley (June 22, 2017). Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4923-1.
78. ^ Holmberg, Christopher (2022). "Digitally excluded in a highly digitalized country: An investigation of Swedish outpatients with psychotic disorders and functional impairments". European Journal of Psychiatry. 36 (3): 217–221. doi:10.1016/j.ejpsy.2022.04.005. S2CID 249219399.
79. ^ "Online hate crime against disabled people rises by a third". The Guardian. May 10, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2020.
80. ^ "'He can't speak to defend himself, I can'". BBC News. Retrieved April 5, 2020.
81. ^ a b c "I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education" (PDF). UNESCO, EQUALS Skills Coalition. 2019.
82. ^ Mariscal, J., Mayne, G., Aneja, U. and Sorgner, A. 2018. Bridging the Gender Digital Gap. Buenos Aires, CARI/CIPPEC.
83. ^ a b Girl Effect and Vodafone Foundation. 2018. Real Girls, Real Lives, Connected. London, Girl Effect and Vodafone Foundation.
84. ^ Fjeld, A. 2018. AI: A Consumer Perspective. March 13, 2018. New York, LivePerson.
85. ^ Cooper, J. (2008). "The digital divide: the special case of gender" (PDF). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (22).
86. ^ Mundy, Liza (April 2017). "Why Is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women?". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 17, 2020.
87. ^ Dastin, Jeffrey (October 10, 2018). "Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women". Reuters. Retrieved April 17, 2020.
88. ^ Vidal, Elizabeth (October 2019). "Digital Literacy Program: Reducing the Digital Gap of the Elderly: Experiences and Lessons Learned". 2019 International Conference on Inclusive Technologies and Education (CONTIE). San Jose del Cabo, Mexico: IEEE: 117–1173. doi:10.1109/CONTIE49246.2019.00030. ISBN 978-1-7281-5436-7. S2CID 210994981.
89. ^ Czaja, Sara; Schulz, Richard (2006). "Innovations in Technology and Aging Introduction". Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging. 30 (2): 6–8.
90. ^ Friemel, Thomas N (February 2016). "The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors". New Media & Society. 18 (2): 313–331. doi:10.1177/1461444814538648. ISSN 1461-4448. S2CID 206728184.
91. ^ Choi, Namkee G; DiNitto, Diana M (May 2, 2013). "The Digital Divide Among Low-Income Homebound Older Adults: Internet Use Patterns, eHealth Literacy, and Attitudes Toward Computer/Internet Use". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 15 (5): e93. doi:10.2196/jmir.2645. PMC 3650931. PMID 23639979.
92. ^ Hargittai, Eszter; Dobransky, Kerry (May 23, 2017). "Old Dogs, New Clicks: Digital Inequality in Skills and Uses among Older Adults". Canadian Journal of Communication. 42 (2). doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3176. ISSN 1499-6642.
93. ^ a b c Bowles, Nellie (October 26, 2018). "The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
94. ^ Stone, Dianna; Krueger, Dianna; Lukaszewski, Kimberly (May 2018). "Age and the Digital Divide". Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability. 13 (3) – via Research Gate.
95. ^ Perrin, rew; Atske, Sara. "7% of Americans don't use the internet. Who are they?". Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
96. ^ König, Ronny; Seifert, Alexander; Doh, Michael (January 19, 2018). "Internet use among older Europeans: an analysis based on SHARE data". Universal Access in the Information Society. 17 (3): 621–633. doi:10.1007/s10209-018-0609-5. ISSN 1615-5289. S2CID 3648257.
97. ^ Paul, Gerd; Stegbauer, Christian (October 3, 2005). "Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing?". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v10i10.1286. ISSN 1396-0466.
98. ^ a b c "How to close the digital gap for the elderly". Big Think. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
99. ^ "How can technology be made more accessible to older adults?". Independa, Inc. June 11, 2014. Retrieved December 7, 2021.
100. ^ Chinn, Menzie D. and Robert W. Fairlie. (2004). The Determinants of the Global Digital Divide: A Cross-Country Analysis of Computer and Internet Penetration. Economic Growth Center. Retrieved from [1]
101. ^ Lu, Ming-te (2001). "Digital divide in developing countries" (PDF). Journal of Global Information Technology Management. 4 (3): 1–4. doi:10.1080/1097198x.2001.10856304. S2CID 153534228. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 26, 2014.
102. ^ a b McKendrick, Joe. "Lack Of Digital, Cloud Opportunities Is Actually Embarrassing For Employees, Survey Suggests". Forbes. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
103. ^ a b Foroohar, Rana. "The Real Threat to Economic Growth Is the Digital Divide". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
104. ^ "Closing Digital Divide Critical to Social, Economic Development, Delegates Say at Second Committee Debate on Information and Communications Technologies | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". www.un.org. Retrieved September 26, 2017.
105. ^ a b c "Digital Divide: The Technology Gap between the Rich and Poor". Digital Responsibility. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
106. ^ Aguilar, S.J. "Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity." Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 121 No. 5/6, pp. 285-299, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0084.
107. ^ a b c d "The Homework Gap: The 'Cruelest Part of the Digital Divide'". NEA Today. April 20, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
108. ^ "The Digital Divide in the Age of the Connected Classroom | NetRef". NetRef. January 14, 2016. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
109. ^ dados, Océanos y (March 31, 2015), Smartphone, retrieved June 12, 2022
110. ^ Kang, Cecilia (June 7, 2016). "The Challenges of Closing the Digital Divide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
111. ^ Elliott, Larry (January 13, 2016). "Spread of internet has not conquered 'digital divide' between rich and poor – report". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 17, 2017.
112. ^ a b c Vogels, Emily A. "Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption". Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
113. ^ Andrew Perrin (June 3, 2021). "Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
114. ^ Yung, Chunsing (June 1, 2017). "From Digital Divide to Facebook Divide, Reconstruct our Target Market Segments with Facebook Native and Facebook Immigrant". Jaipuria International Journal of Management Research. 3 (1): 8–18. doi:10.22552/jijmr/2017/v3/i1/146083. ISSN 2454-9509. S2CID 168913486.
115. ^ Thakur, Rajiv; Srivastava, Vinita; Bhatia, Shikha; Sharma, Jitender (2017). Management Practices for the New Economy. India: Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. pp. 53–56. ISBN 9789386432087.
116. ^ Facebook Divide, Facebook Native and Facebook Immigrant. Proceedings of Researchfora 1st International Conference, Berlin, Germany, March 3–4, 2017, ISBN 978-93-86291-88-2. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2947269
117. ^ Yung, Chun Sing (June 23, 2017). "Facebook Divide Society [面簿分隔的社會]". Zao Bao, Singapore, Page 22.
118. ^ "Past Conference – ICMAPRANE2018". Jaipuria.ac.in. February 11, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
119. ^ "ICMAPRANE 2018". Jaipuria.ac.in. June 20, 2014. Retrieved October 26, 2018.
120. ^ "Preventing Digital Discrimination in Broadband Access". Federal Communications Commission. February 23, 2022. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
121. ^ United Nations Educational UNDay
122. ^ "UN Information and Communication Technologies (ITC) Task Force Launched Today at Headquarters", Press Release, United Nations (New York), November 20, 2001
123. ^ Online Volunteering
124. ^ Acevedo, Manuel. 2005. Volunteering in the information society, Research paper.
125. ^ Greyling, E.; Zulu, S. (2010). "Content development in an indigenous digital library: A case study in community participation". IFLA Journal. 36 (1): 30–9. doi:10.1177/0340035209359570. S2CID 110314974.
126. ^ Blau, A (2002). "Access isn't enough: Merely connecting people and computers won't close the digital divide". American Libraries. 33 (6): 50–52.
127. ^ Civelek, Mustafa Emre; Çemberci, Murat; Uca, Nagehan (2016). "The Role of Entrepreneurship and Foreign Direct Investments on the Relation between Digital Divide and Economic Growth: A Structural Equation Model". Eurasian Academy of Sciences Social Sciences Journal. 7 (7): 119–127. doi:10.17740/eas.soc.2016.V7-07. S2CID 53978201.
128. ^ "Kenya Economic Update: Accelerating Kenya's Digital Economy". World Bank. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
129. ^ Pingo, Z. B. (2015). The transition from Camel Libraries to Digital Technologies in Kenya Public Libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 34(1), 63–84.
130. ^ Karen Mossberger (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Georgetown University Press
131. ^ Gurstein, Michael. "Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital divide". Archived from the original on March 9, 2012. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
132. ^ Gurstein, Michael. "Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?". Archived from the original on November 24, 2012. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
133. ^ a b Graham, M. (July 2011). "Time machines and virtual portals: The spatialities of the digital divide". Progress in Development Studies. 11 (3): 211–227. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.659.9379. doi:10.1177/146499341001100303. S2CID 17281619.  
134. ^ Sciadas, George. (2003). Monitoring the Digital Divide...and Beyond. Orbicom.
135. ^ a b Reilley, Collen A. Teaching Wikipedia as a Mirrored Technology. First Monday, Vol. 16, No. 1-3, January 2011
136. ^ Graham, Mark (2014). "The Knowledge Based Economy and Digital Divisions of Labour". Pages 189–195 in Companion to Development Studies, 3rd edition, V. Desai, and R. Potter (eds). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-44-416724-5 (paperback). ISBN 978-0-415-82665-5 (hardcover).
137. ^ a b Schradie, Jen (2011). "The Digital Production Gap: The Digital Divide and Web 2.0 Collide" (PDF). Poetics. 39 (2): 145–168. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.003. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 27, 2012.
138. ^ a b Reinhart, J.; Thomas, E.; Toriskie, J. (2011). "K-12 Teachers: Technology Use and the Second Level Digital Divide". Journal of Instructional Psychology. 38 (3/4): 181.

• Borland, J. (April 13, 1998). "Move Over Megamalls, Cyberspace Is the Great Retailing Equalizer". Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
• Brynjolfsson, Erik and Michael D. Smith (2000). "The great equalizer? Consumer choice behavior at Internet shopbots". Sloan Working Paper 4208–01. eBusiness@MIT Working Paper 137. July 2000. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• James, J. (2004). Information Technology and Development: A new paradigm for delivering the Internet to rural areas in developing countries. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32632-X (print). ISBN 0-203-32550-8 (e-book).
• Southwell, B. G. (2013). Social networks and popular understanding of science and health: sharing disparities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-1324-2 (book).
• World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2005. "What's the state of ICT access around the world?" Retrieved July 17, 2009.
• World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2008. "ICTs in Africa: Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity". Retrieved July 17, 2009.

• "Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide" (PDF), NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.
• DiMaggio, P. & Hargittai, E. (2001). "From the 'Digital Divide' to 'Digital Inequality': Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases", Working Paper No. 15, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
• Foulger, D. (2001). "Seven bridges over the global digital divide". IAMCR & ICA Symposium on Digital Divide, November 2001. Retrieved July 17, 2009.
• Chen, W.; Wellman, B. (2004). "The global digital divide within and between countries". IT & Society. 1 (7): 39–45.
• Council of Economic Advisors (2015). Mapping the Digital Divide.
• "A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age", NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2004.
• James, J (2005). "The global digital divide in the Internet: developed countries constructs and Third World realities". Journal of Information Science. 31 (2): 114–23. doi:10.1177/0165551505050788. S2CID 42678504.
• Rumiany, D. (2007). "Reducing the Global Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa". Posted on Global Envision with permission from Development Gateway, January 8, 2007. Retrieved July 17, 2009.
• "Telecom use at the Bottom of the Pyramid 2 (use of telecom services and ICTs in emerging Asia)", LIRNEasia, 2007.
• "Telecom use at the Bottom of the Pyramid 3 (Mobile2.0 applications, migrant workers in emerging Asia)", LIRNEasia, 2008–09.
• "São Paulo Special: Bridging Brazil's digital divide", Digital Planet, BBC World Service, October 2, 2008.
• Graham, M. (2009). "Global Placemark Intensity: The Digital Divide Within Web 2.0 Data", Floatingsheep Blog.
• Graham, M (2011). "Time Machines and Virtual Portals: The Spatialities of the Digital Divide". Progress in Development Studies. 11 (3): 211–227. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.659.9379. doi:10.1177/146499341001100303. S2CID 17281619.
• Yfantis, V. (2017). "Disadvantaged Populations And Technology In Music". A book about the digital divide in the music industry.

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: The Information Age

• Digital Inclusion Network, an online exchange on topics related to the digital divide and digital inclusion, E-Democracy.org.
• E-inclusion, an initiative of the European Commission to ensure that "no one is left behind" in enjoying the benefits of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
• eEurope – An information society for all, a political initiative of the European Union.
•   Media related to Digital divide at Wikimedia Commons
• Statistics from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Several telecommunications companies market wireless mobile Internet services as 3G, indicating that the advertised service is provided over a 3G wireless network. Services advertised as 3G are required to meet IMT-2000 technical standards, including standards for reliability and speed (data transfer rates). To meet the IMT-2000 standards, a system must provide peak data rates of at least 144 kbit/s.[4] However, many services advertised as 3G provide higher speed than the minimum technical requirements for a 3G service.[9] Subsequent 3G releases, denoted 3.5G and 3.75G, provided mobile broadband access of several Mbit/s for smartphones and mobile modems in laptop computers.[10]

3G branded standards:

• The UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) system, standardized by 3GPP in 2001, was used in Europe, Japan, China (with a different radio interface) and other regions predominated by GSM (Global Systems for Mobile) 2G system infrastructure. The cell phones are typically UMTS and GSM hybrids. Several radio interfaces are offered, sharing the same infrastructure:
  • The original and most widespread radio interface is called W-CDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access).
  • The TD-SCDMA radio interface was commercialized in 2009 and only offered in China.
  • The latest UMTS release, HSPA+, can provide peak data rates up to 56 Mbit/s in the downlink in theory (28 Mbit/s in existing services) and 22 Mbit/s in the uplink.
• The CDMA2000 system, first offered in 2002, standardized by 3GPP2, used especially in North America and South Korea, sharing infrastructure with the IS-95 2G standard. The cell phones are typically CDMA2000 and IS-95 hybrids. The latest release EVDO Rev. B offers peak rates of 14.7 Mbit/s downstream.

The 3G systems and radio interfaces are based on spread spectrum radio transmission technology. While the GSM EDGE standard ("2.9G"), DECT cordless phones and Mobile WiMAX standards formally also fulfill the IMT-2000 requirements and are approved as 3G standards by ITU, these are typically not branded as 3G and are based on completely different technologies.

The common standards complying with the IMT2000/3G standard are:

• EDGE, a revision by the 3GPP organization to the older 2G GSM based transmission methods, which utilizes the same switching nodes, base station sites, and frequencies as GPRS, but includes a new base station and cellphone RF circuits. It is based on the three times as efficient 8PSK modulation scheme as a supplement to the original GMSK modulation scheme. EDGE is still used extensively due to its ease of upgrade from existing 2G GSM infrastructure and cell phones.
  • EDGE combined with the GPRS 2.5G technology is called EGPRS, and allows peak data rates in the order of 200 kbit/s, just like the original UMTS WCDMA versions and thus formally fulfill the IMT2000 requirements on 3G systems. However, in practice, EDGE is seldom marketed as a 3G system, but a 2.9G system. EDGE shows slightly better system spectral efficiency than the original UMTS and CDMA2000 systems, but it is difficult to reach much higher peak data rates due to the limited GSM spectral bandwidth of 200 kHz, and it is thus a dead end.
  • EDGE was also a mode in the IS-136 TDMA system, no longer used.
  • Evolved EDGE, the latest revision, has peaks of 1 Mbit/s downstream and 400 kbit/s upstream but is not commercially used.
• The Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, created and revised by the 3GPP. The family is a full revision from GSM in terms of encoding methods and hardware, although some GSM sites can be retrofitted to broadcast in the UMTS/W-CDMA format.
  • W-CDMA is the most common deployment, commonly operated on the 2,100 MHz band. A few others use the 850, 900, and 1,900 MHz bands.
    • HSPA is an amalgamation of several upgrades to the original W-CDMA standard and offers speeds of 14.4 Mbit/s down and 5.76 Mbit/s up. HSPA is backward-compatible and uses the same frequencies as W-CDMA.
    • HSPA+, a further revision and upgrade of HSPA, can provide theoretical peak data rates up to 168 Mbit/s in the downlink and 22 Mbit/s in the uplink, using a combination of air interface improvements as well as multi-carrier HSPA and MIMO. Technically though, MIMO and DC-HSPA can be used without the "+" enhancements of HSPA+.
• The CDMA2000 system, or IS-2000, including CDMA2000 1x and CDMA2000 High Rate Packet Data (or EVDO), standardized by 3GPP2 (differing from the 3GPP), evolving from the original IS-95 CDMA system, is used especially in North America, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa.
  • CDMA2000 1x Rev. E has an increased voice capacity (by three times the original amount) compared to Rev. 0 EVDO Rev. B offers downstream peak rates of 14.7 Mbit/s while Rev. C enhanced existing and new terminal user experience.

While DECT cordless phones and Mobile WiMAX standards formally also fulfill the IMT-2000 requirements, they are not usually considered due to their rarity and unsuitability for usage with mobile phones.[11]

Break-up of 3G systems

The 3G (UMTS and CDMA2000) research and development projects started in 1992. In 1999, ITU approved five radio interfaces for IMT-2000 as a part of the ITU-R M.1457 Recommendation; WiMAX was added in 2007.[12]

There are evolutionary standards (EDGE and CDMA) that are backward-compatible extensions to pre-existing 2G networks as well as revolutionary standards that require all-new network hardware and frequency allocations. The cell phones use UMTS in combination with 2G GSM standards and bandwidths, but do not support EDGE. The latter group is the UMTS family, which consists of standards developed for IMT-2000, as well as the independently developed standards DECT and WiMAX, which were included because they fit the IMT-2000 definition.

While EDGE fulfills the 3G specifications, most GSM/UMTS phones report EDGE ("2.75G") and UMTS ("3G") functionality.[13]

3G technology was the result of research and development work carried out by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in the early 1980s. 3G specifications and standards were developed in fifteen years. The technical specifications were made available to the public under the name IMT-2000. The communication spectrum between 400 MHz to 3 GHz was allocated for 3G. Both the government and communication companies approved the 3G standard. The first pre-commercial 3G network was launched by NTT DoCoMo in Japan in 1998,[14] branded as FOMA. It was first available in May 2001 as a pre-release (test) of W-CDMA technology. The first commercial launch of 3G was also by NTT DoCoMo in Japan on 1 October 2001, although it was initially somewhat limited in scope;[15][16] broader availability of the system was delayed by apparent concerns over its reliability.[17]

The first European pre-commercial network was an UMTS network on the Isle of Man by Manx Telecom, the operator then owned by British Telecom, and the first commercial network (also UMTS based W-CDMA) in Europe was opened for business by Telenor in December 2001 with no commercial handsets and thus no paying customers.

The first network to go commercially live was by SK Telecom in South Korea on the CDMA-based 1xEV-DO technology in January 2002. By May 2002, the second South Korean 3G network was by KT on EV-DO and thus the South Koreans were the first to see competition among 3G operators.

The first commercial United States 3G network was by Monet Mobile Networks, on CDMA2000 1x EV-DO technology, but the network provider later shut down operations. The second 3G network operator in the USA was Verizon Wireless in July 2002, also on CDMA2000 1x EV-DO. AT&T Mobility was also a true 3G UMTS network, having completed its upgrade of the 3G network to HSUPA.

The first commercial United Kingdom 3G network was started by Hutchison Telecom which was originally behind Orange S.A.[18] In 2003, it announced first commercial third generation or 3G mobile phone network in the UK.

The first pre-commercial demonstration network in the southern hemisphere was built in Adelaide, South Australia, by m.Net Corporation in February 2002 using UMTS on 2100 MHz. This was a demonstration network for the 2002 IT World Congress. The first commercial 3G network was launched by Hutchison Telecommunications branded as Three or "3" in June 2003.[19]

In India, on 11 December 2008, the first 3G mobile and internet services were launched by a state-owned company, Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Limited (MTNL), within the metropolitan cities of Delhi and Mumbai. After MTNL, another state-owned company, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), began deploying the 3G networks country-wide.

Emtel launched the first 3G network in Africa.[20]

Adoption

Japan was one of the first countries to adopt 3G, the reason being the process of 3G spectrum allocation, which in Japan was awarded without much upfront cost. The frequency spectrum was allocated in the US and Europe based on auctioning, thereby requiring a huge initial investment for any company wishing to provide 3G services. European companies collectively paid over 100 billion dollars in their spectrum auctions.[21]

Nepal Telecom adopted 3G Service for the first time in southern Asia. However, its 3G was relatively slow to be adopted in Nepal. In some instances, 3G networks do not use the same radio frequencies as 2G, so mobile operators must build entirely new networks and license entirely new frequencies, especially to achieve high data transmission rates. Other countries' delays were due to the expenses of upgrading transmission hardware, especially for UMTS, whose deployment required the replacement of most broadcast towers. Due to these issues and difficulties with deployment, many carriers could not or delayed the acquisition of these updated capabilities.

In December 2007, 190 3G networks were operating in 40 countries and 154 HSDPA networks were operating in 71 countries, according to the Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA). In Asia, Europe, Canada, and the US, telecommunication companies use W-CDMA technology with the support of around 100 terminal designs to operate 3G mobile networks.

The roll-out of 3G networks was delayed by the enormous costs of additional spectrum licensing fees in some countries. The license fees in some European countries were particularly high, bolstered by government auctions of a limited number of licenses and sealed bid auctions, and initial excitement over 3G's potential. This led to a telecoms crash that ran concurrently with similar crashes in the fibre-optic and dot.com fields.

The 3G standard is perhaps well known because of a massive expansion of the mobile communications market post-2G and advances of the consumer mobile phone. An especially notable development during this time is the smartphone (for example, the iPhone, and the Android family), combining the abilities of a PDA with a mobile phone, leading to widespread demand for mobile internet connectivity. 3G has also introduced the term "mobile broadband" because its speed and capability made it a viable alternative for internet browsing, and USB Modems connecting to 3G networks, and now 4G became increasingly common.

Market penetration

By June 2007, the 200 millionth 3G subscriber had been connected of which 10 million were in Nepal and 8.2 million in India. This 200 millionth is only 6.7% of the 3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide. (When counting CDMA2000 1x RTT customers—max bitrate 72% of the 200 kbit/s which defines 3G—the total size of the nearly-3G subscriber base was 475 million as of June 2007, which was 15.8% of all subscribers worldwide.) In the countries where 3G was launched first – Japan and South Korea – 3G penetration is over 70%.[22] In Europe the leading country[when?] for 3G penetration is Italy with a third of its subscribers migrated to 3G. Other leading countries[when?] for 3G use include Nepal, UK, Austria, Australia and Singapore at the 32% migration level.

According to ITU estimates,[23] as of Q4 2012 there were 2096 million active mobile-broadband[vague] subscribers worldwide out of a total of 6835 million subscribers—this is just over 30%. About half the mobile-broadband subscriptions are for subscribers in developed nations, 934 million out of 1600 million total, well over 50%. Note however that there is a distinction between a phone with mobile-broadband connectivity and a smart phone with a large display and so on—although according[24] to the ITU and informatandm.com the USA has 321 million mobile subscriptions, including 256 million that are 3G or 4G, which is both 80% of the subscriber base and 80% of the USA population, according[23] to ComScore just a year earlier in Q4 2011 only about 42% of people surveyed in the USA reported they owned a smart phone. In Japan, 3G penetration was similar at about 81%, but smart phone ownership was lower at about 17%.[23] In China, there were 486.5 million 3G subscribers in June 2014,[25] in a population of 1,385,566,537 (2013 UN estimate).

Decline and decommissions

Since the increasing adoption of 4G networks across the globe, 3G use has been in decline. Several operators around the world have already or are in the process of shutting down their 3G networks (see table below). In several places, 3G is being shut down while its older predecessor 2G is being kept in operation; Vodafone Europe is doing this, citing 2G's usefulness as a low-power fall-back.[26] EE in the UK have indicated that they plan to phase out 3G by 2023 with the spectrum being used to enhance 5G capacity.[27] In the US, Verizon was planning to shut down its 3G services at the end of 2020 (later delayed to the end of 2022[28]), while T-Mobile/Sprint is planning to do so on 31 March 2022, and AT&T is planning to do so in February 2022.[29][30]

Currently 3G around the world is declining in availability and support. Technology that depends on 3G for usage will soon become inoperable in many places. For example, the European Union plans to ensure that member countries maintain 2G networks as a fallback[citation needed], so 3G devices that are backwards compatible with 2G frequencies can continue to be used. However, in countries that plan to decommission 2G networks as well, such as the United States, devices supporting only 3G and backwards compatible with 2G will soon be inoperable.[31]

It has been estimated that there are almost 8,000 patents declared essential (FRAND) related to the 483 technical specifications which form the 3GPP and 3GPP2 standards.[32][33] Twelve companies accounted in 2004 for 90% of the patents (Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Philips, NTT DoCoMo, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu, Hitachi, InterDigital, and Matsushita).

Even then, some patents essential to 3G might not have been declared by their patent holders. It is believed that Nortel and Lucent have undisclosed patents essential to these standards.[33]

Furthermore, the existing 3G Patent Platform Partnership Patent pool has little impact on FRAND protection because it excludes the four largest patent owners for 3G.[34][35]

ITU has not provided a clear[36][vague] definition of the data rate that users can expect from 3G equipment or providers. Thus users sold 3G service may not be able to point to a standard and say that the rates it specifies are not being met. While stating in commentary that "it is expected that IMT-2000 will provide higher transmission rates: a minimum data rate of 2 Mbit/s for stationary or walking users, and 348 kbit/s in a moving vehicle,"[37] the ITU does not actually clearly specify minimum required rates, nor required average rates, nor what modes[clarification needed] of the interfaces qualify as 3G, so various[vague] data rates are sold as '3G' in the market.

In a market implementation, 3G downlink data speeds defined by telecom service providers vary depending on the underlying technology deployed; up to 384kbit/s for UMTS (WCDMA), up to 7.2Mbit/sec for HSPA, and a theoretical maximum of 21.1 Mbit/s for HSPA+ and 42.2 Mbit/s for DC-HSPA+ (technically 3.5G, but usually clubbed under the tradename of 3G).[citation needed]

Compare data speeds with 3.5G and 4G.

Security

See also: Mobile security § Attacks based on the GSM networks

3G networks offer greater security than their 2G predecessors. By allowing the UE (User Equipment) to authenticate the network it is attaching to, the user can be sure the network is the intended one and not an impersonator. 3G networks use the KASUMI block cipher instead of the older A5/1 stream cipher. However, a number of serious weaknesses in the KASUMI cipher have been identified.[38]

In addition to the 3G network infrastructure security, end-to-end security is offered when application frameworks such as IMS are accessed, although this is not strictly a 3G property.

Applications of 3G

The bandwidth and location information available to 3G devices gives rise to applications not previously available to mobile phone users. It became possible to conveniently surf the internet on a 3G network on the go with minimum hassle, and do many other tasks previously a slow and difficult hassle on 2G. Medical devices, fire alarms, ankle monitors use this network for accomplishing their designated tasks alongside mobile phone users.[39] This network marked the first for a cellular communications network to be used in such a wide variety of tasks, kick-starting the beginning of widespread usage of cellular networks.

Both 3GPP and 3GPP2 are working on the extensions to 3G standards that are based on an all-IP network infrastructure and using advanced wireless technologies such as MIMO. These specifications already display features characteristic for IMT-Advanced (4G), the successor of 3G. However, falling short of the bandwidth requirements for 4G (which is 1 Gbit/s for stationary and 100 Mbit/s for mobile operation), these standards are classified as 3.9G or Pre-4G. 3GPP plans to meet the 4G goals with LTE Advanced, whereas Qualcomm has halted UMB development in favour of the LTE family.[40]

On 14 December 2009, TeliaSonera announced in an official press release that "We are very proud to be the first operator in the world to offer our customers 4G services."[41] With the launch of their LTE network, initially they are offering pre-4G (or beyond 3G) services in Stockholm, Sweden and Oslo, Norway.

• List of mobile phone generations
• Mobile radio telephone (also known as "0G")
• Mobile broadband
• Wireless device radiation and health
• 1G
• 2G
• 4G
• 5G
• LTE (telecommunication)

1. ^ a b "All about the Technology". itu.int. 4 April 2011. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
2. ^ "3G CELLULAR STANDARDS WITH PATENTS". projectsatbangalore.com. 24 June 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
3. ^ "Kalyan Matka Tips". businesstoday.in. Retrieved 17 August 2019.[permanent dead link]
4. ^ a b "3G vs. 4G: What's the Difference?". PC Magazine. 10 February 2015. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
5. ^ Charny, Ben (1 October 2001). "World's first 3G phone network goes live". ZDNet. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
6. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (1 October 2001). "World's first 3G network live today". theregister.co.uk. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
7. ^ "THE EVOLUTION TO 3G MOBILE – STATUS REPORT". itu.int. 29 July 2003. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
8. ^ "First 3G mobiles launched in Japan". 1 October 2001. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
9. ^ "Download Speeds: Comparing 2G, 3G, 4G & 5G Mobile Networks". Ken's Tech Tips. 23 November 2019. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
10. ^ "HSPA". 3gpp.org. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
11. ^ "HTC – Touch Phone, PDA Phone, Smartphone, Mobile Computer". 22 November 2008. Archived from the original on 22 November 2008. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
12. ^ ITU. "ITU Radiocommunication Assembly approves new developments for its 3G standards". press release. Archived from the original on 19 May 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
13. ^ "EDGE, 3G, H+, Etc: What Are All These Mobile Networks?". MakeUseOf. 15 February 2019. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
14. ^ "A Brand New Mobile Millennium Ericsson/CATT/DoCoMo jointly demonstrate pioneering W-CDMA technology at PT/Wireless | Press Center | NTT DOCOMO Global". Nttdocomo.com. 9 November 1999. Archived from the original on 6 February 2012. Retrieved 30 October 2012.
15. ^ "Economists' Pick | HKTDC Research". economists-pick-research.hktdc.com. Archived from the original on 31 March 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
16. ^ "broadbandmag.co.uk/3G grinds to a start". Archived from the original on 23 April 2009. Retrieved 7 April 2009.
17. ^ "DoCoMo Delays 3G Launch". Wired. 24 April 2001.
18. ^ "3G in UK". 3g.co.uk.
19. ^ "About Hutchison". Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Limited. 11 June 2008. Retrieved 7 April 2012.
20. ^ "Emtel | Africa Outlook Magazine". Africa Outlook Magazine. Archived from the original on 3 February 2018. Retrieved 3 February 2018.
21. ^ "Radiocommunications Agency : The Auction of Radio Spectrum for the Third Generation of Mobile Telephones – National Audit Office (NAO) Report". National Audit Office. 19 October 2001. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
22. ^ "Plus 8 Star presentation, "Is 3G a Dog or a Demon – Hints from 7 years of 3G Hype in Asia"". Plus8star.com. 11 June 2008. Archived from the original on 18 February 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2010.
23. ^ a b c "Global mobile statistics 2013 Part A: Mobile subscribers; handset market share; mobile operators". mobiThinking. May 2013. Archived from the original on 6 September 2014. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
24. ^ "The 100 million club: the top 10 mobile markets by number of mobile subscriptions". mobiThinking. 13 December 2012. Archived from the original on 26 September 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
25. ^ Steven Millward (29 July 2014). "China now has 486.5 million 3G subscribers, but only 14 million on new 4G network". Tech in Asia. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
26. ^ Hall, Kat. "Sod 3G, that can go, but don't rush to turn off 2G, UK still needs it – report". www.theregister.com.
27. ^ Jackson, Mark (14 July 2021). "EE and BT Aim to Offer 5G Mobile Anywhere in the UK by 2028". ISPreview UK. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
28. ^ Mike Haberman (30 March 2021). "3G CDMA Network Shut off date set for December 31, 2022".
29. ^ "Goodbye 3G: Here's when T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon will shut it off". Light Reading.
30. ^ Zakrzewski, Cat (13 November 2021). "3G shutdowns could leave most vulnerable without a connection". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 November 2021. AT&T, which plans to shutter its network in February, says it has reached out to affected customers and provided them with discounted or in some instances free phone upgrades. Other networks, including T-Mobile, have delayed their shutdowns until slightly later to accommodate people who still haven’t upgraded; T-Mobile will shut down Sprint’s 3G network on March 31, 2022, while Verizon has said it will shut down its network on Dec. 31, 2022.
31. ^ arsyline.cz. "2G and 3G networks are shutting down globally?! | SECTRON s.r.o". Eshop.sectron.eu. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
32. ^ "3G CELLULAR STANDARDS AND PATENTS". engpaper.com. 13 June 2005. Retrieved 24 June 2012.
33. ^ a b David J. Goodman (13 June 2005). "3G CELLULAR STANDARDS AND PATENTS" (PDF). IEEE Wireless com. Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2015. Retrieved 24 June 2012.
34. ^ "Study on the Interplay between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)" (PDF). European Commission. 18 July 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2012. Pools that cover only a fraction of the actual IPR for a standard are not very useful. It is essential that the large licensees sign up. Examples of pools that have little impact are the 3G Licensing pool (which excludes the four largest IPR owners for 3G) and the 802.11 pool by ViaLicensing.
35. ^ "Possible 'showstoppers' shadow 3G patent pool". eetimes.com. 21 May 1999. Retrieved 24 June 2012. Even so, Qualcomm (San Diego) is still a wild card in the patent-pooling effort. Qualcomm was a member of the UMTS group when it was formed in February 1998, but deactivated its membership last September.
36. ^ "3G Licensing Workshop (19–21 September 2001)". www.itu.int. Retrieved 17 June 2021.
37. ^ "Cellular Standards for the Third Generation". ITU. 1 December 2005. Archived from the original on 24 May 2008.
38. ^ "Security for the Third Generation (3G) Mobile System" (PDF). Network Systems & Security Technologies. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 September 2003.
39. ^ Ashworth, Boone. "3G Service Is Going Away Next Year. Here's What That Means". WIRED. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
40. ^ Qualcomm halts UMB project, Reuters, 13 November 2008
41. ^ "first in the world with 4G services". TeliaSonera. 14 December 2009. Retrieved 6 September 2010.
42. ^ "3G Service Closure". Telstra. Archived from the original on 21 November 2019. Retrieved 25 June 2021.
43. ^ "How Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Will Deal With the 3G Shutdown". Gizmodo Australia. 13 December 2021. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
44. ^ "Magenta will start 3G shutdown in 2024". TeleGeography. 8 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
45. ^ a b c d e f g "Orange selects 5G SA vendors; provides timetable for 2G/3G shutdowns". TeleGeography. 1 March 2022. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
46. ^ a b c "What's the 3G Sunset and How Will It Affect Existing IoT Deployments?". hologram.io. Retrieved 24 October 2020.
47. ^ "Important Notice Regarding Upcoming 2G/3G Changes on the Rogers Network". Bulwark. 15 July 2020. Retrieved 24 October 2020.
48. ^ "China Mobile starts to turn off 3G base stations". GSM Association (GSMA), Mobile World Live. 16 March 2016. Retrieved 22 January 2022.
49. ^ "China Mobile closing down 3G system, complete switch-off expected by 2020". TeleGeography. 11 March 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2022.
50. ^ "China Telecom: 3G Network Will Be Shut down Gradually Starting from June". Montnets. 5 June 2020. Retrieved 14 May 2022.
51. ^ a b "T-Mobile, O2 switch off Czech 3G networks". TeleGeography. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 6 December 2021.
52. ^ "Začala bombasticky s vrtulníkem, skončí v tichosti za dva týdny. 3G síť Vodafonu" [It started bombastically with a helicopter, ending in silence in two weeks. Vodafone's 3G network] (in Czech). mobilmania.zive.cz. 17 March 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
53. ^ "Telenor Denmark launching 5G SA in 2022, shutting 3G in late summer". TeleGeography. 9 February 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
54. ^ "Telia Eesti plans 3G shutdown by end-2023". TeleGeography. 28 May 2021. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
55. ^ "Telekom switches off 3G network". TeleGeography. 6 July 2021. Retrieved 13 July 2021.
56. ^ "Telefonica Deutschland accelerates 3G shutdown". TeleGeography. 19 November 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
57. ^ "Telefonica Deutschland to begin 3G switch-off on 1 July". TeleGeography. 8 June 2021. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
58. ^ "Telefonica accelerates 3G switch-off in Germany". TeleGeography. 27 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
59. ^ "Vodafone Germany to switch off 3G on 30 June 2021". TeleGeography. 11 May 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
60. ^ "Cosmote to switch off 3G by end of year". TeleGeography. 15 April 2021. Retrieved 5 February 2022.
61. ^ "Wind Hellas to shut down 3G by end-2022". TeleGeography. 6 July 2021. Retrieved 13 July 2021.
62. ^ "Wind Hellas to begin 3G shutdown". TeleGeography. 4 July 2022. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
63. ^ a b "Subsidies offered to customers exchanging 3G phones from Feb-22". CommsUpdate. 13 October 2021. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
64. ^ "Telekom confirms 3G shutdown will complete this month". TeleGeography. 17 June 2022. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
65. ^ a b c "Hungary's 2G/3G handset replacement scheme extended to end-March 2023". TeleGeography. 11 July 2022. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
66. ^ "Májusban kezdi a 3G-lekapcsolást a Vodafone" (in Hungarian). hwsw.hu. 26 April 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
67. ^ "Airtel begins phasing out Indian 3G networks". TeleGeography. 1 July 2019. Retrieved 1 January 2022.
68. ^ "Bharti Airtel shuts down 3G networks across 11 circles". livemint.com. 5 February 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
69. ^ "Vodafone Idea to exit 3G services by financial year 2022". The Hindu Businessline. 16 February 2021. Retrieved 4 March 2022.
70. ^ a b "Telkomsel and XL Firmly Turn Off 3G This Year, Indosat Is Not Clear All". World Today News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
71. ^ "Telkomsel switches off 3G network in Jakarta". TeleGeography. 7 July 2022. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
72. ^ "Siap-Siap Indosat Matikan Sinyal 3G Di Akhir 2022". detikcom. 31 May 2022. Retrieved 16 July 2022.
73. ^ "Ministry orders shutdown of Israeli 2G, 3G networks by 2025". TelGeography. 2 July 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
74. ^ "Vodafone Ireland unveils plans to phase out 3G". TeleGeography. 30 June 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
75. ^ "TIM to begin 3G shutdown in April". TeleGeography. 3 February 2022. Retrieved 5 February 2022.
76. ^ "TIM to delay 3G shutdown until July". TeleGeography. 9 May 2022. Retrieved 14 May 2022.
77. ^ "TIM 3G switch-off now scheduled for mid-October". TeleGeography. 10 June 2022. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
78. ^ "Vodafone begins 3G switch-off in Italy". TeleGeography. 25 January 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
79. ^ "KDDI to Discontinue 3G Services in March 2022". nippon.com. 16 November 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
80. ^ "KDDI (au) shutting 3G network today; advises users to upgrade if they wish to keep its services". TeleGeography. 31 March 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
81. ^ "「FOMA」および「iモード」のサービス終了について" [End of service for "FOMA" and "i-mode"] (in Japanese). NTT DOCOMO Inc. 29 October 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
82. ^ "Discontinuation of 3G Services". SoftBank Corp. 6 December 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
83. ^ "Telia to commence Lithuanian 3G shutdown in March". TeleGeography. 17 February 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
84. ^ "Telia shuts down a third of 3G base stations". TeleGeography. 6 June 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
85. ^ "Celcom to shutter 3G network in stages; ready for 5G launch by end-2021". TeleGeography. 8 September 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
86. ^ a b "Digi confirms 3G shutdown timeline". TeleGeography. 26 November 2021. Retrieved 26 November 2021.
87. ^ a b c "3G network to be terminated on Dec 31, users advised to switch to 4G". New Straits Times. 25 November 2021. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
88. ^ "KPN shutting 3G by January 2022". TeleGeography. 27 July 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
89. ^ "VodafoneZiggo closing 3G network on 4 February 2020". TeleGeography. 11 December 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
90. ^ "Telia Norge confirms closure of 3G network". TeleGeography. 11 November 2021. Retrieved 12 November 2021.
91. ^ "Omsider slutt for 3G i Telenors nett" (in Norwegian). Tek.no. 21 January 2021. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
92. ^ "T-Mobile begins 900MHz 3G migration in Poland". TeleGeography. 2 February 2022. Retrieved 5 February 2022.
93. ^ "Telekom Slovenije 3G shutdown by end-September". TeleGeography. 5 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
94. ^ "South Africa to ban 2G devices by March 2023". TeleGeography. 16 June 2022. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
95. ^ a b c "cdma users top 30 million". TeleGeography. 19 July 2004. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
96. ^ "Terminating 2G Service in Korea: Policy Issues and Suggestions". International Telecommunications Policy Review. 1 March 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
97. ^ a b "2G Phone Users Create Dilemma for Telecom Carriers ahead of Beginning of 5G Era". BusinessKorea. 27 March 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
98. ^ a b "2G Bows Out, 5G Grows in South Korea - Older Technologies in Decline". TeleGeography Blog. 5 November 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
99. ^ "CDMA2000 Operators - LG UPlus Corp". CDG. 1 October 2000. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
100. ^ "LGT plans EV-DO Rev. A tests ahead of commercial launch in 1H07". TeleGeography. 11 October 2006. Retrieved 31 December 2016.
101. ^ "S. Korea to end 2G network services by June". The Korea Herald. 17 January 2021. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
102. ^ "CDMA2000 Operators - SK Telecom". CDG. 1 October 2000. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
103. ^ "SK Telecoms shutters 2G service". TeleGeography. 28 July 2020. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
104. ^ "Airtel Lanka given go-ahead to shut down 3G network from June". TeleGeography. 29 April 2022. Retrieved 7 May 2022.
105. ^ a b c d "Taiwan to switch off 3G networks at year end". Telecom Asia. 10 January 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
106. ^ a b c d "Taiwan to shut down 3G networks by year end". ZDNet. 18 December 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
107. ^ "EE and BT Aim to Offer 5G Mobile Anywhere in the UK by 2028". ISPreview UK. 14 July 2021. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
108. ^ "Three UK confirms it will switch off 3G at the end of 2024". TeleGeography. 12 May 2022. Retrieved 14 May 2022.
109. ^ "Vodafone UK to begin retiring its 3G network in 2023". TeleGeography. 26 January 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
110. ^ "AT&T reconfiguring 3G spectrum ahead of February 2022 shutdown". TeleGeography. 21 March 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
111. ^ "AT&T switches off 3G network". TeleGeography. 23 February 2022. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
112. ^ "Liberty to switch off Puerto Rican 3G network on 22 February". TeleGeography. 31 January 2022. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
113. ^ a b "T-Mobile's 2G, 3G shutdown dates leaked". TeleGeography. 8 February 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
114. ^ a b "T-Mobile US eyes October 2021 W-CDMA shutdown". TeleGeography. 10 August 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
115. ^ a b "T-Mobile US to shut down 3G network on 1 July 2022". TeleGeography. 17 September 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
116. ^ "Sprint reaches the finishing line: legacy LTE networks switched off by T-Mobile". TeleGeography. 4 July 2022. Retrieved 5 July 2022.
117. ^ "T-Mobile delays CDMA shutdown by three months". TeleGeography. 25 October 2021. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
118. ^ "T-Mobile US commences CDMA shutdown; expands 5G Home Internet footprint". TeleGeography. 31 March 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
119. ^ "Verizon to shut down 3G CDMA networks on 31 December 2022". TeleGeography. 31 March 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.

•   Media related to 3G at Wikimedia Commons