Document(s) 4 of 21

INTRODUCTION

At the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) extravagant spending, especially when it comes to non-essential goods or services, is out of the question. This chapter looks at the use of telecom by the user at the bottom of the pyramid. It looks at how these users communicate and what considerations and constraints shape their communication; it looks at what people use phones for, and tries to assess the value that people place on communication, based on the amounts that they spend, and how much they are willing to spend on communication.

This chapter is the first of three chapters based on the findings of a quantitative study of users at the BOP in South Asia. One would expect to see a usage pattern that would reflect the given financial constraints, that is, minimal use and a very careful consideration of cost factors. This chapter finds that despite perceptions that telecom prices are high, those at the BOP are willing to spend significant amounts of their monthly household income on these services, especially on mobiles. They value these services for the convenience afforded in terms of time as well as money saved in travel, etc.

BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

This chapter is based on a survey that was conducted among 3,199 users of telecom services at the BOP (defined in this case as people who had used a phone at least once in the preceding three months) in a total of 11 localities in India and Sri Lanka in April and May, 2005.

The localities are given in Table A1 of Appendix 1. The localities were selected to capture the diversity that exists between the markets in each country. The data does not represent India and Sri Lanka as wholes, but only the financially constrained, or BOP within the enumerated localities.

Tele-users at the BOP were defined by two parameters: a monthly household income of approximately less than US Dollars (USD) 100 per month; and socio-economic classification (SEC)—SEC groups B, C, D and E (that is, excluding SEC group A, the highest ranking group). Further details on the methodology are provided in Appendix 1 of this book.

WHAT DO USERS AT THE BOP WANT?

This section looks at how BOP users communicate, what access modes they use, and what difficulties they face in using those modes. It also looks at what BOP users consider as priorities in communication, in terms of why they choose to use particular access modes and for what purposes they use them. The section finally explores the value that users at the BOP place on telecommunication.

How Do Users at the BOP Communicate?

There is a growing body of research that suggests that demand for telecom services in developing countries is larger than generally thought, especially among lower-income groups. Research is beginning to show that low-income earners are willing to spend a substantial share of their monthly income on telecom services. Estimates of the share of monthly income spent by financially constrained groups on telecom services in developing countries are in the range of 10 percent (Gillwald, 2005; Intelecon, 2005; Souter et al., 2005)—far higher than the two to three percent rule-of-thumb regularly used in the telecom sector in developed countries (Intven, 2000). A study among rural phone users in Bangladesh found that more than half of those studied were willing to spend approximately USD 2 to 6 (or approximately two to 6 percent of the monthly household income) on a three minute call to a relative overseas, if they 'needed money badly¹. There was even a group who would be willing to spend up to 12 percent of their monthly household income for that same phone call (Richardson, Ramirez and Haq, 2000).

These findings highlight the importance that users at the BOP place on such services. This, in line with Prahalad's (2004) notion of 'fortune at the bottom of the pyramid', has led the world's biggest GSM handset manufacturers to embark on initiatives to lower the cost of a mobile handset to below USD 30, effectively creating 'a new low cost market segment' (GSM Association, 2005, p. 4).

The socio-economic benefits that low income users gain from the use of telecom services have been well documented (Bayes, von Braun and Akhter, 1999; Lane et al., 2006; Vodafone, 2005; World Bank, 1999). Some benefits can be gained without ownership. Many users of telephones do not own a phone, and rely heavily on public telephones, as seen in the findings of this study, among others. In Africa, there is still a great reliance on public payphones, even in countries with relatively high per capita incomes (Gillwald, 2005). Nevertheless, Souter, et al. (2005), in a study of the impact of telecom on rural livelihoods and poverty in India, Mozambique and Tanzania, reported that almost half of those who owned a phone had acquired it within the preceding year, and a third of those without a phone indicated that they 'wanted to acquire one within the next year'. Similarly, in the present study, 22 percent of fixed phone owners obtained their connection within the preceding year, while the corresponding figure for mobile owners was 59 percent.

There is a great reliance on public and shared facilities at this level of the market; this includes public call offices, public payphones and post offices. Almost two thirds of respondents in the current study on an average relied either solely on public access phones² (37 percent of respondents), or public phones along with fixed and/or mobile (29 percent of all respondents). Public access use was much higher in the Indian samples (73 percent of respondents on average) than in the Sri Lankan ones (52 percent). This could be a result of two factors, first, the high density of public call offices (or PCOs) found in India: as at the end March 2005, there were 2,771,132 PCOs across India—this number had nearly doubled by the end of March 2006. Furthermore, of the 607,491 villages in the country, there were village public phones in 548,843 of them by end of March 2006 (TRAI, 2006). Second, this could be because more than 50 percent of the Indian sample had monthly incomes below USD 50 per month, compared to 20 percent in the Sri Lankan samples. Mobile use was almost three times as high among the Sri Lankan respondents, possibly a feature of the higher income levels of the respondents, and the Sri Lankan mobile market being the oldest in South Asia (operating since 1989 while mobile service in India commenced in 1994.)

Figure 1.1
Mode of Access Used at the BOP in Sri Lankan and Indian Samples

Fixed use in the Indian localities increased from urban to rural areas, reflecting the relatively well developed telecom infrastructure in rural India; public access, while still the most popular form of access, did not differ significantly between urban and rural areas in the Indian localities studied, but the mobile use in India (12 percent of Indian samples on an average) dropped dramatically when rural areas were considered alone. In the Sri Lankan samples, people tended to rely more on public access in rural areas.

Fixed phone use tended to be higher among SEC groups B and C, those above 35 years of age, and among females. Mobile use was higher among the young (below 35) segments, especially males, and skewed toward urban areas. Public access users were of the less affluent, lowest SEC groups (D and E) and mostly rural; Indian public access users were of a lower income category than their Sri Lankan counterparts. Younger age groups (below 35) were also heavier users of public access facilities.

Among owners of fixed phones in the samples studied, close to a third allow other people (non-household members) to use their phones to make and receive calls and transmit messages on their behalf. From the perspective of the non-owner users, the most common place to receive calls was at neighbors', relatives' and friends' houses (about two thirds of non-owners); when it came to making calls, non-owners seemed to be more comfortable using a public phone of some sort (about three-quarters of non-owners), where they pay for such use. Normally owners allowed one to four other people to use their phones mostly for incoming calls; however, they did not charge them for this use, stating that they allowed this for social reasons, or as a public service, but perhaps this may be because such (incoming) calls do not cost the owner anything financially.

Mobiles on the other hand were found to be used more as a personal device, with just seven percent of owners allowing non-household members to use their mobile phones.

On an average, 2 percent of those sampled reported that they use the Internet, while four percent reported that they use telegrams.

Difficulties Experienced in the Use of Telecom Services

This sub-section examines the difficulties that BOP users—both owners as well as non-owners—face in their use of telecommunication in obtaining, using and sharing phones.

Difficulties in Getting Connected

Generally, respondents did not face too many difficulties in obtaining a phone, with 68 percent of mobile owners and 49 percent of fixed phone owners in the samples studied stating that they had faced 'no difficulties' in obtaining a phone.

Getting connected to a fixed phone clearly involved greater difficulty than getting connected to a mobile. The fact that 83 percent of mobile owners used prepaid connections substantiates this, as obtaining a prepaid connection is usually 'over the counter', requiring only some proof of identification and some relatively small payment, whereas, obtaining a fixed phone connection can involve, in addition to large initial connection charges, a waiting period which may run into years. Incidentally, this was the biggest complaint among fixed phone owners, with 20 percent complaining of more than one year of waiting (Figure 1.2). That 56 percent of mobile owners stated that the reason for investing in a mobile was because of the 'no waiting time' also supports this claim.

Figure 1.2
Difficulties Faced by Fixed and Mobile Phone Owners in Getting Connected at the BOP

Other complaints of fixed phone owners included having to wait for the service to become available, as well as the 'bureaucracy' of getting a connection (paper work, having to make many visits to the service provider's office, etc.), especially among Indian respondents. Thirteen percent stated that information was lacking on fixed phone services.

Constraints on access seemed to be the biggest difficulty faced by mobile owners in getting connected, having to wait until the service became available in their area and having to go to another town to get connected.

Few people complained of difficulties in financing the connection, with nine percent of fixed owners and five percent of mobile owners stating difficulty. Of the fixed phone owners in the Sri Lankan samples, 17 percent had used installment plans to get connected, while in the Indian samples, this number was only 4 percent. The difference in these two numbers reflects the large difference in the cost of getting connected (at the time of the survey)—in Sri Lanka the cost of getting a fixed line ranged from approximately USD 120 (new entrant) to USD 180 (incumbent), while in India, at that time, one could get connected to a fixed phone for approximately USD 16. Yet, the use of installment plans for fixed phones in the Sri Lankan case is low, a surprising finding, given the monthly household incomes of below approximately USD 100.

Perhaps people save up for a few months to finance the connection from their own income or use other sources of finance (loans from family members) which were not reported.

Between rural and urban localities, there were few significant differences (at a 95 percent confidence interval) in the difficulties in obtaining a connection of both fixed and mobile phones; there were significantly more complaints among rural fixed phone owners in the Southern Indian samples about waiting time—having to wait for the service to become available as well as having to go to another town to get connected. Among mobile owners, the only significant differences between the complaints of rural and urban respondents were to be found in Sri Lanka, with fewer complaints of difficulties among rural respondents.

Difficulties Experienced During the Period of Ownership

When phone owners were asked about problems faced during the period of ownership, mobile owners had relatively fewer complaints, with 61 percent stating that they experienced no difficulties; some mobile users complained of not getting what they paid for (Figure 1.3). There were many more complaints from fixed phone owners, with 71 percent of them complaining of problems such as the phone often being disconnected (a particularly big problem among the Sri Lankan samples), problems relating to billing (inaccurate billing, bills not reader-friendly, having to travel far to pay bills), and repair time.

Figure 1.3
Difficulties Faced by Fixed and Mobile Phone Owners at the BOP During Period of Ownership

While prepaid was the connection of choice for 83 percent of mobile owners, there was also some unhappiness regarding it. Among Sri Lankan respondents, almost half of prepaid mobile owners complained of the hassle of having to add credit to their account, as well as service and/or calls being disconnected when the credit balance reached zero. Some complained of prepaid cards expiring if not used within a given timeframe, and some Indian respondents complained of having to change their phone number if their account was not credited within a given period. Market solutions have evolved to address some of these concerns, an example being the prepaid mobile packages recently introduced in the Indian market, whereby 'lifetime' prepaid connections can be obtained through a (relatively large) upfront lump-sum payment for a mobile connection which need not be topped up again, ensuring free incoming calls for life. Many owners of prepaid packages also complained of high per-minute rates in comparison to post-paid packages.

Having to pay for incoming calls (that is, a Receiving Party Pays [RPP] regime) can add to the difficulties faced by prepaid owners like those studied in this research; once a subscriber's account balance approaches zero, not only are the outgoing services cut off, but also the incoming services. The user is forced to re-credit her account immediately even if she just wants to receive calls. This can cause a user great inconvenience, as evidenced by a larger number of Sri Lankan respondents citing disconnection of service, calls being cut off, and the inconvenience of having to re-credit their prepaid account balance as the problems faced, in comparison to their Indian counterparts (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4
Difficulties Faced by Prepaid Mobile Owners at the BOP

Difficulties Experienced in Sharing Phones

As seen in Figure 1.5, users at the BOP rely heavily on shared access; many do not have their own phones. While most owners allowed other people to use their fixed phones (there were few instances of mobile owners allowing others to use their phones), there were many complaints. Only 41 percent of fixed phone owners stated that they did not experience any problems as a result of others using their phone. The key complaints related to the inconvenience of having to find people when calls for them are received, or having to deliver messages to them. There were also some complaints of people abusing the service (not paying for use, over-using the phone, damaging the instrument, tying up the line, etc.). Most interestingly (and also puzzling), out of the respondents in the Sri Lankan samples, 42 percent charged others for outgoing calls (compared to 19 percent of those in the Indian samples), yet, the Sri Lankan respondents had the most number of complaints! Sri Lankan owners stated that they usually charged below cost, so perhaps they feel that they are not compensated enough for their difficulties.

Taking a look at difficulties faced by the non-owner, only 48 percent of users stated that they had no difficulty in using other people's fixed phones. The biggest problems were the distance to the phone and the high cost of using the phone (Figure 1.5). There were more complaints of cost among Sri Lankan respondents than Indian respondents, possibly as a result of the culture of charging for calls in the country. Some were concerned about the lack of privacy, whilst some stated that the owners do not inform them when a call or message for them is received.

Figure 1.5
Difficulties Faced at the BOP in Using Other Peoples' Fixed Phones

What Do Users at the BOP Consider Priorities?

To answer this question, one first needs to examine the factors which influence a user's choice of the mode of communication—that is, by fixed, mobile or public access. Given limited financial resources, do such financially constrained users only consider the cost of each option when deciding which mode to use, or is the decision made up of a set of factors, including cost? Second, one can look at what users actually use phones for; what benefits, in terms of maintenance of social relations or facilitation of business transactions, for example, accrue to the users from the use of a phone.

When asked about the reasons for the choice of mode, the responses indicated a concern for convenience, as well as cost, as indicated in Figure 1.6. Given the monthly incomes of less than USD 100, this is surprising; one would expect a heavier emphasis on cost factors. The ability to use the phone at any time (71 percent) and while on the move (67 percent), were key factors among mobile users, despite a majority in the samples indicating that the cost of mobile services was high.

Figure 1.6
Why Fixed, Mobile, and Public Access Users at the BOP Use Respective Mode(s)

Even more surprising is the relatively important role that 'symbolic' factors (such as 'fashion' or 'improved social status') play in the user's choice of the mode of access. This has been found in more developed markets, especially among the youth, in the use of mobile phones, for example, in Taiwan, especially among the newer adaptors of mobile phones (Wei and Lo, 2006). Similarly, among the Indian and Sri Lankan respondents interviewed, the former displayed a strong concern for symbolic factors (with up to 50 percent of respondents citing such factors) in comparison to the latter. This could be tied to the fact that mobile phone use in Sri Lanka is more common on an average (with penetration rates of 17 per hundred inhabitants by the end of 2005,² compared to about seven in India by the end of 2005, according to TRAI, 2006). Chapter 3 shows that these symbolic factors were more prominent in the Jaffna sample, where mobile service is a very recent phenomenon, as compared to the other three samples in Sri Lanka.

The reasons for selecting fixed access and public access phones are similar, except the reasons that 'it is the most economical way to receive calls', and that 'it can be used at any time'. These two reasons might play a greater role among fixed phone users since the use of public access phones usually involves travel to a location outside the home, and at a particular time if it is to receive a call; these factors impose a cost and/or inconvenience on the users, and hence will not be the reasons for users to select public access phones.

The top two reasons given by fixed phone users were the economy of receiving calls (77 percent of fixed users) and the clarity of the connection (65 percent). Among public access users, the top two reasons were ease of use (70 percent of public access users) and the economy of making calls (69 percent).

When actual uses of the phone are examined, it becomes clear that relationship maintenance or social purpose are the most important (Figure 1.7). Such uses include keeping in touch with friends and family (locally and abroad) as well as sending news and messages. What is striking is that instrumental uses, for example, for undertaking business transactions or making logistical arrangements (travel and food) are very low, except with a small percentage of mobile users.

Figure 1.7
What Fixed, Mobile, and Public Access Users at the BOP Use the Phone for

This corresponds with the findings of other recent studies of telecom use in the developing world. Research in India, Mozambique and Tanzania found that the second most important use of telephones in the three countries was for 'social purposes', such as maintaining contact with family, after 'communicating in emergencies', which was the first. Social use of the phone was particularly high in India (Souter et al., 2005). A separate study conducted in South Africa and Tanzania found that the benefits from mobile phones to communities include 'improved relationships', according to almost four fifths of those studied (Vodafone, 2005). As cited in Wei and Lo (2006, p. 56), early research carried out by Keller in 1977 and Noble in 1987 into the 'uses and gratifications' of conventional telephone use had also found social or relationship maintenance uses to be more prevalent than instrumental uses.

There is little evidence to support the many anecdotes of rural farmers using their mobiles to check on the best prices for their products at the nearest market; or the use of phones to facilitate remittances from relatives abroad, even in post-conflict Jaffna (Sri Lanka). It is well known that people in Jaffna rely on remittances from relatives dispersed around the globe, and that one of the primary means of soliciting those remittances is the telephone. However, while 75 percent of mobile users sampled in Jaffna stated that they use mobiles to keep in touch with relatives abroad, none stated explicitly that they use the phone to arrange financial transactions.

The somewhat unexpected high use of telephones for social purposes may be explained by two factors. First, it could be the case that what the respondents broadly categorizes as 'keeping in touch' might well have instrumental aspects; perhaps the value or purpose of a single phone call cannot be pinned down to one category—a phone call to relatives living abroad to enquire about their well-being may also serve to elicit a remittance. Furthermore, at this level of the society, the barter economy predominates; hence a phone call to one's brother might also serve the purpose of arranging the purchase of supplies from him for one's business. Thus, any instrumental use is probably masked as relationship maintenance.

Alternatively, as found by Souter et al. (2005), different communication methods and different information sources are valued for meeting different needs. Souter et al. (2005) found that telephones are the preferred mode of communication for emergencies and family networking, especially in India; mass media (television, broadcast radio, and newspapers) are preferred for general information while face-to-face communication is 'overwhelmingly' the preferred mode for specific information relating to farming, business, education, and political or government matters.

Similarly, among users of SMS, or short message service, the key purpose of this service is 'personal communication' (88 percent), followed by 'emergency communication' (37 percent); SMS is used for 'business communication' by a mere 7 percent of the mobile users that were sampled. This further reinforces the findings of Souter et al. (2005).

Some of the responses to an open-ended question where users were asked to describe an 'instance where having access to a phone allowed you to do something very important and had it not been for the phone, you may not have been able to do it' revealed the value placed on immediate communication, especially in emergency situations, particularly found among respondents from the Hambantota district (Sri Lanka), which was one of the areas worst hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami less than six months before the survey was conducted. Some respondents cited instances where they were able to save both time and money by using the phone rather than having to make a physical journey to communicate a message. Other situations which have been related pertain to conveying news, such as marriage, birth, as well as employment, and in general for keeping in touch with close relatives, particularly in the Kasargod and Sivaganga districts in India, where temporary migration is a significant feature.

Another open-ended question, where respondents were asked to name an 'instance where the absence/lack of access to a phone prevented you from doing something important' yielded somewhat comparable results, with concern for not being able to get important messages regarding illness among family and friends, job opportunities, exam results, etc., on time, or contacting someone in an emergency, expressed in the answers. Difficulties in keeping in touch with relatives seemed to be a concern among some of the respondents. In the Sivaganga district there was marked concern for the time and money involved in communicating in the absence of a phone.

What Value is Placed on Telecom Services

In order to ascertain the kind of value BOP users place on telecom services, it is useful to examine how much of their limited resources they allocate to these expenditures. Those interviewed in this study reported average monthly household incomes of below USD 100, approximately. The findings of this research demonstrate that the amounts that financially constrained users in India and Sri Lanka spend on telecom services are somewhat in line with the estimates of Gillwald (2005), Intelecon (2005) and Souter et al. (2005)—5 to 10 percent. Figure 1.8 illustrates the monthly average expenditure patterns of the respondents on fixed phones, together with public access phones, as well as mobile phones.

Expenditures on fixed phones and public access phones are lower than on mobiles; expenditure on mobile phones is generally higher (on an average, USD 4 to 8 per month) than on fixed phones (on an average, up to USD 4 per month). Expenditure figures, however, were based on the respondents' ability to recall their monthly phone costs, and, therefore, should be treated with caution. Additionally, in the case of fixed and mobile owners, monthly expenditure may include the use by other people within the household, more so in the case of fixed phones (which tend to be used collectively; furthermore, monthly expenditure reported is likely to be the average monthly bill). In the case of public access users, expenditure reported is more likely to be on an individual basis.

Figure 1.8
Average Monthly Expenditure on Telecom Services at the BOP

A low-end estimate of the share of monthly household income spent on telecoms based on these figures (assuming a maximum income of USD 100 per month) is in the range of 1 to 4 percent on fixed, and 4 to 8 percent on mobile. In the lower income segment, a greater percentage of people were spending over USD 4 a month in comparison to the higher income segment, which would imply the household as a whole spending more than 8 percent of its income on telecom services. Sri Lankan samples revealed that the latter had slightly higher expenditure patterns than the Indian, perhaps because of the overall higher incomes of the Sri Lankan sample. This percentage estimate was seen to be as large as 12 percent among a third of mobile users sampled in the Jaffna district of Sri Lanka, where the demand for international communication is particularly high (see Chapter 3). Nevertheless these numbers are indicative only, given the complexities of identifying 'real' income and the difficulty in relating individual expenditure to household income.

Users at the BOP spend on telecom services even when they find the cost of these services to be high. While fixed and public access users considered the cost of telecom services to be affordable on the whole, the majority of mobile users perceived the cost to be either 'high,' 'very high' or 'extremely high' (Figure 1.9), especially the Sri Lankan respondents. Only 23 percent of mobile users said mobiles were affordable, compared with the 56 percent and 59 percent for fixed and public access phones, respectively.

Even where the cost of investing in a fixed phone is over USD 100, 88 percent in the Sri Lankan samples had the money available to obtain the connection. Less than a fifth of fixed phone owners made use of installment plans to obtain the connection. Added to this, 70 percent of mobile owners bought their handsets brand new. The use of secondhand handsets was higher among Indian respondents, with close to a third using secondhand handsets, contrasting sharply with the Sri Lankan 4 percent. Interestingly in the Jaffna sample in Sri Lanka, where phone use and expenditure was particularly high (especially on international calls), few (6 percent) relied on second-hand handsets. However, a significant percentage of respondents (16 percent, compared to 1, 0 and 3 percent in the other three Sri Lankan localities studied) stated that they got their handsets 'free'. This appears to be a result of a practice of expatriate Jaffnaites leaving behind their handsets with relatives when they visit Jaffna. Hence, there may be an underestimation of the use of second-hand handsets in the data.

Figure 1.9
Perceptions of Cost of Services at the BOP: Fixed, Public Access, and Mobile

More telling are the responses to how users would change their use of telecom services should the prices come down by half, especially in the case of Sri Lanka, on all modes, particularly on mobile. While respondents in India seem to be on the whole more satisfied with the prices, and perhaps closer to their desired level of use, Sri Lankan respondents indicated a stronger likelihood of increasing use if prices come down. This indicates that there could be a larger degree of unsatisfied demand for telecom services among Sri Lankan respondents (Figure 1.10).

Figure 1.10
Changes in Use at the BOP, Should Cost be Halved: Fixed, Public Access, and Mobile

A closer look at rural respondents, vis-à-vis their urban counterparts, reveals that rural users seem to be, on the whole, more satisfied with costs. This suggests that rural phone users may be more willing to absorb higher per minute call charges, given the alternative of having to communicate in person, where they would have to leave their home to make a call, thereby incurring time and transport costs. In the case of India, at the time of the survey, the presence of an access deficit charge which lowered the costs of rural telephone calls would have further enhanced the perceptions of affordability (Malik and de Silva, 2005; see also Chapter 10).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There is a greater demand for telecom services among low income earners; much of this demand has still not been met, probably due to the misperception that they are not a profitable segment. However, the research shows that these people are not simply looking for the cheapest mode of access. They are also looking for what is more convenient, which mode they can access while on the move, or which will give them more privacy. Many of those who have obtained their own phone connection (fixed or mobile) cite difficulties other than financial ones when asked about their experience of getting connected.

Although many choose not to invest in their own phone for various reasons, people find ways to get connected, whether through a neighbor or a local public call office. Value is placed on the immediate communication permitted through a telephone, especially in emergencies. They are willing to spend relatively large portions of their monthly income on telecom services, to obtain some benefit, like remittances from relatives abroad, or to facilitate a business transaction, or simply to keep in touch.

NOTES

¹ Defined in this case as people who had used a phone at least once in the preceding three months, at the time of the study.

² Data sources: Samarasinghe (January 19, 2006) for mobile subscriber data & Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) (2005, Special Statistical Appendix: Table 1) for population (provisional).

REFERENCES

Bayes, A., von Braun, J. and Akhter, R. (1999). Village pay phones and poverty reduction: Insights from a Grameen Bank initiative in Bangladesh. Vol. 8. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy, No. 8, May 31–1 June. Bonn: Center for Development Research (ZEF).

Central Bank of Sri Lanka. (2005). Annual Report 2004. Colombo: Central Bank of Sri Lanka Printing Press.

Gillwald, Alison (Ed.) (2005). Towards on African e-Index: Household and individual ICT access and usage across 10 African countries. Research ICT Africa! Johannesburg, South Africa: LINK Centre.

GSM Association (2005). Tax and the digital divide: How new approaches to mobile taxation can connect the unconnected. London: GSMA.

Intelecon (2005). Nigerian Demand Study: Highlights Report, with eShekels for the Nigerian Communications Commission, supported by World Bank. Retrieved January 2006, from http://www.inteleconresearch.com/pages/news.html

Intven, Hank (Ed.) (2000). Telecommunications Regulation Handbook (module 6, p. 6.6). Washington DC: infoDev.

Lane, B., Sweet, S., Lewin, D., Sephton, J. and Petini, I. (2006). The Economic and Social Benefits of Mobile Services in Bangladesh: A case study for the GSM Association by Ovum Consulting. London. Ovum.

Malik, P. and de Silva, H. (2005). Diversifying Network Participation: Study of India's Universal Service Instruments. WDR Discussion Paper WDR0504. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Malik%20de%20Silva%20Sept%202005%20final.pdf

Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profit. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.

Richardson, D., Ramirez, R. and Haq, M. (2000). Grameen Telecom's Village Phone Programme in Rural Bangladesh: A Multi-Media Case Study Final Report. TeleCommons Development Group (TDG). Gatineau: Canadian International Development Agency.

Samarasinghe, A. (January 19, 2006). Special focus on differently-abled: TRC allocates Rs. 2.5m for eNABLE project, new ICT centres. Ceylon Daily News. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.dailynews.lk/2006/01/19/

Souter, D., Scott, N., Garforth, C., Jain, R., Mascarenhas, O. and McKemey, K. (2005). The economic impact of telecommunications on rural livelihoods and poverty reduction: a study of rural communities in India (Gujarat), Mozambique and Tanzania. Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation for UK Department for International Development, 2005. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://www.iimahd.ernet. in/ctps/pdf/The%20Economic%20Impact%20of%20Telecommunication%20on %20Rural%20Livelihoods-Teleafrica%20Report.pdf

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (2006). The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators for Financial Year Ending 31st March 2006, 28 June 2006. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/Reports/26/Report%20QE%20Mar-06%20Part%20I.pdf

Wei, Ran and Lo, Ven-Hwei (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), pp. 52–73.

World Bank (1999). The World Development Report 1999: Knowledge for Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vodafone (2005). Africa: The Impact of Mobile Phones in the Developing World. Moving the debate forward: The Vodafone Policy Paper Series, No. 3, March 2005. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.vodafone.com/assets/files/en/SIM_Project_download_2.pdf

Document(s) 4 of 21