* The Digital Divide is a moving target because there is no consensus on what constitutes "access."

As a metaphorical conceit, the digital divide refers to the vast differential in access, a differential originally defined by race and socioeconomic class. The bone of contention has been whether or not the divide does indeed run along these fault lines, and if so, what can we do about closing that divide, at the government, industry, educational, and/or charitable foundation levels? There are plenty of other bones to pick, however, depending on what one means by "access." Various studies have measured access in terms of PC ownership, modem ownership, home connection to the Internet, anywhere access (i.e., school, work, public library, community centers), not to mention PC ownership, Internet access, and connection speed. Likewise, school access has been variously measured

Overview Pro-Public Policy Position Insights from Free Market Position    * Haves/have-nots is a false binary    * Utopian claims need to be tempered    * Emergent technologies diffuse unevenly    * Is the divide closing? Table of Contents

as school building connectivity, student:computer ratios, classroom connectivity, and computers:classroom ratios. Now the talk has turned to the possibility of subsidizing equipment and service subscriptions, and it is this talk that has fiscal conservations really riled, judging from the many mentions of this possibility throughout this sourcebook. The goals originally outlined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and quoted in "Universal Access to Online Services: An Examination of the Issue" by Compaine and Mitchell J. Weinraub, reasonably represent the pro-public policy position:

• universal geographic availability
• non-discriminatory access
• reasonable costs or affordable rates.

Even if all sides of the debate could agree that these goals are desirable and do-able, exactly how to achieve these goals is the dividing point in the debate in the early 00s.