The Digital Divide and Other Economic Considerations for Network Neutrality

From digital divide to consumer adoption of smart city solutions: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis

“…Since it is believed that the abovementioned factors tend to be eventually eliminated, this type of digital divide is prone to cease to exist [Van Dijk, Hacker, 2003, p. 315]. Hence, the debate has been transformed to adoption rather than access [Connolly, Lee, Tan, 2016]. Once the access has been granted, a prospective user encounters the challenge of how to use those digital solutions which most of the times relate to different form of use [Goncalves, Oliveira, Cruz-Jesus, 2018;Salemink, Strijker, Bosworth, 2015].…”

“…The second level digital divide deals with the abilities required to use digital solutions, namely digital skills [Scheerder, Van Deursen, Van Dijk, 2017] as well as knowledge [Afshar, Alam, Taylor, 2019]. Digital divide is, hence, associated with adoption and acceptance as opposed to access [Connolly, Lee, Tan, 2016], indicating the gap between "knowledge rich" and the "knowledge poor" [Hill, Dhanda, 2004]. Digital divide refers to the digital skills required to engage with the solutions being meaningful to their needs [Hargittai, Hinnant, 2008], therefore acknowledging the differentiated use [Reisdorf, Rikard, 2018], which in turn introduces the third level digital divide.…”

“…The third level digital divide occurs when a user does not realise the benefits offered by digital solutions or "beneficial outcome of the Internet use" [Scheerder, Van Deursen, Van Dijk, 2017, p. 1609. The aspect of the beneficial outcome for an individual tends to be overlooked by researchers [Connolly, Lee, Tan, 2016], while 2013 Pew Research Center Survey unveiled the fact that the majority of Americans who do not use the Internet explained it with such a factor as a lack of digital literacy (32%), whereas 34% claimed that they consider it merely irrelevant for them [Zickuhr, 2013]. The holistic picture of the three levels digital divide is given in Figure 5.…”

“…Studies have identified the necessity to envisage consumers heterogeneously [Connolly, Lee, Tan, 2016] paying attention to the education and gender [Quibria et al, 2003;Afshar, Alam, Taylor, 2019;Badran, 2014], employment status [Campos, Arrazola, de Hevia, 2017], age [Okunola, Rowley, Johnson, 2017] which was referred to "grey divide" [Quan-Haase et al, 2018], location, and income [Okunola, Rowley, Johnson, 2017]. Since SCS are usually offered free of charge and within the smart city, location and income might be disregarded.…”

Methodology for the Regulation of Over-the-top (OTT) Services: The Need of A Multi-dimensional Perspective

“…(Onwurah, 2009) reviewed the effects of innovation and network systems, and the investigation of policy recommendations that guarantee open access, enforces reasonable pricing plans, and encourages innovative content was carried out by (Papacharissi and Zaks, 2006) (Prüfer and Jahn, 2007) reported on capacity paradox and policy-based remedies, while details of world-class governance systems was provided in (Sutherland, 2017). Political-cultural dynamics, network interconnection, digital divide, next generation technologies, and consumer aspects were described by (Yang, 2007), (Yan, 2001), (Connolly et al, 2017), (Yaman, 2017;Kushida, 2013), and (Stocker and Whalley, 2017), respectively. However, in spite of these recent comprehensive literatures, there remains a fundamental need to create an absolute approach in understanding the complex nature of the OTT market, and consequently establishing a multi-dimensional regulatory perspective.…”