Saint Vincent and the Grenadines appears to be the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean that has successfully implemented a subsidised internet programme, and recent launched its second cycle. What could other countries learn from those that have implemented this programme?
On 10 March, the National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines held the official launch of its ‘Subsidized Internet and SIM Card Initiative” (Source: Searchlight). In addition to being the telecommunications regulator, the NTRC manages the Universal Service Fund, which is being used to finance the above-stated initiative.
By way of background, the Universal Service within the context of telecoms speaks the provision of a minimum level of service that every resident in a country should enjoy. The Universal Service Fund (USF) is the framework established for the management and use the fees, subsidies, taxes, etc., collected towards realising Universal Service.
In the Caribbean, and due to the dated nature of the telecoms policy and regulatory frameworks across the region, many of the USFs are geared primarily towards infrastructure expansion in underserved areas. In recent times, USFs have been used to procure laptop and tablet computers for students, or which there was an urgent demand, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of schools.
Distributing devices is only part of the solution
Over the past several months, there have been several photo-ops with politicians and policymakers to highlight the tablet computers that would be distributed to students. However, it is a common occurrence across the region that procuring tablet computers for students only addresses part of the problem.
Across the majority of Caribbean countries, fixed (or household) broadband Internet penetration remains low. A relatively large proportion of households/homes do not have internet connectivity, although there may be one or more members of the household who owns a smartphone. However, cognisant of the overwhelming prevalence of prepaid services in the region, it is likely that they may only be able purchase prepaid mobile broadband Internet plans when they can afford to do so.
Hence, with homes not having their own Internet access points, for example, students in these households, who have been assigned tablet computers, may still not be able to access the Internet. More importantly, and in many instances, those households cannot afford the standard rates for fixed or mobile broadband service on an on-going basis.
Internet subsidy programmes are rare
It is within the context of the above scenario, which is common across the region, that the subsidized internet programme in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ought to be commended, as it aims to tackle a fundamental challenge that families with school-aged children are experiencing. Unfortunately, it does not appear that many other Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries have implemented similar programmes, though the need is evident.
A noteworthy exception in the Americas is Costa Rica, which launched a similar programme in 2016. In that ‘Connected Homes’ programme, subsidies for Internet access, along with a laptop computer, were provided to approved households based on their socioeconomic status. For the poorest quintile, the subsidy covered up to 80% of the fees payable. The video below is a webinar on socio-economic pricing and regulation, which was hosted by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) in January 2021, and more fully outlines the Costa Rican model.
Key learnings from the Internet subsidy programme
In the subsidy frameworks established in Costa Rica and in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, there are many key learnings from which other countries can benefit. Below, we outline five.
First, these programmes can have a huge impact generally, and for the families that benefit. In Costa Rica, 140,000 families were supported, while in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 340 households were subsidised in the first cycle of the programme, while in this new cycle, double that number (680), will be supported. Although the numbers might seem paltry in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, there are over 37,000 households in total (per 2012 census); hence, the programme would have helped over 1,000 households that otherwise would have fallen between the cracks.
Second, a significant financial commitment is necessary over the period of the subsidy. In the case of Costa Rica, that amount totalled approximately USD 105 million over the five years of the programme. For Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, it does not appear that a figure on the total investment is publicly available, and certainly the spend would be a fraction of that for Costa Rica. However, relative to the size of its USF, the NTRC may have sought to balance the cost to the Fund and the number of households that can be supported.
Third, although subsidy programme is managed by regulator – which occurred in both Costa Rica and in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – in order for the programmes to be effective, the support of many sectors of government is needed, such as the ministries with responsibility for social welfare and for education, to name a few. Depending on the selection process, the socio-economic standing of households would need to be confirmed, to ensure that the benefit actually goes to the people who need it most. Such information would most likely be available through other parts of government that would have already identified the poorest in the society, and may even be offering other subsidies and benefits to that group.
Fourth, there are no guarantees that after the programme ends, the households will be able to sustain Internet access without the subsidy. This, unfortunately, is the harsh reality of the challenges that many low-income households are experiencing.
Finally, and notwithstanding the previous point, such an initiative would demonstrate a seriousness in the executing country to create more equitable learning, and consequently a more equitable society. Although in principle there might not be any direct return on the investment necessary to successfully execute the programme, it is an investment in the people of the country.. More importantly, it is a way of helping the children in low income households to improve the chances of them successfully completing their education, potentially breaking the cycle of poverty, and ultimately, positioning themselves to have a better life.
Image credit: August de Richelieu (Pexels)
Subsidizing internet is not going to help many low income families because the internet is in essence a rabbit hole of costs that are never ending. The only way it could feasibly work is if the service was provided separately by government.
Probably the key distinguishing factor here could be that people are being exposed to tools they may otherwise never have had the opportunity to be exposed to. And that exposure may have in-built potential for other knock-on effects.
With regard to population group comparison in the case study give, I thought comparing the ratios of the total participants to the total population in the different groups would be a more revealing method of determining which population group got better traction for the initiative.
In any case, any comparisons would not take away from the fact that ( I feel ) the initiative does have some intrinsic value to society, even if it just translates in one participant informally sharing the knowledge with another person or two. Still that’s value.