INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AMONG PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION
Dr Sarah Wise
University of Melbourne and Berry Street Victoria
PRESENTATION AIM
7 points about deprivation of telecommunications
among people experiencing poverty
 1 strategy to build a more digitally inclusive society

ANGLICARE VICTORIA’S 2013 HARDSHIP SURVEY
280 emergency relief and
45 financial counselling
clients (N = 325)
24 Victorian service
locations (14 metro, 10
non-metro)
Deprivation index
Items on
telecommunications
access and affordability
62.8% disability
7.7% homelessness
41.8% long-term (10+
years) unemployed
51.0% less than Year 12
education
55.0% living with
dependent children
under the age of 18
26.3% born in a nonEnglish speaking country.
46.6% male
10.8% above the working
age (65 years or more)
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY HAS POSITIVE BENEFITS
Information and knowledge
 Skills building (e-learning)
 Services
 Social and political participation
 Employment
 Creative expression

DIGITAL EXCLUSION CAN REINFORCE AND DEEPEN EXISTING
SOCIAL INEQUALITIES
83.0 per cent of Australian households have access to
the Internet (ABS 2014)
 93.0 per cent of Australians with home Internet have
broadband access (ABS 2014)
 64.0 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (11.19 million
people) use a smartphone (ACMA 2014)

UNDERSTANDING WHO IS EXCLUDED AND WHY IS CRITICAL
TO BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
Skills and confidence in using the
Internet
 Perceived benefits and
interest/motivation
 Age
 Geographic location
 Affordability

MAJORITY OF WELFARE SERVICE CLIENTS MISSED OUT ON
HOME INTERNET AND SMART PHONE, BUT NOT MOBILE
PHONE
100
90
80
70
Per cent
60
Welfare service clients
50
Australia
40
30
20
10
0
Home Internet
Mobile phone
Smart phone
AGE AND PRESENCE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN
DIFFERENTIATED USERS AND NON-USERS OF HOME INTERNET
AND SMARTPHONE
Smartphone users
significantly younger
 Home Internet users
(almost) significantly older
 Home Internet users
significantly more likely to
have dependent children
(<18 years) living in the
home

≤$50 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE ON HOME INTERNET AND
MOBILE PHONE AFFORDABLE FOR THOSE WHO HAD IT
Home Internet
 49.2% didn’t have it because they couldn’t afford it
 68.0% (who didn’t bundle) spent $50 or less per month
 63.4% (who didn’t bundle) felt the cost was ‘very’ or
‘moderately’ affordable
Mobile phone
 11.1% didn’t have it because they couldn’t afford it
 82.3% spent $50 or less per month
 61.7% felt the cost was ‘very’ or ‘moderately’ affordable
HOME INTERNET GREATLY IMPROVED (OR WOULD IMPROVE)
STANDARD OF LIVING
Improvement (or perceived improvement) in standard of living
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Welfare service client (had home Internet) Welfare service client (deprived of home
Internet)
Australia
SCHEMES FOR AFFORDABLE SMARTPHONES COULD INCREASE
INTERNET ACCESS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY





Welfare service clients see the
benefits of Internet access, but
many can’t afford it
Mobile phone is the dominant
form of telecommunication
Mobile networks, such as 4G, and
Wi-Fi hotspots making mobile
Internet more accessible
Cost effective programs and
special schemes for smartphone
usage could be an effective
strategy to increase Internet
access for people living in poverty
Up to $50 per month affordable
for most
FURTHER INFORMATION
Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the
Digital Economy 2(4), December 2014.
 sarah.wise@unimelb.edu.au
