An extreme comparison perhaps, but one which shows the poverty of measuring riches in relation to a single, technical factor. Far more realistic, surely, to record wealth in terms of the universal equivalent, money, i.e. the element into which all technologies and many other factors are ultimately convertible. Measuring their income is still the best way to find out whether people are rich or poor. Seen in this light, the concept of 'the digital divide' is illustrative but scientifically spurious. Its essential premise is that government-supported initiatives which provide ICT access to people in deprived areas are essential to the maintenance of the nation and to the development of the national economy.
Improved access is linked with the regeneration of community and the remodelling of the workforce.
Social inclusion and economic success are not mutually exclusive - they are mutually reinforcing. If only it were so easy. Therefore, ICTs will reverse this process by guaranteeing the renewal of community. The flaw in this argument is that there is no necessary relationship between the communal potential of ICTs and the ways in which people choose to use them. Thus half a century ago both radio and TV were promoted as interactive media which would underpin social solidarity and political activity.