# A Decision Framework for Choosing Telecommunication Technologies in Limited-Resource Settings
## 1 Introduction  
Digital communication has revolutionized electronic communication that people use for their needs [1]. Unfortunately, not all people have benefited from this improvement. A chasm has opened between populations that can afford the broadest bandwidth communication, and those that either cannot afford access or have no access. Development scholars call this chasm the digital divide [2]. The state of local communication infrastructure has become a legitimate measure of development and the potential for development. Any development intervention requires assessment of the communication technology in the considered community [3]. A development practitioner has different goals when planning broadband deployment from that of telecommunications company employee [4]. The practitioner does not consider the potential for future revenue growth as a primary concern. More important is the community's ability to cover installation and maintenance costs, and whether there is potential long-term sustainability with some level of growth. The development practitioner does not consider infringement of patent or the appearance of competition to be problematic. The practitioner welcomes growth, especially if that growth originates in the community itself [5]. In this context, sustainability is defined as development that provides not only present but also future growth to a low-resource society [6; 7]. Another trend differentiated by their sustainability is a community network movement that has evolved as a mosaic of systems that defends the basichuman right to Internet access. A survey paper [8] presents a multitude of cases from Europe, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand. Data from developing countries indicate a positive impact of telecommunications on national output, even when corrected for the effects of capital and labor [9; 10]. The purpose of this study is to establish a decision framework for choosing which type of telecommunication technology to be used in rural and limited-resource settings. In the process, we distinguish between commercial and non-commercial providers, and regulated and unregulated frequency spectra. Finally, we show the validity of the framework on three distinct case studies, as well as make recommendations for the three studies still in the design stage. In addition, throughout this work, we will assume that the development is being carried out in a region without a local carrier, or where the local carrier will cooperate with the development entity. With time, local carriers penetrate even the most rural and limited-resource locations. The need for communication with family, friends, employers, government, and others generate revenue in areas inhabited by even the poorest population. If an area has a cell phone carrier, then any other entity (for profit or non-profit) cannot compete with licensed carriers unless they also become licensed carriers and bear the cost of national and international laws, regulations, and standards. Costs for a private network would include paying for a feed to the nearest internet provider who will sell bandwidth; or alternatively building a network, maintaining the network, and paying for licensing if necessary. Providing service for pay requires a different set of licenses than the licenses required for transmitting on a given frequency. Competing with a local carrier may also drive up the cost of purchasing an access point from that or another carrier. When there is a carrier but no high-speed internet, it is possible to work with the carrier and government in question. Public-private partnerships (PPP's) for broadband are ongoing in many parts of the world, but require political as well as commercial agreements. Governments generally want to push forward broadband deployment, even when the industry cannot do so, due to economic constraints. In areas where there is not enough population density to generate the revenue necessary for economic viability for commercial cell phone carriers, either satellite or private networks are alternatives.