This paper serves two purposes. First, to define the digital divide. In doing so, I move beyond definitions confined solely to computer and Internet access, to include the areas of training, individual and community support, information, content, and motivation. Second, to make the case as to why it is important that every American citizen has access (broadly defined) and the ability to use a computer and the Internet in a meaningful way, including an overview of the three primary models that have emerged for bridging the digital divide – computer networks, community technology centers (CTCs), and community networks.

Defining the Digital Divide

The "digital divide" and the "great divide" are two phrases popularly used to describe the disparity in telephone, computer and Internet access between various demographic groups within the United States. Since 1994, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the US Department of Commerce has released three reports examining this problem, under the heading "Falling Through the Net" (NTIA 1994, 1997 & 1999). Each study has reached the same glaring conclusion: the great divide is getting greater. For example, in their most recent report, the NTIA (1999) writes:

Excerpts from 1999 NTIA report include the following:

• Income – Households with incomes of $75,000 and higher are more than nine times as likely to have a computer at home, and more than twenty times more likely to have access to the Internet than those with incomes of $5,000 or less.

• Education – The percentage-point difference between those with a college education or better, when compare to those with an elementary school education, is as high as 63% for computer penetration, and 45% for Internet penetration.
  
  
• Race – Black and Hispanic households are approximately one-half as likely as households of Asian/Pacific Islander descent, as well as White households, to have a home computer, and approximately one-third as likely as households of Asian/Pacific Islander descent, and roughly two-fifths as likely as White households, to have home Internet access.
  
  
• Income and Race – For households earning between $35,000 and $74,999, 40.2% of Blacks and 36.8% of Hispanics owned a computer, compared to 55.1% of Whites, while for households earning between $15,000 and $34,999, 7.9% of Blacks and 7.6% of Hispanics had Internet access, compared to 17% of Whites. A similar pattern emerges in each income category. In other words, minorities lag behind non-minorities even at the same level of income.
  

Motivation is a critical link to ensure fairness and equality.

Clearly, according to a variety of demographic indicators – income, education, race, and more – there are significant disparities in the ability of Americans to access and use modern technologies. However, regardless of the social, economic, or racial characteristics one attributes to the digital divide, it is clear that there are two distinct groups that have emerged as a result of the information age: the digital "haves" and digital "have nots." or the information "rich" and the information "poor." Given this reality, I offer a simple and overarching definition of the digital divide that will guide my discussion hereafter: the gap between those who benefit from new technologies and those who do not.

By defining the digital divide in these terms, I intend to draw attention away from the mere concepts of, and move towards a more holistic conceptualization that looks at how new technologies can serve to empower individuals, families, and communities.

Redefining the Digital Divide

As Resnick has often argued, "access is not enough" (Resnick & Rusk,1996) with respect to bridging the digital divide. Rockoff argues that universal service should include: 1) access to a computer with a World Wide Web browser, 2) a personal Internet email address and 3) the ability to make one's own information available via the Web (Benton Foundation, 1998). Mitchell (1999) argues that universal service should include: 1) access to the "pipes" or connections, 2) access to a low-cost "appliance" such as a computer, 3) access to user-friendly software, and 4) the motivation, will, and necessary skills to use the aforementioned items.

Partially synthesizing, yet expanding on the perspectives of Resnick, Rockoff and Mitchell, I argue that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" will only be closed, when every American can meet the following criteria:

• ACCESS: The ability to readily access a computer and the Internet (including an electronic mail address) – Computer and Internet access should be available through public access sites (PAS) as well as in the home. Furthermore, electronic mail is quickly becoming as essential to full participation in society as having a telephone (Anderson et al., 1995).

• TRAINING AND INDIVIDUAL/COMMUNITY SUPPORT: The ability to use a computer and the Internet to serve ones individual (technological fluency) and collective (community building) purposes – Technological fluency "involves knowing not only basic techniques, but also how to make things of significance with them" (Resnick & Rusk, 1996; Papert & Resnick, 1995). Community building is "strengthening the capacity of residents, associations, and organizations to work, individually and collectively, to foster and sustain positive neighborhood change" (Aspen Roundtable, 1997). New technologies can, and should, support these ends.
  
  
• CONTENT AND INFORMATION: The ability to contribute to the national information infrastructure – "Average citizens today have tools that were never at their disposal. In effect they have their own printing presses – in the form of computers connected to the Internet. No longer is it their role simply to consume… the consumer is becoming a creator" (Smith et al., 1999). Citizens should be able to use new technologies for such purposes.
  
  
• MOTIVATION: The motivation to do the aforementioned – With respect to access, many Americans have the economic wherewithal to obtain a computer and Internet access, if they were motivated to do so. Furthermore, they have the intellectual wherewithal to master these technologies, and they would overcome the existing barriers to use, if they were motivated to do so. Motivation is a critical link to ensure fairness and equality.
  

This framework for the digital divide leads naturally into the next two sections of this paper where I will discuss current efforts to bridge the digital divide, and why closing the technology gap is critically important to individuals, families, communities, and the nation.

Bridging the Digital Divide

To date, three primary models have emerged for bridging the digital divide. These efforts fall under the heading of community technology, or "using the technology to support and meet the goals of a community" (Beamish, 1999).

These approaches can be classified according to what they provide: hardware, software, and training, infrastructure, online access, or content. They can also be classified according to the groups they target: individuals, schools, youth, community organizations, and the general public, or specific groups such as a neighborhood, racial or ethnic minorities, the homeless, and the elderly (Beamish, 1999). Utilizing these strategies, the community technology movement has gathered momentum toward closing the gap with programs targeted at areas such as education, health care, employment, and economic development.

The digital divide is indeed the "key civil rights issue of the 21st century." It is a modern day reflection of historical social divides that have plagued our society for centuries. Failure to address this important problem will result in the exacerbation of two separate and unequal distinctions that currently exist – the technological "haves" and the technological "have nots" – the information "rich" and the information "poor." It is my sincere hope that the previous discussion highlights the need to move beyond the digital divide toward digital opportunity.