In my opinion, there are two key messages that it send to the audient. The first one is mobile phone is the direct cause of helping the development in African countries. The video shown that people be able to access the central services through mobile after the mobile network build. People be able to use mobile phone to connect the world to learn and find the job. The second one is the Africa continent is the second biggest market of mobile phone. As the price of mobile is cheaper and cheaper that more people can afford it, it going to increase the sales of the mobile phone in Africa countries.
The assumption that it used to frame the first key message is the people in Africa continent can use mobile phone to improve the productivity. However, the main function of mobile phone is communication with other people around the world, but it does not have the direct effect on improving the productivity. The second assumption that is frames the second key message is the all the African people are educated and be able to buy and use the mobile phone. As the video mentions, Africa is the world's biggest multilingual continent, mobile phone cannot be set up by all the different languages. And not all the young people in Africa are well educated by English or French, therefore, it is difficult for mobile phone to use popularly. On the other hand, the video ignore the fact that the average income in some of the African countries is low, so that they may not able to afford the mobile phone.

Kindly refer to my student page for my comment for this week- Thank you :)

Question 2:

The key message of this video is that the use of mobile technology is becoming central among African youth (mobile penetration of 65% in 2012 compared to almost nothing in 1994) and with its progress, it is therefore the threshold of a new era of development dependent on mobile technology. Claiming that mobile technology in Africa is used by millions of youth to access to innovative, empowering, entertaining and life saving services, the video assumes that a large percentage of African youth are literate which is may not be true as most of the 65% are possibly concentrated among politically and economically stable areas such as South Africa, among the increasing urban/commercialized populations or among the fastest growing economies who have the biggest contributions to the 5% GDP growth, hence are socially and economically privileged to purchase such devices. But what about countries such as Somalia and Congo who are trapped in bad situations? Moreover, since mobile phones are getting cheaper ($80 in 2012) it is also possible that these mobile phones are provided by donors and therefore the video assumes that mobile owners have the capacity to pay for e.g. monthly charges for data consumption. Lastly, are the telecommunication companies able to provide mobile technologies in more than a thousand languages? Or are they assuming that Africans speak English as a result of colonization? This ties in with the previous assumption about the levels of literacy in the continent. There still lies a question of sustainability and viability as this video makes an oversimplified assumption of the progress of mobile technology in Africa.

The key message of this video is the explosive development of mobile phones in Africa. From the time between 1994-2012, the video illustrates the ways in which mobile phones have changed the lives of millions of Africans. In 1994, landlines and internet penetration was almost non-existent. Africans had very limited access to valuable services that mobile phones provide (education, health services, activism, etc). Then we fast forward to the time the first mobile phone was created in 1994 to 2012. Mobile phone penetration was at 65%. Africa had become the second biggest mobile market in the world and is the fastest growing mobile market in the world.

As great as the above sounds, this video creates a few assumptions. With Africa being the most multilingual continent in the world (1000 languages spoken), it assumes that everyone in the continent speaks the most predominant languages (English and French). I’m sure the mobile devices will not be circulated in all other 1000 languages leaving certain populations excluded. Another assumption is that every African is literate. Yes, the average African like Uche may be, but one cannot assume that every individual in Africa is. Lastly, there is an assumption that everyone will be able to afford the device. Although they are increasingly becoming more affordable, many people in Africa cannot afford an $80 mobile device.

Question 2:

I believe the key message of the video is the increasing use of mobile phones and its affect on the the future developments of Africa. Mobile phones help people interact with each other; interaction is the fundamental action that needs to be taken before building a secure foundation for any project from businesses to education. Having access to mobile phones allows youth like Ough to step forward and take action i.e., apply to jobs, have more connections for business, and be more informed about what's going on in their communities. Mobile phones is also a source of quick entertainment by using social media and various other media outlets accessible easily in the palm of their hands. these quick form of entertainment gives them a break from the struggles that they face which intern allows them to perform better in their work and school. In 18 years technology has advanced so much in Africa that the majority of young people who are under 20 posses a mobile phone, this can only mean positive results and the growth for the future may be immeasurable because of the growth is so rapid and is almost like a bubble.

The primary assumptions that frame the key message of this video are that phone will be getting cheaper and than this will be the resource for many. But they are not taking into account the act of human interactions and physical activities that people cannot do through mobile phones, such as making eye contact and building better relationships with people. But yes this advancement is to the advantage of the development of Africa but its should not be the sole source to the development.

The main message of the video is that saturation of mobile phones on the African continent is inherently beneficial for the average African in terms of development. This perspective can be viewed as being limited in its scope. That this message is somewhat biased in regards to cell phones should not be surprising if we consider that the video was produced by Praekelt, a foundation with the purpose of developing mobile phone campaigns. The video’s perspective is dependent on several assumptions that depend on viewing the cellular phone in a vacuum and not contextualized within the different perspectives that shape African countries. One such assumption the video suggests is that the growth of African economies that is coinciding with the rise of the cellular phone is a causational relationship not merely a correlation. The video really stresses the view that now that the average African has access to mobile phones there should be an improvement in their lives because of the phone. The video uses improving economic statistics to support this claim. Would it not be fair to consider if improvements in quality of health care and improved access might have some effect on improvements in the different economies on the continent. Even the notion that a rising economy is automatically a benefit to the average African requires a leap in logic. It would be interesting to know how the changing economies are dispersing the new wealth. Is there a rising middle class or merely a deepening divide between the richest and average Africans? Without this information it is difficult to properly understand the role of cell phones and their increasing use on the African continent.

Question #1: In the article, the author discusses the importance of "spatial articulation" in the African mobile phone industry, which he defines as connections to the outside world; how connectivity has been shaped through historical international relations. The central theme of this article is disseminating the structural recreation of poverty through unequal power relations that are embedded in the types of articulation that occur between underdeveloped countries in Africa and the rest of the global economy. In this article he mentions how mobile devices and ICT are portrayed as the solution to development and creating a successful information economy, but instead of adopting this framework, he urges his readers to look at how these technologies are not promoting "development" in the sense of reducing poverty. Mobile phones are seen as "positional goods" which not only increase access, but also status leading to people to purchase them who sometimes cannot afford them and families sacrificing food in order to buy more air time. In a study mentioned in this article, it was found that mobile phones are used to access work opportunities, however due to limited market size, only some get the work and the others (who have paid for cellphone services) become poorer. Carmody does state that mobile phones technology can empower people and has changed social articulation, but it must be considered as embedded within global social, political and economic power relations (i.e neoliberalism and capitalism) and not as a solution to ending poverty.

In the article, The Informationalization of Poverty in Africa? Mobile Phones and Economic Structure, Pádraig Carmody defines spatial articulation as Africa’s connectivity to the outside world. He explains that this concept is important to understand the state of mobile phone use as situated in the current international political economy, not separated from it. Indeed, much of the talk around technology, especially mobile phones, is that their proliferation will be the end to informational darkness and similarly “an end rather than a means to social improvements”. Moreover, even when talking in the language of diffusion and connection the use of standardized feature phones is prominent in Africa. Smart phones and app technology is not used because of structural causes of cost, limited network capabilities, and widespread illiteracy. Problematically, technology like mobile phones reduce the conversations of structural problems arising from the political economies to shallow dichotomies of connected vs. unconnected. Thus a technological fix is laid out over top of poverty that needs to be addressed at the root. This is not to take away from the positive impacts of mobile phones but rather to give a more balanced view of the impacts happening today.

In my opinion, the key message he want to share is that the increasing using of phone is beneficial for the future of Africa. As the most important effect of network is economic development, which is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The standards of living of citizen can only be improved under the rising of authority, the country will be more productivity only when the voice of citizens is heard. How can we help people network? He thinks that telephone is the weapon against poverty. According to the research, only one phone per 500 people in Bangladesh, virtually none in rural areas where 100 million people lived.He demonstrates that connectivity is productivity. In this video, he shows a diagram which shows a idea that in poor countries, connectivity has more influential on productivity than developed countries. He thinks that dependent on each other only can be achieved by communicate with each other, which means that communication leads to dependent, which can lead to connectivity and productivity at the end. Compare to New York, Bangladesh is lack of power and lack of infrastructure to bring a new thing. For example, in NY, they have internet and computers,which can easily to bring a new idea. So he believes that facts should be production tools create buying power; share-access reduces costs for everyone and a rise in income helps people meet primary needs. There is a case about a well developed phone company has a great contribution on the increasing income and welfare in Africa. Because entrepreneurs earn more, they have more profit, so their purchasing power is stronger. As the communication tools is coming up, farmers have better information, so they can be cooperative or more productive. Also, it is more convenience for businessmen as they can make deals over phones. What's more, people can increasing their welfare by calling a doctor through phones, contacting loved ones and avoid unnecessary trips.

in this video, African youth are having much more accessibility and connection with others by using mobile phone compare to back in 1994 when the phone was really expansive and difficult to have. It also refers to citizen participation about their government, community, and the nation itself. The term he uses "Africa's spatial articulation" means that people are staring to use more technologies as their generation goes down, and more they use, more it helps their economy without knowing. The reason is that they have more connection which means more knowledge from outside world and also they can refer it to their society as well. Furthermore, their use of mobile phone would for sure empower the poor, and women in general because by having different perspectives of their lives will help them to be open minded and come up with their own solutions for this. More of their unheard voices are out there, it is their choice to speak up in today's world. Having mobile phone will definitely help Africa's economy and political situation better in a lot of ways since it is such a huge continent and diversed.

The key message of the video is that government or investors of ICT4D should't look at the poor/marginalized groups as burdens to development. The speaker points this out through his findings from his project that demonstrated how when invested in the poorest people were helping the government with taxes, become beneficial resources to the economy, reducing overall taxes (because of greater participation), were eager & capable learners, and most importantly, were raising GNP at greater rates than aid. The video does a good job at explaining how ICT stimulates productivity for the good of the people but I do believe that overall infrastructural development by the governments needs to be targeted. I think of it like a building, no building can stand alone & last a lifetime if there exist no "glue/cement" to hold it together. Like cellphones, without the infrastructure to ensure lasting security volatility and vulnerability remain concerns.

Question 2

The video takes so much into assumption especially of the fact that the mobile generation will be the one to lead Africa. It shows us some statistics like saying 65% of the mobile youth have gained access to mobile technology compared to 1994 where there was almost none who did. It also tells us about how Africa is the 2nd largest users/distributers of mobile phones. From this we know that they are only 'using' phones for enjoyment instead of effectively using this technology. Statistics wise, they may have more people who use mobile phones comparing to other countries but we still have to ask why they are still almost in the same standard of living from 1994. I believe that without the right infrastructure, they will remain as is even if everyone had access to a mobile phone.

I think the key message to this video is that since technology is increasingly integrated into young people's lives around the world, the same would occur in Africa. This is a means to accessing information and is becoming increasingly accessible with rapid development and affordability.
The assumption is that all the progress Africa has endured is the result of the mobile phone however, that is a overstating the importance of a mobile phone. Mobile phones certainly are convenient but in the development of mobile phones, the equipment used are at a wider array than just mobile phones hence we cannot simply over generalize that mobile phones are the success of Africa today as there are many technological developments mobile phones rely on.
The video also assumes that all of the younger generation in Africa will be able to obtain a mobile phone to educate them however, given that some people live in critical conditions such as civil war, obtaining a mobile phone to access information is beyond their capabilities.

In my opinion, this video gives a primary assumption to the viewers that mobile phone is the only cause for development in Africa throughout the past 18 years. The key message the video try to show is that mobile phones have increased accessibilities for people in Africa . however there is no evident that the 5% growth in African GDP is primarily due to the growth of mobile phones. It also portrays Africa as the 2nd biggest mobile market in the world however there is no suggestion that investment growth in mobile phone has any improvements to people's income. For example, it's mentioned in the video 'there are more phone than light bulbs in Uganda' , which makes me think that people have given importance to mobile phone than what is necessary for their life, if mobile phones have changed people's life style in a positive way then they should have more light bulbs which i think is essential for people's daily life. Similarly Padriag Carmody's reading says people from Millenium Villages in Africa choose to spend their money on paying phone bills rather than school fees for their children. According to me the video is designed to promote mobile phone however fails to show if mobile phones do in fact have any growth in poverty reduction. There were no evident or data shown to say that mobile phones has positive effect on poverty reduction.

Question 2

The video places a high positive value on the impact of mobile phones in Africa. The key message that the producers of the video are trying to present is that an increase in the use of mobile phones by the younger generation will improve efficiency, access to knowledge, and therefore open opportunities for work and empower them. By empowering people to "take charge of their own well-being" improvements in the economy and development of Africa will then be tied to the important role the mobile phones have taken through the year and in the future.
There are many assumptions that the video makes. The first is that before adoption of mobile phones, people had no access to services like banking, information, health services, etc. The second assumption is that people will have the financial means to acquire a mobile phone. Carmody emphasizes how "negative adoption" has affected the lives of people. Some families have been forced to reallocate household spending on necessities like food towards airtime minutes in order to maintain their mobile phones. The third assumption (and I argue is the most important) is that the access to mobile phones will empower people to work. There is no consideration of other aspects of poverty and the livelihoods of people in theses areas. The use of mobile phones is a quick fix solution and does not tackle the underlying issues of poverty.

This is how the Praekelt Foundation sees the impact of mobile phones, "Extreme poverty almost always goes hand in hand with extreme isolation, but mobile technologies and services have the capacity to end all forms of extreme isolation, becoming the most transformative technology of economic and social development" (from www.praekeltfoundation.org/about.html).
The foundation focuses on the role of "isolation" in poverty. It makes sense that the video provides the message the way that it does. There is an initial assumption by the organization that isolation is the problem to be "solved".

The video has largely been trying to portray importance and the good impacts of mobile phones in Africa. The statement ‘Mobile phones are driving the economy’ largely assumes that they are partly or play a very important role in the process of their economic growth. I agree with the Praekelt Foundation in the video when they say that mobile phones may allow them to take charge of their wellbeing. However this statement in very general and does not consider all aspects of ‘well- being’. By having mobile phones the African can largely be connected to people all over the world and have access to a large range of knowledge and information, but how much has it really changed their lives in terms of higher income or more food? This living in poverty may have bought this tool because they have no other option as that might be the only means of finding some source of income. Moreover the tool does not even guarantee that they will have a stable source of income or there will be more schools and accessible health care services. They might be able to draw attention of the rest of the world regarding the lacks in the economy, but that will not necessarily change the structure or bring them out of poverty. Carmody rightfully says in the article that mobile phones will generate positive action if they have to resources to implement the ideas received through mobile phones.

Question 2:
This video puts emphasis on the potential of Africa, referencing to its size and diversity. The key message is that technology will help Africa socially and economically excel and the simplest way is through mobile devices. The video mentions many Africans use the internet on their mobiles more than anything else. Personally, I have heard from my own mother that cellular phones in Africa are even used for money transfers, paying bills, etc. The video illustrates the positive affects mobile phones have within Africa. It shows how much mobile phones have improved and penetrated within Africa in the past 18 years. Also, it mentions how the youth are the mobile generation and are ready for more improvements. However, mobiles are improving accessibility but it is not positively improving the economy. Is it just another case of foreign companies just reaping the benefits whilst local citizens are not? Also, even though the mobile head sets are getting cheaper, can people afford the phone lines? I don’t think it’s a positive or reassuring fact the more people in Uganda have mobile phones but not light bulbs. Lastly, will there be long distance charges from country to country within the continent? Surly for their economy to grow, their mobile mustn't be a finical burden on them. The video gives an illusion to the realities of the region.

The key message that the video portrays is the power of mobile phones in Africa and it urges the younger populations in Africa to be part of the “mobile generation” to change the continent. There are quite a few assumptions that this video makes. First assumption lies in its depiction of Africa as a whole; the video starts out by stating how large and multilingual Africa is (with over 1 billion people residing and with 1,000 languages spoken across the continent) yet, it ignores the diversity in culture, economy, governance, etc. and assumes that the countries that make up the African continent are the same throughout with the common link of mobile phones. For example, the video uses a teenaged boy named Uche as an average 18 year old boy in Africa, who also turned out to be a mobile maniac. Would it be just to say that mobile maniacs are true depictions of average African boy? I became to question the qualities that make up to be the “average” person of such continent.

Another assumption the video makes is that its argument under the power of mobile phones on African economy. I especially questioned on the qualities that this video seeks in development when it stated that “there are more mobile phones in Uganda than there are light bulbs”. To me, personally, having more mobile phones than light bulbs does not cross my mind as the way for development; although, ICT may be crucial into a country/continent’s development, having basic living needs (such as light bulbs or source of electricity) is as equally important if not more. We should question whether mobile technology is the only effective means of changing the continent into positive streams.

In his article, Carmody puts emphasis on two forms of articulation, spatial and social. When referring to spatial articulation, Carmody is referring Africa’s connectedness to the outside world, whereas when referring to social articulation it is in relation to the connectedness between various African localities.
I believe the concept of spatial articulation is incredibly useful when one looks to critically assess the impacts of rapid mobile phone growth in Africa. As discussed by Carmody, Africa’s both historical and current adverse spatial articulation, such as colonialism, neoliberal restructurings that have taken place since the 1980’s, and current uneven global trade systems, help to explain much of its underdevelopment today. With this in mind, it is useful to consider the introduction of mobile phones into Africa in the context our globalized economy. For example, Carmody discusses how Western mobile phone companies likely have a competitive advantage over African companies due to their complementary conditions and factors of production, and thus could either have no effect or in fact could worsen poverty within the continent. Furthermore, due to existent inequalities such as material access, usage capabilities, political capital, etc. (which were often products of the aforementioned adverse spatial articulation) Carmody questions much of popular literature which lauds the potential transformative impacts that mobile phones could have. Instead, he posits that their introduction may simply be absorbed into deeply embedded preexisting economic structures and power dynamics, and may in fact exacerbate these processes.

I think that by "Spatial articulation" Carmody refers to the way Africa connects within the continent but also with the wider world system. Due to globalization and the presence of MNCs, Africa is very tied to the rest of the world through its economic activity. When mobile phones are presented as a tool for utilizing this connection in a way that can lead to the reduction of poverty, Carmody points out that this isn't so simple. Although in some situations, like the examples given in Iqbal Quadir's TEDTalk, ICT and mobile phones have been an advantage Global South businesses, there are also many instances where mobile phones have contributed to poverty rather than lead to its reduction. When approaching the issue of ICT4D through the 3 schools of thought on poverty, its clear that not all aspects are taken into account when envisioning ICT as the solution to poverty. Although the capability and palliative schools are clearly represented in optimism for ICT, the structural school is often missing and issues of power inequality are not addressed in assessing the ways in which poverty is produced. This is where most clearly the issue of Africa's spatial articulation comes into play because if exploitation and poverty is exacerbated by mobile phones, then they cannot be treated as a truly equitable way to achieve development. These issues can be seen through the high cost of mobile phones, the limited mobile phone technology available (ex: no smart phones, imported products and infrastructure) and especially the impact of conflict minerals like coltan mining in the DRC. This demonstrates that while power inequality continues to be replicated between Africa and the world, ICT also leads to further inequality within Africa itself. Carmody ends the article by arguing that neoliberalism needs to be transcended before development in Africa can be achieved and this proves how the spacial articulation ends up being so pertinent to the success of mobile phones for development.