A number of recent reports and studies have suggested evidence that digital divide skeptics say underscores their contention that technology access gaps are not a policy problem. Is there legitimate cause for celebration, or more evidence suggesting a problem whose actual implications are more difficult to pinpoint than previously thought? For the past few months, a steady stream of articles, studies, and analysis have raised doubts about the need to acknowledge a “digital divide”. Conflicting evidence points to non- (or negligible) significance of demographic measures and indicators once thought to clearly demonstrate gaps and disparities with respect to technology access and utilization between the fortunate and underserved in our society. Such findings should be met with a mix of optimism, caution, celebration, and skepticism, but should not be dismissed. Indeed, if we have truly closed the gaps at the center of intense policy debates and advocacy activity over the past few years, then we should carefully review the numbers to find out what works and why, and how best to sustain the success generated so far, and to prevent the reemergence of eliminated barriers in the future. That such evidence has, instead, been cheerfully trumpted by naysayers as evidence that one of the most discussed policy issues at the close our last century has been solved– and mostly by a combination of market forces, individual initiative, and voluntary effort– should instead be met with questions, chief among them: how can we celebrate the solving and cessation of a problem that, for over five years, anti-digital divide policy critics have maintained was not even an problem? How can we reconcile information which, cumulatively, suggests that there is no problem and it is not as bad as we all thought? It is impossible, if not disingenuous, to simultaneously deny the existence of a digital divide on some level, while celebrating the closing of gaps in technology access, penetration, sustainable use, and resultant gains by specific segments of the population. One fundamental source of confusion is the emphasis skeptics have placed on measuring rates of technology access at the expense of ignoring the level and quality of technology use. For example, much has been made of a November 2001 UCLA report that found that 65% of those lacking high school degrees and 80% of those with some college used the Internet, compared to 60% of high school graduates. We also know, according to February 2002 Commerce Department statistics that half of all households making $15-25,000 annually have access to the Internet in some form Even the most fervent digital divide activists have maintained for some time that the overall goal is not simply to increase the amount of computers or high-speed Internet connections in schools, public and community-access centers and libraries, or in individual homes, but instead to remove those barriers and obstacles that prevent each individual in our society from taking advantage of technology to apply them to their circumstances in ways that are increasingly mandatory for participation in daily economic, social, and civic life. How can we, for example, reconcile decreasing gaps of computer and Internet access with numbersuggesting that only 39% of Native households in rural American have basic phone service-- and only 26% have access to 911 emergency telephone services-- compared to 94% of non-Native households in rural America. Those numbers, when aggregated with Native access rates of 22% for cable, 9% computer, and 8% Internet access, underscore that the digital divide is not simple a series of comparisons that can be statistically explained away. It is the cumulative barrier of many factors that play out in aggregate in different permutations across individuals and communities to prevent technology access and use. If federal government figures are to be believed, we should indeed celebrate the closing of gaps in access, but we should also acknowledge the role key federal investments, such as the beleaguered Technology Opportunities Program and Community Technology Centers program. Created in 1994, the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) has awarded 530 grants, in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, totaling $192.5 million and leveraging $268 million in local matching funds that create innovative technology demonstration projects in the areas of high-tech employment skills, emergency services, telemedicine, disability accessibility, and education. * Since its establishment in 1999, the Community Technology Centers program (CTC) has distributed 227 grants, totaling over $74 million dollars, to promote the development of model programs that demonstrate the educational effectiveness of technology in urban and rural areas and economically distressed communities. That these efforts have markedly reduce the gaps in access within and across race and ethnicity, gender, income, geography, and education levels has long been recognized by their supporters. The increasing likelihood that marginalized groups have access to technology, while laudatory, only is a gauge of how groups are faring at a fixed point in time, and suggests only that they have access. It says nothing, however, about the quality of that access, and how that access translates into other key measures of success. For all of the strides made by low-income housleholds, according to the Commerce Department figures, we also know that only a quarter of households making less than $25,000 annually can access the Internet from home, compared to 80% of households making $75,000 or more annually. Compare this with the same figures suggesting that half of all low-income households have some form of Internet access, and it's clear that the people are getting online where it is available, but not necessarily where it is convenient. Schools, libraries, and community technology centers and other public access points compliment access offered at work and at home, but no one point can replace the others-- unless individuals have the choice to access it at one point versus another. In addition, some access points are not appropriate-- home access is moot for the homeless, and schools and libraries can be formidible to those with limited literacy skills. The rates of access and the quality of access are simply measures of how well two different types of gaps are being addressed. It does not address the gaps between what’s available and what’s usable, what’s being used, and how well it is utilized. Access to a tool, in short, is not the same as being able to use that tool, to use it well, and to use it in a way that’s beneficial to you and others. That is why there is a need for continued federal investments such as CTC and TOP, not simply because they help provide increased capacity to meet increased demand, but because they support cost-effective sustainable models of human needs service provision, merging technology literacy and individual empowerment opportunities available to all members of communities across America, while leveraging limited resources across the multitude of sectors in a community. It is certainly persuasive, if not convenient, to argue that any gaps, whether actual or perceived, will ultimately be filled without any government intervention. This assumes, however, a high degree of capacity and willingness by individuals and voluntary efforts to take it upon themselves to solve these gaps. Just as government faces increasingly difficult choices as to how to apply limited funding to a variety of pressing needs, there is no reason to think that similar burdens face individuals and community institutions which to date have borne the lion’s share of the burden for solving these problems long before larger-scale federal government activity was focused on the same problems. The persistence of gaps in individual technology access and use should not be automatically interpreted, however, as meaning that technology has a lower priority by those same individuals. For example, according to a July 2002 report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation KIDS COUNT program, 95% of children in the highest-income bracket have computer access, compared to 33% of children in the lowest income bracket. The same report found that 64% of children in households with at least $75,000 in annual salaries have Internet access, compared to just 14% of children in households making less than $15,000 annually. Are we going to hold children in lower income households accountable for their relative lack of access compared to children in higher-income households? No matter how tautological, one cannot realize the benefits of being online without the means to get online, and to stay online. In order for technology to be relevant in the lives of all citizens, the key elements are not only initial access to hardware and software and telecommunications services, but also affordable services, the means to support use fo information and communication tools past the point of acquisition (including maintenance and upgrades). It means the ability to gain and apply knowledge, and to grow and replicate that individual capacity among all individuals in every community. It also means proactively addressing gaps among our underserved, rather than perpetually providing a patchwork, piecemeal, ad hoc solution that, at best, allows them to play catch-up to others in society. This, then, begs the question: why is anyone “owed” access to information and communications technology in this day and age, when services are plentiful and affordable, and anyone who wants access can get it? At the very least, because technology tools-- which move from being fashionable to trendy to desirable to preferred to required by other actors and institutions for participation in society (and cheaper, easier to acquire, and easier to use in the process)-- themselves represent the fruits of years of public federal investments in research and development, infrastructure building, and capacity expansion. Continuing to ensure that the all segments of the public can utilize the very technology it helped to support is a necessity to ensure full return on investment. Tellingly, though critics of our work continue to employ the term “digital divide” in their analysis and critique of what they perceive as unnecessary, duplicative, wasteful activity, we have long since shunned those debilitating insurmountable terms in favor of “digital empowerment” and “digital opportunity”. These terms, and the thinking behind it, have helped us to better directly engage all stakeholders on whose behalf we continue to fight and protect federal, state, local, private, and individual investments in technology.