While the digital divide might bring up the idea that enterprises will be able to sell more and more computers during the next years another truth looks as if there was no hope for a certain percentage of the population to get out of their marginalization, their position of being "have nots".
Studies show that the issue of different colors of skin play a role in this, but more than "racial" issues it is income, age and education that decides about the have and have nots.
There exist ~ 103 million households in the USA.
~6 million do not even have telephone access. Why should they care about computers?
The digital divide cuts the world into centers and peripheries, not into nations, as it runs through the boarder between the North and the South as well as through nations.
The most different institutions with various interests in their background work in that field; not rarely paid by governments, which are interested in inhabitants, connected to the net and economy.
see also:
Searching information about the digital divide one will find informations saying that it is growing all the time whereas other studies suggest the contrary, like this one
TEXTBLOCK 1/1 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611730/100438659326
ISPs (Internet Service Provider), BBSs (Bulletin Board Service Operators), systems operators and other service providers (in the U.S.) can usually be hold liable for infringing activities that take place through their facilities under three theories: 1) direct liability: to establish direct infringement liability there must be some kind of a direct volitional act, 2) contributory liability: a party may be liable for contributory infringement where "... with knowledge of the infringing activity, [it] induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing activity of another." Therefore a person must know or have reason to know that the subject matter is copyrighted and that particular uses violated copyright law. There must be a direct infringement of which the contributory infringer has knowledge, and encourages or facilitates for contributory infringement to attach, and 3) vicarious liability: a party may be vicariously liable for the infringing acts of another if it a) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and b) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability.