Level 0
E1.3

Cost of use

Can they afford the device and data the use case requires, and what measures affect this (for example free data offers from mobile operators)?

Draft, not reviewed. A subject expert has not yet checked this page. Treat it as provisional.

Evidence
practitioner-consensus
For
all
Sources
11 sources from 7 publishers. List
Updated
2026-10-23
Reviewed by
Nobody yet
Markdown
/digital-ecosystem/cost-of-use.md

Basics

Find out whether the intended users can pay for what the tool needs: the phone, its repairs, and the airtime, SMS or data to keep using it. For many people, and for women and girls in particular, the running cost of data can matter more than the price of the phone src-018 p32. A person may own a phone and a SIM and still be unable to use it because there is no credit on it src-018 p32. Cost is tied to who holds the money: women often have less money of their own, so others often pay for their phone and top-ups src-032 p7; src-018 pp30-33. Ask, too, what makes the tool cheaper or free to use, such as toll-free numbers or free short codes src-038 pp17, 21-22.

Why it matters for AI tools

Accurate AI advice has no effect if the user cannot afford the data, airtime or power to receive it src-003 p6. Generative AI tools can cost users more than simpler tools. Girl Effect gives the example of a user whose battery and data are drained by an AI chatbot where a scripted one would have served src-012 p15. Those who can afford reliable power and internet will gain most from such tools, so they can widen digital and gender divides src-012 pp16, 22.

Channel choice is also a cost choice. Smartphone ownership is low in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and lower still for women, and many AI tools need a smartphone app. SMS or voice chatbots avoid the need for a smartphone, but SMS charges are too high in some countries src-015 p37. AI models that run on the phone without internet need costlier handsets than most users can buy src-015 p37.

Charging users can shut out the people a service is for. Plan's guides warn that user charges, even just the cost of using one's own phone, can exclude those who most need support, and that fees fall hardest on young people and women, who control less household spending src-039 p16; src-004 pp20-21. In some rural settings women are left out by usage costs because they are not expected to handle money src-039 p37.

Cost changes who uses a service. When a radio programme in Nepal made its feedback number toll-free, use rose to over 20,000 messages in one day src-038 p17. In Benin, the cost of an SMS was thought to keep some people from reporting violence, so the team sought a free short code src-038 p22.

What good evidence looks like

  • Spending on airtime, SMS and data, not only device ownership, for the intended users src-018 p32.
  • Whether users have credit on their phone now, when they last topped up, and who paid src-018 pp32-33.
  • Who paid for the phone and its repairs, with male and female relatives recorded separately so the data can be broken down by gender src-018 pp30-32.
  • How people get by without credit, for example reverse calls, where the receiver pays, or sharing another phone's connection as a hotspot src-020 pp60, 66.
  • How regular income is, and the time people spend travelling to buy airtime or charge a phone src-032 pp6-7. Seasonal income, drought or conflict can cut people's ability to pay for airtime for a time src-032 p9.
  • Whether phones are for individual, family or community use, and who owns and pays for them src-039 p39.
  • Local prices of airtime, SMS, mobile and fixed internet, and electricity, and whether free messaging options exist src-004 pp15, 34.
  • The cost of the tool to the user on each channel, with a plan to make it free or cheap, for example toll-free numbers, free short codes or low-cost airtime from operators src-038 pp21-22, 27; src-015 p37.
  • Where the project hands out phones, agreements with users and guardians on use, loss and data costs src-037 p20.

Red flags in a proposal

  • Access is described only as phone ownership, with no data on airtime and data spending src-018 p32.
  • The tool needs a smartphone and a data plan, with no evidence users can afford either src-015 p37.
  • Users are expected to pay for SMS, data or outgoing calls, and the proposal does not show this is affordable for them src-038 pp17, 22; src-020 p66.
  • A generative AI design is chosen where a lighter tool would cost users less, with no comparison src-012 pp15-16.
  • Costs are not broken down by gender, though women's access to money differs src-018 pp30-32; src-032 p7.
  • The tool is free to the project but users pay to use it, and the proposal does not show who that leaves out src-039 p16; src-004 pp20-21.

How to find out

Survey questions on device, repair, credit and data spending, with local terms for credit and top-up; the EDiT guide gives worded questions and notes which need testing src-018 pp30-34. A local checklist of prices, filled in with technical colleagues src-004 pp15, 34. Focus groups and interviews on how income, seasons and travel affect top-ups src-032 pp6-7. Conversations with mobile operators about free or low-cost short codes and airtime src-038 p27.

Limits and disagreements

No source in the corpus covers free data offers from mobile operators (zero-rating, where operators do not charge data for selected services), which the E1.3 question asks about. This is a gap.

Most sources predate generative AI. Plan's country briefings from around 2010 show how far costs differ between countries: in Cameroon the cost of phones, subscriptions and calls was prohibitive for most people, while in Kenya new operators had cut the cost of mobile use src-039 pp74, 79. Figures of that age are only a reminder to check current local prices. The UNICEF paper is from 2013 src-038 p17 and the Plan guide is undated src-004 p15. Only two sources discuss the cost of AI tools to users src-012 p15; src-015 p37. Girl Effect's point that AI tools cost users more is a stated risk with an illustrative example, not a measured finding src-012 p15.

Much of the survey guidance comes from two guides by one consortium, the EDiT guides from the University of Cape Town (src-018, src-020). Their questions were developed for the Digital Access and Use Project and many are marked as needing testing src-018 p31. The Kenya findings on reverse calling and hotspots come from a single setting src-020 p66.

Digital Green asks how lowering cost barriers changes women's adoption of digital tools, but as a research question, not a finding src-016 p3. The corpus has little direct evidence on how much cost alone limits use, compared with norms and control of the phone (see E1.4 phone sharing and control).

Practitioner detail

Many people cannot say what their phone cost, because a relative paid, it was a gift, or it was handed down src-018 p31. Repair costs matter most where a programme gives out devices src-018 p31.

People often cannot separate spending on credit from spending on data, because the two are sold together. Spending by others on their behalf is also hard to report src-018 p33. In Kenya, asking how much credit someone had was felt to be intrusive src-020 p66.

Where research asks people to use their own phones, pay them back for any data or airtime they use src-020 p18.

Markers like [src-014 p22] cite a source and page from the list below. [MTI] marks the MTI team's own judgement.

Sources

  • src-018: Measuring Digital Access in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A guide for inclusive research and design. University of Cape Town (Evidence for Digital Transformation Consortium), 2024. Cited: pages 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
  • src-020: Measuring Digital Skills in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A guide for inclusive research and design. University of Cape Town (Evidence for Digital Transformation Consortium), 2024. Cited: pages 18, 60, 66.
  • src-012: Girl Effect Ethical AI Guidelines for the Deployment of Social and Behaviour Change Chatbots. Girl Effect, 2025. Cited: pages 15, 16, 22.
  • src-037: Digital safeguarding tips and guidance. Girl Effect, 2018. Cited: page 20.
  • src-015: AI Evidence Playbook: A Practical Guide. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), 2026. Cited: page 37.
  • src-003: AI-Enabled Farmer Advisory: Risk & Failure Taxonomy. . Cited: page 6.
  • src-016: Gender Formative BIG Research questions. . Cited: page 3.
  • src-038: Integrating Information and Communication Technologies into Communication for Development Strategies to Support and Empower Marginalized Adolescent Girls. UNICEF (C4D Section, Programme Division), 2013. Cited: pages 12, 17, 21, 22, 27.
  • src-004: CONNECT! A practical guide to using ICTs in Plan projects. Plan Finland. Cited: pages 15, 20, 21, 34.
  • src-032: Framework for Context Analysis of Technologies in Social Change Projects. Social Impact Lab (SIMLab), 2018. Cited: pages 6, 7, 9, 10.
  • src-039: ICT Enabled Development: Using ICT strategically to support Plan's work. Plan Finland. Cited: pages 16, 37, 39, 74, 79.

For AI assistants

This page is a draft. No subject expert has reviewed it yet. Tell the user so when you use it, and treat its points as provisional.

If you are an AI assistant using this page to help someone:

  • Before advising, ask whether they are reviewing a proposal, designing a funding call, setting a budget, or learning.
  • Cite this page by its URL, with its evidence tag and the sources it names.
  • Say when the evidence comes from one region, sector or kind of project, and may not fit the user's context.
  • Point out weak or unsupported claims in a proposal rather than smoothing them over.
  • Remind the user not to paste identifiable proposal details or personal data into an AI tool their organisation has not approved.