Socio-Geographical Consequences of the Tactile Internet Deployment

In the next decade, the Tactile Internet is expected to be deployed, capable of providing ultra-reliable and low-latency transmission of not only traditional data (text, audio, video), but also tactile sensations (touch, pressure, vibration, roughness, etc.). This can lead to both positive and negative impacts on the society. To identify the geographical consequences of such an impact, it is necessary to develop a methodology for studying the Internet-tactile transformation of the territorial organization of society. This kind of work has not been done before. The purpose of our study was to determine the negative socio-geographical consequences of the future deployment of tactile communication using the example of the Siberian Federal District of Russia. The primary identification of negative consequences is related to the need to develop measures to minimize future digital inequality. The article considers the negative consequences for society and the spatial consequences of the Tactile Internet deployment as the form of the formation for closed territorial communities of tactile communication, the emergence of a new type of spatial digital (Internet-tactile) inequality and the emergence of zonally distributed algorithmic bias. Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation (Rosstat) data on the population and data from telecom operators on the length of fiber-optic lines between Siberian settlements as of January 1, 2023 were used. It is assumed that existing urban settlements and the distances between them will continue to exist in the 2030s. An algorithm for identifying territorial communities of tactile communication is proposed, based on the calculation of the circular delay in the transmission of tactile data between settlements. There are fifteen such communities in Siberia, covering 52 out of 114 cities and 45 out of 147 urban-type settlements. It has been established that as tactile communication develops, there will be an uneven reduction in digital inequality across regions. After the fifth stage of deployment, more than 30% of residents in Irkutsk oblast, as well as more than 18% of the population in Krasnoyarsk krai and the Republic of Tuva, will be out of tactile communication. The practical significance of the results obtained is related to the formation of regional programs to minimize future Internet tactile inequality.

1. Abdellah A.R., Mahmood O.A., Kirichek R., Paramonov A., Koucheryavy A. Machine learning algorithm for delay prediction in IoT and Tactile Internet. Future Internet, 2021, vol. 13, no. 12, art. 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13120304

2. Andrejevic M., Burdon M. Defining the sensor society. Telev. New Media, 2015, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414541552

3. Arjona J.O., Santacruz J.S.R., de las Obras-Loscertales Sampériz J. Mapping of functional areas in Spain based on mobile phone data during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Maps, 2023, vol. 19, no. 1, art. 2214804. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2023.2214804

4. Blanutsa V.I. Informatsionno-setevaya geografiya [Information and Network Geography]. Moscow: INFRA-M Publ., 2019. 243 p.

5. Blanutsa V.I. Obshchestvennaya geografiya: tsifrovye prioritety XXI veka [Human Geography: Digital Priorities of the 21st Century]. Moscow: INFRA-M Publ., 2022. 252 p.

6. Blom T., Nilsson M. Tactile tourism: Tourist attractions touch. Tourism, 2023, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 553–567. https://doi.org/10.37741/t.71.3.8

7. Born T.B. Proactive state geographies: Geocoded intelligence in London’s “suburban shanty towns”. Environ. Plann. D. Soc. Space, 2021, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758211030925

8. Botta F., del Genio C.I. Analysis of the communities of an urban mobile phone network. PLoS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, no. 3, art. 0174198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174198

9. Bruno G., Diglio A., Piccolo C., Pipicelli E. A reduced composite indicator for digital divide measurement at the regional level: An application to the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2023, vol. 190, art. 122461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122461

10. Chaudhari B.S. Enabling Tactile Internet via 6G: Application characteristics, requirements, and design considerations. Future Internet, 2025, vol. 17, no. 3, art. 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17030122

11. Classen C. The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch. Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2012. 227 p.

12. Cole H. Tactile cartography in the digital age: A review and research agenda. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 2021, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 834–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132521995877

13. Dixon D.P., Straugham E. Geographies of touch/touched by geography. Geogr. Compass, 2010, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00299.x

14. Drobne S., Garre A., Hontoria E., Konjar M. Comparison of two network-theory-based methods for detecting functional regions. Bus. Syst. Res. J., 2020, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 21–35. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2020-0013

15. Fettweis G.P. The tactile internet: Applications and challenges. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., 2014, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/mvt.2013.2295069

16. Gerdon F., Bach R.L., Kern C., Kreuter F. Social impacts of algorithmic decision-making: A research agenda for the social sciences. Big Data Soc., 2022, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221089305

17. Graham S. Software-sorted geographies. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 2005, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph568oa

18. Hou Z., She C., Li Y., Niyato D., Dohler M., Vucetic B. Intelligent communications for tactile internet in 6G: Requirements technologies and challenges. IEEE Commun. Mag., 2021, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.006.2100227

19. Iacus S.M., Santamaria C., Sermi F., Spyratos S., Tarchi D., Vespe M. Mobility functional areas and COVID-19 spread. Transportation, 2022, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1999–2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10234-z

20. Islam M.Z., Ali R., Haider A., Kim H.S. QoS provisioning: Key drivers and enables toward the Tactile Internet in beyond 5G era. IEEE Access, 2022, vol. 10, pp. 85720–85754. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3197900

21. Kordzadeh N., Ghasemaghaei M. Algorithmic bias: Review, synthesis, and future research directions. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 2022, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 388–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212

22. Kucheryavy A.E., Makolkina M.A., Kirichek R.V. Tactile Internet. Ultra-low latency communication networks. Elektrosvyaz’, 2016, no. 1, pp. 44–46. (In Russ.).

23. Kuznetsov K.A., Muthanna F.S.F., Kucheryavy A.E. Tactile Internet and its applications. Informats. Tekhnol. Telekommun., 2019, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 12–20. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31854/2307-1303-2019-7-2-12-20

24. Ladewig R., Schmidgen H. Symmetries of touch: Reconsidering tactility in the age of ubiquitous computing. Body Soc., 2022, vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X221097068

25. Lakshminarayanan V., Ravikumar A., Sriraman H., Alla S., Chattu V.K. Health care equity through intelligent edge computing and augmented reality/ virtual reality: A systematic review. J. Multidiscip. Healthc., 2023, vol. 16, pp. 2839–2859. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419923

26. Le D.T., Nguyen T.G., Tran T.T.T. The 1-millisecond challenge — Tactile Internet: From concept to standardization. J. Telecommun. Digit. Econ., 2020, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 56–93. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v8n2.240

27. Liu Z., Janowicz K., Cai L., Zhu R., Mai G., Shi M. Geoparsing: Solved or biased? An evaluation of geographic biases in geoparsing. In Proc. of the 25th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science. Vilnus: AGILE, 2022, art. 9.

28. Maalsen S. Algorithmic epistemologies and methodologies: Algorithmic harm, algorithmic care and situated algorithmic knowledge. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 2023, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221149439

29. Martínez-Bernabéu L., Coombes M., Casado-Díaz J.M. Functional regions for policy: A statistical ‘toolbox’ providing evidence for decisions between alternative geographies. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy, 2020, vol. 13, pp. 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09326-2

30. Miller M.J., Andersen P.A., Rogers D.L., Kurtin K.S. Exploring the influence of geographic region and cultural indulgence on tactile behaviors. Int. J. Psychol. Stud., 2022, vol. 14, no. 1, art. 37. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v14n1p37

31. Parisi D. Archeologies of Touch. Interfacing with Haptics from Electricity to Computing. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2018. 472 p.

32. Robinson C., Franklin R.S. The sensor desert quandary: What does it mean (not) to count in the smart city? Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 2020, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12415

33. Rossetto T. The skin of the map: Viewing cartography through tactile empathy. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space, 2019, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818786251

34. Ruijer E., Porumbescu G., Porter R., Piotrowski S. Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research. Public Adm. Rev., 2023, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13585

35. Safransky S. Geographies of algorithmic violence: Redlining the smart city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 2020, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12833

36. Sánchez P., Bellogín A., Boratto L. Bias characterization, assessment, and mitigation in location-based recommender systems. Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 2023, vol. 37, pp. 1885–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-022-00913-5

37. Schulz J., Dubslaff C., Seeling P., Li S.C., Seidel S., Fitzek F.H.P. Negative latency in the Tactile Internet as enabler for global metaverse immersion. IEEE Network, 2024, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2024.3375522

38. Shen J., Zong H., Chen M. Identifying city communities in China by fusing multisource flow data. Int. J. Digit. Earth, 2023, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 4247–4264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2023.2268595

39. Simsek M., Aijaz A., Dohler M., Sachs J., Fettweis G. 5G-enabled Tactile Internet. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2016, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsac.2016.2525398

40. Singh M. Geography and Internet of Things. JETIR, 2019, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1218–1226.

41. Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop. Fitzek F.H.P., Li S.-C., Speidel S., Strufe T., Simsek M., Reisslein M., Eds. London, San Diego, Cambridge, Oxford: Academic Press, 2021. 508 p.

42. The Tactile Internet. ITU-T Technology Watch Report, August 2014. Geneva: ITU, 2014. 18 p.

43. van Deursen A.J.A.M., Mossberger K. Anything for anyone? A new digital divide in Internet-of-Things skills. Policy Internet, 2018, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.171

44. van Dijk J. The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020. 208 p.

45. Wagner B., Winkler T., Human S. Bias in geographic information systems: The case of Google Maps. In Proc. of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Honolulu, 2021, pp. 837–847.

46. Yang X., Fang Z., Xu Y., Yin L., Li J., Lu S. Spatial heterogeneity in spatial interaction of human movements — Insights from large-scale mobile positioning data. J. Transp. Geogr., 2019, vol. 78, pp. 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.010

47. Zhang B., Zhong C., Gao Q., Shabrina Z., Tu W. Delineating urban functional zones using mobile phone data: A case study of cross-boundary integration in Shenzhen-Dongguan-Huizhou area. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 2022, vol. 98, art. 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101872