What is the message (or "punch line") that is supposedly clear here?

It seems poor households have higher computer ownership percentage than even the richest in this study, wich seems odd.

It also appears that while the poor have much higher ownership levels, they proportionately play less video games (though it's hard to judge from the graphs, note the scale changes from ownership proportion going up to 100%, to play ever day proportion only going up to 40%).

I've read several other studies which claim introducing computers in homes or schools is actually counter-productive if not done right but the rich/poor thing seems just to confuse this issue, and I'm really not sure what point is being made here.

Is he against computers or vouchers?