January 2007 - KICTANet

Re: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders
by joseph kihanya 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Thanks Walu for the discussion moderation. I am doing something on the regulatory framework and will post by day 10. On operators I would expect that there woulda be a reciprocation in price and QOS issues. I would expect that there would be publicly accessible interconnection agreements under the non-discriminatory technology-neutral Open Access principles . I would also expect that there would have to bea busines realignment to conform with new entrants at the local lvel who the operators would indeed agree not to want to "take over" asa soon asa a ROI looks good. On the regulator, the paradigm shift in allowing competition and enforcing it would be key.Competition alone despite all that is siad about it is not known to benefit consumers largely where duopolies or oligopolies exits. product and price shadowing takes centre stage and one is not sure that the alternatives are not exhorbitant. The regulator must also enforce QOS. The consumer must be ready for a vibrant market and take up alternatives that make the best "cents".He /She must be able to walk out..and perhaps to an ombudsman(regulator) where QOS is not as per SLA or other "promises.Whining loudly may help(See South Africans vs Telkom SA in the Daily News recently) Kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:11:24 AM Subject: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are the Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC. Three models seem to have persisted throughout the discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable Management fits in squarely with the Open Access thinking, whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, Private Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The cable becomes an essential service or public good, from where Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a Profit. Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a variant model where the cable is privately owned but promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. They also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers) Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he mentioned that Commercial interest should be let loose to play dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns (profit) in the shortest time possible social connotation notwithstanding. And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The short-terms interests of investors must be balanced against the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex their muscle probably now and more in future when the OFC is laid-out. In all this, the various financing options were not so pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the likely impact of the above models on the existing stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. The efloor is again open and we have two days on this one. walu. Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. ~~~~~000~~~~~~ Theme Reminder: 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Ongoing-Open> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) <Pending> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

5 7

Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders
by John Walubengo 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are the Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC. Three models seem to have persisted throughout the discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable Management fits in squarely with the Open Access thinking, whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, Private Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The cable becomes an essential service or public good, from where Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a Profit. Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a variant model where the cable is privately owned but promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. They also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers) Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he mentioned that Commercial interest should be let loose to play dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns (profit) in the shortest time possible social connotation notwithstanding. And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The short-terms interests of investors must be balanced against the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex their muscle probably now and more in future when the OFC is laid-out. In all this, the various financing options were not so pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the likely impact of the above models on the existing stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. The efloor is again open and we have two days on this one. walu. Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. ~~~~~000~~~~~~ Theme Reminder: 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Ongoing-Open> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) <Pending> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

3 4

Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory
by A. Wanjira Munyua 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

Private sector led ICT infrastructure development/ownership, where they do most of the heavy lifting in terms of investment required is a good staring point. It will lower access costs, etc etc but would this model bring benefits to underseved/unreached rural communities for example??? Given the challenges we have faced and the importance of access to vital public services and locally relevant content, a variety of models must be explored. One that does not give undue favouritism to private sector or government rather one that suits the people of Kenya and subscribes to the principles of open access while ensuring that ICT policy is linked to poverty reduction strategies and development goals. This would also mean creating connections between e.g. universal access measures, initiatives aimed at delivering services, and poverty alleviation enabled by ICTs. Agree with Mucheru, that a management/governance model/vehicle needs to be developed to ensure fair play, accountability and responsiveness to citizen needs and input. alice

3 2

Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory
by A. Wanjira Munyua 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

Yes Kai, you have a point there and indeed government is the largest consumer of ICT services when/if our E-government strategy is implemented. best alice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kai Wulff" <kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke> To: <alice(a)apc.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory > Dear Alice, > > if the Government becvomes a user of private networks then it is easy to > build a business case even to the remote corners of the country! > > Rgds > > Kai > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Wanjira Munyua" <alice(a)apc.org> > To: <kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 22:57 > Subject: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory > > > > > Private sector led ICT infrastructure development/ownership, where they do > most of the "heavy lifting" in terms of investment required is a good > staring point. It will lower access costs, etc etc but would this model > bring benefits to underseved/unreached rural communities for example??? > > Given the challenges we have faced and the importance of access to vital > public services and locally relevant content, a variety of models must be > explored. One that does not give undue favouritism to private sector or > government rather one that suits the people of Kenya and subscribes to the > principles of open access while ensuring that ICT policy is linked to > poverty reduction strategies and development goals. This would also mean > creating connections between e.g. universal access measures, initiatives > aimed at delivering services, and poverty alleviation enabled by ICTs. > > Agree with Mucheru, that a management/governance model/vehicle needs to be > developed to ensure fair play, accountability and responsiveness to > citizen needs and input. > > alice > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What isthe best model for providing the F
by John Walubengo 31 Jan '07

31 Jan '07

Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio... walu.

15 38

Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
by Eric Osiakwan 30 Jan '07

30 Jan '07

Alan, The specific context here was "regulation" and am sorry you read my explanation to mean money on the cable. That is not the case, however the cable needs to make enough money to keept itself running otherwise we dont have a cable. Ultimately, the objective is to get cheaper prices than the exhaubitant options we cannot curently afford so the end result of my point from the regulatory side joins into John's point. When there is competition on the infrastructure side, because the first cable is cheap, others would have to be cheaper and more reliable so the proposition is to assume a certain structure and regulatory as well as financial mechanism that makes the first cable as cheap as possible. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Alan Finlay" <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:17:17 +0200 >Hi Eric > >Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the >fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only. > >Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that >entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a >profit out of the cable. > >Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these >two 'open access' positions as you understand them? > >Thanks >Alan > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric(a)afrispa.org> >To: <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM >Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested > > >> Dear All, >> >> The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the >regulatory policy >> environment must capture and enforce; >> 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that >infrastructure providers are >> NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. >> >> 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any >form of fair or unfair >> access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2). >> >> 2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that >infrastructure >> providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading >relationships with all service >> providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there >should be no >> restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. >> >> This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly >and ensuring >> there is interoperability. >> >> Eric here >> >> >> NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be >owned in a multi- >> stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also >impose some >> regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case >by case basis. >> >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >> From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> >> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> >> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:33:00 -0800 (PST) >> >> >What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse >> >on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. >> >And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with >> >regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh >> >yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too... >> > >> > >> >walu. >> >nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something - >> >members are informed to treat their comments as their >> >personal and not official postions ;-). >> > >> >--- Lucy Kimani <lkimani(a)comnews.co.ke> wrote: >> > >> >> Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of >> >> the west are >> >> regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read >> >> cat-throat) self-regulation >> >> has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. >> >> >> >> LK >> >> > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. >> >> Very >> >> > little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is >> >> there >> >> > anyone out there still logged on to give us their views >> >> b/w >> >> > now and 2morrow. >> >> > >> >> > walu. >> >> > --- Harry Hare <harry(a)aitecafrica.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Dear Walu, >> >> >> >> >> >> Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" >> >> and >> >> >> got these synonyms >> >> >> - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, >> >> dispose, >> >> >> conduct, >> >> >> systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" >> >> words >> >> >> cos they give you >> >> >> the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, >> >> >> these may not be so >> >> >> good "legal" words because law introduces the concept >> >> of >> >> >> constrain. Then >> >> >> these words become a burden that regulation is >> >> >> (especially to the private >> >> >> sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe. >> >> >> >> >> >> On the same breath, I would argue that its not a >> >> simple >> >> >> lets have or no, >> >> >> lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to >> >> regulate >> >> >> in the sense of >> >> >> providing continuity by systematizing and managing for >> >> >> the benefit of all, >> >> >> so regulation should only be used to facilitate and >> >> not >> >> >> constrain. >> >> >> Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not >> >> sustainable >> >> >> in the long run! >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so >> >> that >> >> >> the private sector >> >> >> can do what they do best...invest and get a return on >> >> >> their investment; and >> >> >> the government collects its taxes while we enjoy >> >> >> efficient and affordable >> >> >> the services! >> >> >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: >> >> >> kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com(a)kictanet.or.ke >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke] >> >> >> On Behalf Of >> >> >> John Walubengo >> >> >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM >> >> >> To: harry(a)aitecafrica.com >> >> >> Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the >> >> >> Existing/Sugested legal >> >> >> andregulatory framework for OFC? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the >> >> >> previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme >> >> as >> >> >> shown above. >> >> >> >> >> >> It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very >> >> >> little >> >> >> option. The choice is simply between having or NOT >> >> >> having >> >> >> Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The >> >> >> current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of >> >> the >> >> >> fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with >> >> >> commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept >> >> >> confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which >> >> >> case >> >> >> it is resolved through existing Company Laws or >> >> >> Competition >> >> >> Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in >> >> >> managing >> >> >> Private sector investements. >> >> >> >> >> >> However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where >> >> Public >> >> >> Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, >> >> >> some >> >> >> argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the >> >> >> Public >> >> >> interest (social benefits) are balanced against the >> >> >> Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators >> >> >> however find this recommendation not encouraging since >> >> >> they >> >> >> feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an >> >> otherwise >> >> >> enterprising venture that would excel without >> >> Regulatory >> >> >> constraints. >> >> >> >> >> >> As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory >> >> >> frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, >> >> >> Delayed >> >> >> to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these >> >> >> different >> >> >> variants would apply but would be glad to hear more >> >> from >> >> >> the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons >> >> of >> >> >> these options but approaching it in a practical way as >> >> >> follows: >> >> >> >> >> >> What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought >> >> to >> >> >> submarine OFC within the the context of the three >> >> models >> >> >> a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC >> >> >> b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC >> >> >> c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. >> >> >> Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & >> >> >> Consumers are particularly encouraged to say >> >> something. >> >> >> >> >> >> walu. >> >> >> --- Bill Kagai <billkagai(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Brian... >> >> >> > Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch >> >> today!!! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Anyway, >> >> >> > We are all converted capitalists hosting the World >> >> >> Social >> >> >> > Forum..so I say..a >> >> >> > good model is the one that makes good money for all >> >> of >> >> >> > us. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian(a)pure-id.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > For once I get to make my comment on the day it is >> >> >> due >> >> >> > (good job, Brian - >> >> >> > > keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start >> >> >> > talking to yourself you >> >> >> > > should get worried..... how about when you start >> >> >> > sending email to yourself?} >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > HAHAHAHA! >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I >> >> had a >> >> >> > v. interesting >> >> >> > > dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. >> >> The >> >> >> > people I was talking >> >> >> > > to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of >> >> memory a >> >> >> > sign of age, senility, >> >> >> > > insanity or all 3 together} hehehe..... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > ---as I was saying, the people I was talking to >> >> >> > mentioned that the perfect >> >> >> > > model has existed for the longest time in the oil >> >> & >> >> >> gas >> >> >> > pipelines in >> >> >> > > different parts of Europe. These cross multiple >> >> >> > jurisdictions, are critical >> >> >> > > to the livelihoods and economies of all the >> >> >> > stakeholders, support the >> >> >> > > existence and stability of a wide spectrum of >> >> >> sectors, >> >> >> > and at the end of day >> >> >> > > provide something that an individual or family >> >> pays >> >> >> > for. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Taking all of the above into consideration - these >> >> >> > projects are >> >> >> > > deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In >> >> fact >> >> >> >=== message truncated === >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>___________________________________________________________________________ >_________ >> >No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go >> >with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >kictanet mailing list >> >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >> >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> > >> >Please unsubscribe or change your options at >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/ >> kictanet/eric%40afrispa.org >> > >> >> -- >> Eric M.K Osiakwan >> Executive Secretary >> AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) >> Tel: + 233.21.258800 >> Fax: + 233.21.258811 >> Cell: + 233.244.386792 >> Handle: eosiakwan >> Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North >> Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North >> Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ >> Slang: "Tomorrow Now" >> -- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alan%40openresearch.co.za > > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/ kictanet/eric%40afrispa.org > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

2 1

Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model
by Eric Osiakwan 30 Jan '07

30 Jan '07

Kai, it depends on how you see regulation however without a certain regulatory mechanism we are all not going anywhere. The private sector leadership by KDN on this is commendable but please lets not use that as a case to define what is and what is not. Open Access as we have known it to be has a layout and it is clear @ http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.10.html If we all stick to the larger principles, all these other elements would fall in place whether it is private and or public sector leadership in the buildout. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Kai Wulff" <kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:51:38 +0300 >Let me add something: > >Open Access does not mean regulated. > >A system like Flag will have invested money to build a fiber around the >globe and will make money with it. Pricing on the cable is determined by >open market and not open access. > >Open Access needs to be provided to the Landing Station and with this to any >other system that might be available. > >TEAMS will go to one Monopoly Operator who will connect the TEAMS capacity >to other systems, what is the price for this service, who knows the price of >those systems? > >Unless we build our own Internet or at least a cable that is jointly owned >and peered at an international Internet Exchange (and even there are >commercial charges) we will never escape the need for some commercial >dealings. > >What is important for a region is that not one Operator/Service Provider has >access to cheaper capacity than the others (see TSA!). > >Like TEAMS, I hope that we can have all equal charges from MSA to the rest >of the world. On Flag, this is guaranteed by the contract KDN has signed! > >Rgds > >Kai > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Walubengo" <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> >To: <kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 19:37 >Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model >forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) > > >> Alan, >> >> I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber >> cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would >> still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework >> should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as >> competing submarine fiber cable. >> >> In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running >> accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates >> their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION >> providers equal access... >> >> Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute >> because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco >> market strutures. The current regulatory and business >> structures in most of the regional countries allow and >> probably encourage Operators to own the backbone >> (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all >> the service layers. >> >> For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone >> infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is >> licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through >> its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. >> >> Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also >> joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning >> the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete >> accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. >> >> And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations >> seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of >> accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the >> question would be, why try and change all that? Why should >> the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the >> comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market >> structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an >> otherwise good Open Access model... >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> --- Alan Finlay <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric >>> >>> Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward >>> that access to the >>> fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the >>> service end only. >>> >>> Your version says that access to the cable can be >>> competitive - or that >>> entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must >>> be allowed to make a >>> profit out of the cable. >>> >>> Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the >>> differences between these >>> two 'open access' positions as you understand them? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric(a)afrispa.org> >>> To: <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> >>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the >>> Existing/Sugested >>> >>> >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions >>> which the >>> regulatory policy >>> > environment must capture and enforce; >>> > 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services >>> so that >>> infrastructure providers are >>> > NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. >>> > >>> > 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should >>> not guarantee any >>> form of fair or unfair >>> > access to capacity for the provision of service (in >>> layer 2). >>> > >>> > 2. that there is no discrimination within and between >>> both camps so that >>> infrastructure >>> > providers are able to establish clear and transparent >>> trading >>> relationships with all service >>> > providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or >>> service layer there >>> should be no >>> > restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. >>> > >>> > This creates an ecosystem of various operators >>> interconnecting seemlessly >>> and ensuring >>> > there is interoperability. >>> > >>> > Eric here >>> > >>> > >>> > NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" >>> infrastructure entity to be >>> owned in a multi- >>> > stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are >>> employed may also >>> impose some >>> > regulations from the financial market that can only be >>> detailed on a case >>> by case basis. >> >> --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to >>> recollect and review how far we have gone in this online >>> discussion. >>> >>> Themes Reminder >>> 1) Why OFC (1day) >>> *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more >>> reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity. >>> >>> 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) >>> *Privately provisioned >>> *Consortium provisioned >>> *Open Access provisioned >>> >>> 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) >>> *No-Regulation >>> *Some Regulation >>> *Full Regulation >>> >>> 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans >>> (2days) >>> <Pending> >>> >>> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) >>> <Pending> >>> >>> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) >>> <Pending> >>> >>> So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views >>> on >>> what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model >>> for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African >>> Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well. >>> >>> walu. >>> --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Walu, >>> > >>> > I dug this interesting read off google search a while >>> > back (78 page) >>> > >>> > Open Access Models >>> > Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing >>> > Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) >>> > Final Draft >>> > August 2005 >>> > An infoDev Technical Report >>> > prepared by >>> > S P I N T R A C K A B >>> > DROTTNINGGATAN 99, >>> > 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN >>> > PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 >>> > WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO(a)SPINTRACK.COM >>> > >>> > < >>> > >>> >> http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf >>> > > >>> > >>> > /Alex >>> > >>> > John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer >>> > to my own question < >>> > talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> >>> - >>> > anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy >>> > (which >>> > purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be >>> > covered here.... >>> > >>> > ~~~~00-copied below--- >>> > >>> > East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved >>> > Thursday, 22 June 2006 >>> > All countries participating in the development of the >>> > East >>> > African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed >>> > to >>> > implement the project on an 'open access basis,' >>> > overcoming >>> > a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the >>> > project. >>> > The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa >>> > Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South >>> African >>> > government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the >>> > countries that were objecting to the change in the >>> > project >>> > to realise the limitations of the consortium model >>> which >>> > they had preferred. >>> > >>> > The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic >>> cable >>> > from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations >>> > along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link >>> with >>> > the countries' national networks at the landing >>> stations. >>> > Others would subsequently be interconnected through the >>> > networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, >>> > Burundi and D.R Congo. >>> > >>> > When the project was first conceived, it was to be >>> > primarily a private sector project. The core investors >>> in >>> > the cable infrastructure would determine the retail >>> > prices >>> > of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated >>> by >>> > a >>> > group of companies that would generate financing; an >>> > arrangement known as the consortium model. The South >>> > African government and Nepad have recently argued that >>> > the >>> > consortium model would not achieve the objective of the >>> > project bringing down the costs of >> communication in >>> > the region. They suggested that the model be altered to >>> > "open access", where any operator or institution in the >>> > participating countries would be allowed to acquire >>> > equity >>> > if it can afford the agreed contribution. >>> > >>> > In the open access model, the cable would be owned and >>> > operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a >>> company >>> > created to manage the network and establish the price >>> of >>> > bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be >>> formed >>> > to >>> > regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. >>> > Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as >>> > recognition of their commitment to the development and >>> > promotion of ICTs in the country. >>> > >>> > After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad >>> > e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a >>> > protocol that would form the legal framework of the >>> EASSy >>> > project. The Commission has already prepared a project >>> > plan, which it has sent to the member governments to >>> > review >>> > and comment, a process that take until August, when the >>> > protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is >>> expected >>> > to commence by the end of 2006. >>> > >>> > Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding >>> > from equity acquisition payments by companies from the >>> > region and then raise the remainder from African >>> > financial >>> > institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA >>> > Bank, >>> > East African Development Bank and others. >>> > >>> > Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News >>> > >>> >> http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php? option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877 >>> > >>> > walu. >>> > >>> > --- John Walubengo wrote: >>> > >>> > > What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric >>> > > plse >>> > > on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three >>> > paragraphs. >>> > > And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation >>> > > with >>> > > regard to a Private sector submarine OFC >>> > > provisioning....oh >>> > > yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point >>> too... >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > walu. >>> > > nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say >>> something >>> > - >>> > > members are informed to treat their comments as their >>> > > personal and not official postions ;-). >>> > > >>> > > --- Lucy Kimani wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Regulation is definately required as even the big >>> > boys >>> > > of >>> > > > the west are >>> > > > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read >>> > > > cat-throat) self-regulation >>> > > > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. >>> > > > >>> > > > LK >>> > > > > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even >>> > > online. >>> > > > Very >>> > > > > little activity. Heard from only Harry and >>> > Alex...is >>> >> === message truncated === >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> Don't pick lemons. >> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. >> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke >> > > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/ kictanet/eric%40afrispa.org > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

1 0

Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for
by Eric Osiakwan 30 Jan '07

30 Jan '07

John, you are like the Baptist, well said concerning the explaining. However i beg to differ on the last paragraph. The current situation has made communication in Africa, the poorest continent more EXPENSIVE than the rest of the world and this is due to a lot of factors most of which are triggered by your DOMESTIC CAPACITY. Please check how many people have telephones, internet, computer etc against population The question should rather be that if the prevailing situation has not made that much impact over such a longtime, why should we not CHANGE it. Please when you read the Open Access study @ http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.10.html we made clear some of these. Let me add that Open Access is adaptable to the local conditions in terms of "strategic implementation" however the principles are essentially the same. Also it is important to know that Open Access may not work in certain situations and therefore we do not claim "the ONLY ANSWER" to the problem. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:37:23 -0800 (PST) >Alan, > >I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber >cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would >still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework >should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as >competing submarine fiber cable. > >In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running >accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates >their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION >providers equal access... > >Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute >because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco >market strutures. The current regulatory and business >structures in most of the regional countries allow and >probably encourage Operators to own the backbone >(essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all >the service layers. > >For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone >infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is >licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through >its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. > >Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also >joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning >the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete >accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. > >And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations >seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of >accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the >question would be, why try and change all that? Why should >the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the >comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market >structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an >otherwise good Open Access model... > >walu. > > > >--- Alan Finlay <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> wrote: > >> Hi Eric >> >> Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward >> that access to the >> fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the >> service end only. >> >> Your version says that access to the cable can be >> competitive - or that >> entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must >> be allowed to make a >> profit out of the cable. >> >> Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the >> differences between these >> two 'open access' positions as you understand them? >> >> Thanks >> Alan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric(a)afrispa.org> >> To: <alan(a)openresearch.co.za> >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM >> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the >> Existing/Sugested >> >> >> > Dear All, >> > >> > The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions >> which the >> regulatory policy >> > environment must capture and enforce; >> > 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services >> so that >> infrastructure providers are >> > NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. >> > >> > 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should >> not guarantee any >> form of fair or unfair >> > access to capacity for the provision of service (in >> layer 2). >> > >> > 2. that there is no discrimination within and between >> both camps so that >> infrastructure >> > providers are able to establish clear and transparent >> trading >> relationships with all service >> > providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or >> service layer there >> should be no >> > restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. >> > >> > This creates an ecosystem of various operators >> interconnecting seemlessly >> and ensuring >> > there is interoperability. >> > >> > Eric here >> > >> > >> > NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" >> infrastructure entity to be >> owned in a multi- >> > stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are >> employed may also >> impose some >> > regulations from the financial market that can only be >> detailed on a case >> by case basis. > >--- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to >> recollect and review how far we have gone in this online >> discussion. >> >> Themes Reminder >> 1) Why OFC (1day) >> *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more >> reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity. >> >> 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) >> *Privately provisioned >> *Consortium provisioned >> *Open Access provisioned >> >> 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) >> *No-Regulation >> *Some Regulation >> *Full Regulation >> >> 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans >> (2days) >> <Pending> >> >> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) >> <Pending> >> >> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) >> <Pending> >> >> So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views >> on >> what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model >> for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African >> Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well. >> >> walu. >> --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Walu, >> > >> > I dug this interesting read off google search a while >> > back (78 page) >> > >> > Open Access Models >> > Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing >> > Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) >> > Final Draft >> > August 2005 >> > An infoDev Technical Report >> > prepared by >> > S P I N T R A C K A B >> > DROTTNINGGATAN 99, >> > 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN >> > PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 >> > WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO(a)SPINTRACK.COM >> > >> > < >> > >> >http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf >> > > >> > >> > /Alex >> > >> > John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer >> > to my own question < >> > talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> >> - >> > anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy >> > (which >> > purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be >> > covered here.... >> > >> > ~~~~00-copied below--- >> > >> > East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved >> > Thursday, 22 June 2006 >> > All countries participating in the development of the >> > East >> > African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed >> > to >> > implement the project on an 'open access basis,' >> > overcoming >> > a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the >> > project. >> > The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa >> > Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South >> African >> > government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the >> > countries that were objecting to the change in the >> > project >> > to realise the limitations of the consortium model >> which >> > they had preferred. >> > >> > The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic >> cable >> > from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations >> > along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link >> with >> > the countries' national networks at the landing >> stations. >> > Others would subsequently be interconnected through the >> > networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, >> > Burundi and D.R Congo. >> > >> > When the project was first conceived, it was to be >> > primarily a private sector project. The core investors >> in >> > the cable infrastructure would determine the retail >> > prices >> > of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated >> by >> > a >> > group of companies that would generate financing; an >> > arrangement known as the consortium model. The South >> > African government and Nepad have recently argued that >> > the >> > consortium model would not achieve the objective of the >> > project bringing down the costs of >communication in >> > the region. They suggested that the model be altered to >> > "open access", where any operator or institution in the >> > participating countries would be allowed to acquire >> > equity >> > if it can afford the agreed contribution. >> > >> > In the open access model, the cable would be owned and >> > operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a >> company >> > created to manage the network and establish the price >> of >> > bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be >> formed >> > to >> > regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. >> > Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as >> > recognition of their commitment to the development and >> > promotion of ICTs in the country. >> > >> > After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad >> > e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a >> > protocol that would form the legal framework of the >> EASSy >> > project. The Commission has already prepared a project >> > plan, which it has sent to the member governments to >> > review >> > and comment, a process that take until August, when the >> > protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is >> expected >> > to commence by the end of 2006. >> > >> > Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding >> > from equity acquisition payments by companies from the >> > region and then raise the remainder from African >> > financial >> > institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA >> > Bank, >> > East African Development Bank and others. >> > >> > Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News >> > >> >http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php? option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877 >> > >> > walu. >> > >> > --- John Walubengo wrote: >> > >> > > What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric >> > > plse >> > > on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three >> > paragraphs. >> > > And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation >> > > with >> > > regard to a Private sector submarine OFC >> > > provisioning....oh >> > > yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point >> too... >> > > >> > > >> > > walu. >> > > nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say >> something >> > - >> > > members are informed to treat their comments as their >> > > personal and not official postions ;-). >> > > >> > > --- Lucy Kimani wrote: >> > > >> > > > Regulation is definately required as even the big >> > boys >> > > of >> > > > the west are >> > > > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read >> > > > cat-throat) self-regulation >> > > > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. >> > > > >> > > > LK >> > > > > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even >> > > online. >> > > > Very >> > > > > little activity. Heard from only Harry and >> > Alex...is >> >=== message truncated === > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Don't pick lemons. >See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. >http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/ kictanet/eric%40afrispa.org > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

1 0

Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
by Eric Osiakwan 29 Jan '07

29 Jan '07

Dear All, The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2). 2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability. Eric here NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:33:00 -0800 (PST) >What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse >on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. >And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with >regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh >yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too... > > >walu. >nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something - >members are informed to treat their comments as their >personal and not official postions ;-). > >--- Lucy Kimani <lkimani(a)comnews.co.ke> wrote: > >> Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of >> the west are >> regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read >> cat-throat) self-regulation >> has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. >> >> LK >> > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. >> Very >> > little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is >> there >> > anyone out there still logged on to give us their views >> b/w >> > now and 2morrow. >> > >> > walu. >> > --- Harry Hare <harry(a)aitecafrica.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Walu, >> >> >> >> Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" >> and >> >> got these synonyms >> >> - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, >> dispose, >> >> conduct, >> >> systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" >> words >> >> cos they give you >> >> the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, >> >> these may not be so >> >> good "legal" words because law introduces the concept >> of >> >> constrain. Then >> >> these words become a burden that regulation is >> >> (especially to the private >> >> sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe. >> >> >> >> On the same breath, I would argue that its not a >> simple >> >> lets have or no, >> >> lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to >> regulate >> >> in the sense of >> >> providing continuity by systematizing and managing for >> >> the benefit of all, >> >> so regulation should only be used to facilitate and >> not >> >> constrain. >> >> Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not >> sustainable >> >> in the long run! >> >> >> >> Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so >> that >> >> the private sector >> >> can do what they do best...invest and get a return on >> >> their investment; and >> >> the government collects its taxes while we enjoy >> >> efficient and affordable >> >> the services! >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: >> >> kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com(a)kictanet.or.ke >> >> >> > >> >[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke] >> >> On Behalf Of >> >> John Walubengo >> >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM >> >> To: harry(a)aitecafrica.com >> >> Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the >> >> Existing/Sugested legal >> >> andregulatory framework for OFC? >> >> >> >> Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the >> >> previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme >> as >> >> shown above. >> >> >> >> It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very >> >> little >> >> option. The choice is simply between having or NOT >> >> having >> >> Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The >> >> current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of >> the >> >> fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with >> >> commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept >> >> confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which >> >> case >> >> it is resolved through existing Company Laws or >> >> Competition >> >> Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in >> >> managing >> >> Private sector investements. >> >> >> >> However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where >> Public >> >> Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, >> >> some >> >> argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the >> >> Public >> >> interest (social benefits) are balanced against the >> >> Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators >> >> however find this recommendation not encouraging since >> >> they >> >> feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an >> otherwise >> >> enterprising venture that would excel without >> Regulatory >> >> constraints. >> >> >> >> As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory >> >> frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, >> >> Delayed >> >> to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these >> >> different >> >> variants would apply but would be glad to hear more >> from >> >> the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons >> of >> >> these options but approaching it in a practical way as >> >> follows: >> >> >> >> What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought >> to >> >> submarine OFC within the the context of the three >> models >> >> a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC >> >> b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC >> >> c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC. >> >> >> >> 2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. >> >> Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & >> >> Consumers are particularly encouraged to say >> something. >> >> >> >> walu. >> >> --- Bill Kagai <billkagai(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Brian... >> >> > Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch >> today!!! >> >> > >> >> > Anyway, >> >> > We are all converted capitalists hosting the World >> >> Social >> >> > Forum..so I say..a >> >> > good model is the one that makes good money for all >> of >> >> > us. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian(a)pure-id.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > For once I get to make my comment on the day it is >> >> due >> >> > (good job, Brian - >> >> > > keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start >> >> > talking to yourself you >> >> > > should get worried..... how about when you start >> >> > sending email to yourself?} >> >> > > >> >> > > HAHAHAHA! >> >> > > >> >> > > Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I >> had a >> >> > v. interesting >> >> > > dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. >> The >> >> > people I was talking >> >> > > to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of >> memory a >> >> > sign of age, senility, >> >> > > insanity or all 3 together} hehehe..... >> >> > > >> >> > > ---as I was saying, the people I was talking to >> >> > mentioned that the perfect >> >> > > model has existed for the longest time in the oil >> & >> >> gas >> >> > pipelines in >> >> > > different parts of Europe. These cross multiple >> >> > jurisdictions, are critical >> >> > > to the livelihoods and economies of all the >> >> > stakeholders, support the >> >> > > existence and stability of a wide spectrum of >> >> sectors, >> >> > and at the end of day >> >> > > provide something that an individual or family >> pays >> >> > for. >> >> > > >> >> > > Taking all of the above into consideration - these >> >> > projects are >> >> > > deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In >> fact >> >=== message truncated === > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go >with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/ kictanet/eric%40afrispa.org > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

2 1

FW: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id= 1393039&source=RNS
by Joseph Mucheru 26 Jan '07

26 Jan '07

Many thanks for all your support people. ------ Forwarded Message From: Teresa Miles Walsh <teresa(a)accessmediaadvisory.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:42:49 -0000 To: 'Richard Bell' <Richard.Bell(a)Wananchi.Com>, 'Mark Schneider' <Mark(a)schneidermedia.net>, 'Joseph Mucheru' <mucheru(a)wananchi.com>, 'Richard Essex' <richard.essex(a)pobox.com> Cc: <tarek(a)accessmediaadvisory.com>, 'James Gachui' <gachui(a)wananchi.com> Subject: RE: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1 393039&source=RNS In case anyone has trouble with the link above, here is the text of the announcement Company Africa Telecoms Company Limited TIDM Headline Revised Offer Update Released 14:25 26-Jan-07 Number 2251Q RNS Number:2251Q Africa Telecoms Company Limited 26 January 2007 This announcement is not for release, publication or distribution in or into the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan or any other jurisdiction where it would be unlawful to do so. 26 January 2007 AFRICA TELECOMS COMPANY LIMITED INCREASED CASH OFFER FOR THE AFRICAN LAKES CORPORATION LIMITED Summary The board of Africa Telecoms Company Limited ("ATC") today announces its intention to make an increased cash offer ("the Revised Offer") to acquire the whole of the issued and to be issued ordinary share capital of The African Lakes Corporation Limited ("TALC"). The Revised Offer of £18.50 in cash per TALC Share values the existing issued ordinary share capital of TALC at approximately £5.04 million. Certain TALC shareholders have irrevocably undertaken to accept the Revised Offer in respect of 143,426 TALC Shares in aggregate, representing approximately 52.66 per cent. of the issued ordinary share capital of TALC. Commenting on the Revised Offer, Richard Bell, Director of ATC said, "The revised offer of £18.50 per share in cash represents a significant increase over our original offer and I am delighted that it has won the support of African Lakes' major institutional shareholder. We are looking forward to implementing our exciting plans for building a pan-African ICT infrastructure". This summary should be read in conjunction with the full text of this announcement. Terms used but not defined in this announcement shall have the meanings given to them in the announcement by ATC on 28 December 2006 of an offer for TALC ("the Original Announcement"). Enquiries ATC Richard Bell 07772 251 772 Smith & Williamson Corporate Finance Limited, Adviser to ATC Nicola Horton 020 7131 4000 Access Media Advisory Limited, Adviser to ATC Teresa Miles Walsh 020 7659 5525 REVISED CASH OFFER BY AFRICA TELECOMS COMPANY LIMITED FOR THE AFRICAN LAKES CORPORATION LIMITED 1. Introduction The board of ATC today announces the terms of an increased cash offer ("the Revised Offer"), to be made by ATC, to acquire the whole of the issued and to be issued ordinary share capital of TALC. The Revised Offer will be subject to certain conditions set out or referred to in Appendix I. 2. The Revised Offer ATC will offer to acquire, on the terms and subject to the conditions set out or referred to in Appendix I and to be set out in the document containing the Revised Offer ("the Revised Offer Document") and the related Form of Acceptance, the entire issued and to be issued ordinary share capital of TALC on the following basis: £18.50 in cash for each TALC Share The Revised Offer values the existing issued ordinary share capital of TALC at approximately £5.04 million. The Revised Offer will extend to all TALC Shares unconditionally allotted or issued on the date of the Revised Offer together with any further such shares which are unconditionally allotted or issued while the Revised Offer remains open for acceptance or until such earlier date as, subject to the Code, ATC may determine. The TALC Shares to be acquired by ATC pursuant to the Revised Offer will be acquired fully paid and free from all liens, equities, charges, encumbrances, rights of pre-emption and other third party rights and interests of any nature whatsoever and together with all rights now or hereafter attaching thereto, including the right to receive and retain all dividends and other distributions (if any) declared, paid or made on or after the date of this announcement. 3. Financing The cash payable under the Revised Offer will be provided by ATC from its existing cash resources. Schneider Media & Holding Group LLC and The African Technology Media & Telecommunications Investment Company Limited have irrevocably undertaken to accept the Revised Offer but have also irrevocably undertaken to set off their entitlement to receive cash under the Revised Offer against an existing debt (in relation to subscription monies for their shares in ATC) owed by them to ATC. Smith & Williamson confirms that it is satisfied that resources are available to ATC sufficient to satisfy acceptance of the Revised Offer by all TALC Shareholders other than Schneider Media & Holding Group LLC and The African Technology Media & Telecommunications Investment Company Limited. 4. Information on ATC ATC is a newly incorporated company, which has been formed for the purpose of making the Offer. Since incorporation, it has not traded or entered into any material obligations other than in connection with the Offer, the Revised Offer and the financing thereof. The sole director of ATC is Richard Bell, who was until 10 August 2006 a non-executive director of TALC. ATC is currently owned by the following entities and individuals, in the following shares: Schneider Media & Holding Group LLC, approximately 58.3 per cent. Wananchi Online Limited (a Kenyan Internet Service Provider), approximately 28.5 per cent. The African Technology Media & Telecommunications Investment Company Limited (which is majority owned by Richard Bell and managed by East Africa Capital Partners, a private equity fund manager, of which Richard Bell is the Managing Partner), approximately 11.4 per cent. Philadelphia Investors, Limited (Ltd.), approximately 1.8 per cent. 5. Revised Offer Document A Revised Offer Document making the Revised Offer and containing the full terms and conditions of the Revised Offer will be posted as soon as practicable to TALC Shareholders. 6. Disclosure of interests ATC's shareholders' interests in TALC are as follows: Schneider Media & Holding Group LLC holds 39,080 TALC Shares, representing approximately 14.35 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital. The African Technology Media & Telecommunications Investment Company Limited (which is majority owned by Richard Bell and managed by East Africa Capital Partners, a private equity fund manager, of which Richard Bell is the Managing Partner), holds 35,000 TALC Shares, representing approximately 12.85 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital. Smith & Williamson Investment Management Limited, a 100 per cent. subsidiary of Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited, Smith & Williamson's parent company, manages funds on a discretionary basis on behalf of 5 clients who hold, in aggregate, 16 TALC Shares and on a non-discretionary basis on behalf of 6 clients who hold, in aggregate, 113 TALC Shares. Save for these interests, neither ATC, nor the ATC Director, nor any party acting in concert with ATC owns or controls any TALC Shares or holds any options or rights to acquire or subscribe for any TALC Shares or any derivative referenced to TALC Shares. 7. Undertakings in relation to the Revised Offer Schneider Media & Holding Group LLC, The African Technology Media & Telecommunications Investment Company Limited and Credit Suisse Client Nominees (UK) Limited have given irrevocable undertakings to ATC to accept, or procure the acceptance of, the Revised Offer in respect of, in aggregate, 143,426 TALC Shares, representing approximately 52.66 per cent. of TALC's issued ordinary share capital. These irrevocable undertakings will continue to be binding even in the event of a competing offer being made for TALC. Each of the irrevocable undertakings will cease to be binding if the Revised Offer is not made, is withdrawn or lapses. Save for these irrevocable undertakings, neither ATC nor any persons acting in concert with ATC has any arrangement in relation to TALC Shares, or any securities convertible or exchangeable into TALC Shares or options (including traded options) in respect of, or derivatives referenced to, TALC Shares. For these purposes "arrangement" includes an indemnity or option arrangement, any agreement or understanding, formal or informal, of whatever nature, relating to relevant securities which is, or may be, an inducement to deal or refrain from dealing in such securities. 8. TALC Share Option Scheme The Revised Offer extends to any shares unconditionally allotted or issued fully paid (or credited as fully paid) pursuant to the exercise of options under the TALC Share Option Scheme prior to the date on which the Revised Offer closes (or such earlier date as ATC, subject to the Code, may determine). ATC will make appropriate proposals to participants in the TALC Share Option Scheme in due course which would take effect after the Revised Offer has become or has been declared wholly unconditional, to the extent that their options have not been exercised. 9. Settlement and compulsory acquisition The consideration will, in relation to TALC Shareholders who validly accept the Revised Offer up to the time the Revised Offer becomes or is declared unconditional in all respects, be despatched not later than 14 days after the Revised Offer becomes or is declared unconditional in all respects, or thereafter within 14 days of receipt of acceptance of the Revised Offer. If ATC receives acceptances under the Revised Offer in respect of, and/or otherwise acquires 90 per cent. or more of the TALC Shares to which the Revised Offer relates and assuming all other conditions of the Revised Offer have been satisfied or waived (if they are capable of being waived), ATC will exercise its rights pursuant to the provisions of sections 428 to 430F (inclusive) of the Companies Act 1985 to acquire compulsorily the remaining TALC Shares to which the Revised Offer relates. 10. General This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, any offer for, or any solicitation of any offer for, securities. Any acceptance or other response to the Revised Offer should be made only on the basis of information referred to in the Revised Offer Document and the Form of Acceptance. The Revised Offer is not being made, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan or any other jurisdiction where it would be unlawful to do so. The Revised Offer will be on the terms and will be subject to the conditions which are set out or referred to in Appendix I hereto and in addition to those terms which will be set out in the formal Revised Offer Document and the Form of Acceptance in respect thereof. Smith & Williamson, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Services Authority, is acting exclusively for ATC and for no one else in connection with the Revised Offer and the matters described herein and will not be responsible to anyone other than ATC for providing the protections afforded to its customers or for giving advice in relation to the Revised Offer or any other matter referred to herein. The ATC Director accepts responsibility for the information contained in this announcement save that the sole responsibility accepted by the ATC Director in respect of information relating to TALC, the directors of TALC and persons connected with them has been to ensure that it has been correctly compiled from published resources and is fairly reproduced and presented. Subject as aforesaid, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the ATC Director (who has taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case) the information contained in this announcement for which he accepts responsibility is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information. This announcement may contain certain forward-looking statements concerning the Revised Offer, ATC and TALC. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate only to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as "anticipate", "target", "expect", "estimate", "intend", "plan", "goal", "believe", "will", "may", "should", "would", "could" or other words of similar meaning. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty, and the factors described in the context of such forward-looking statements in this announcement could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialise, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in this document. ATC assumes no obligation to update or correct the information contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except to the extent legally required. 11. Dealing disclosure requirements Under the provisions of rule 8.3 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the "Code"), if any person is, or becomes, ''interested'' (directly or indirectly) in one per cent. or more of any class of ''relevant securities'' of TALC, all ''dealings'' in any ''relevant securities'' of TALC (including by means of an option in respect of, or a derivative referenced to, any such ''relevant securities'') must be publicly disclosed by no later than 3.30 p.m. (London time) on the London business day following the date of the relevant transaction. This requirement will continue until the date on which the Revised Offer becomes, or is declared, unconditional as to acceptances, lapses or is otherwise withdrawn or on which the ''offer period'' otherwise ends. If two or more persons act together pursuant to an agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal, to acquire an ''interest'' in ''relevant securities'' of TALC, they will be deemed to be a single person for the purpose of rule 8.3. Under the provisions of rule 8.1 of the Code, all ''dealings'' in ''relevant securities'' of TALC by ATC or TALC, or by any of their respective ''associates'', must be disclosed by no later than 12.00 noon (London time) on the London business day following the date of the relevant transaction. A disclosure table giving details of the companies in whose ''relevant securities'' ''dealings'' should be disclosed and the number of such securities in issue can be found on the Panel's website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk. ''Interests in securities'' arise, in summary, when a person has long economic exposure, whether conditional or absolute, to changes in the price of securities. In particular, a person will be treated as having an ''interest'' by virtue of the ownership or control of securities, or by virtue of any option in respect of, or derivative referenced to, securities. Terms in quotation marks are defined in the Code, which can also be found on the Panel's website. If you are in any doubt as to whether or not you are required to disclose a ''dealing'' under rule 8, you should consult the Panel. Terms used but not defined in this announcement shall have the meanings given to them in the announcement by ATC on 28 December 2006 of an offer for TALC. APPENDIX I CONDITIONS OF THE REVISED OFFER The Revised Offer will be subject to the same conditions as set out or referred to in the Original Announcement other than a reduction in the minimum acceptance level in condition (a) as set out below: (a) valid acceptances of the Revised Offer being received (and not, where permit ted, withdrawn) by 1.00 p.m. on the first closing date of the Revised Offer (or such later times and/or dates as ATC may, subject to the rules of the Code, decide) in respect of not less than 50 per cent. in nominal value of the TALC Shares to which the Revised Offer relates plus one TALC Share, provided that this condition will not be satisfied unless ATC and/or any of its associates shall have acquired or agreed to acquire, whether pursuant to the Revised Offer or otherwise, TALC Shares carrying in aggregate more than 50 per cent. of the voting rights then exercisable at a general meeting of TALC including, to the extent (if any) required by the Panel, any voting rights attaching to any TALC Shares which are unconditionally allotted before the Revised Offer becomes or is declared unconditional as to acceptances pursuant to the exercise of any outstanding conversion or subscription rights or otherwise. For the purposes of this condition: (i) TALC Shares which have been unconditionally allotted shall be deemed to carry the voting rights which they will carry upon issue; and (ii) the expression "TALC Shares to which the Revised Offer relates" and "associates" shall be construed in accordance with sections 428 to 430F of the Companies Act 1985. This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Miles Walsh [mailto:teresa@accessmediaadvisory.com] Sent: 26 January 2007 14:42 To: 'Richard Bell (Richard.Bell(a)Wananchi.Com)'; 'Mark Schneider'; 'Joseph Mucheru'; 'Richard Essex' Cc: 'tarek(a)accessmediaadvisory.com'; 'James Gachui (gachui(a)wananchi.com)' Subject: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1 393039&source=RNS Congrats! See attached revised offer announcement declaring you have received 52.66% of the votes T ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0