November 2012 - KICTANet

Kenya laying on its rotting laurels
by robert yawe 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

Hi, A number of past topics are a clear indication that Kenya is laying on its historical laurels many of which are past their throw out date. Digital migration: Kenya led the process but now seems like we shall fall behind as we suspend the switchover yet Tanzania is going full steam ahead which means that they will also go LTE before we do (where will the tech investment go now?) Uganda Statehouse web site: Speaks for itself Konza: Even with all the issues of Ruanda's expansionist tendency's they still remain the darlings of investors, Southern Sudan is a true green field and with ready petrol dollar will give us a run for our money. The Southern Sudan government needed a data center and instead of waiting for a master builder the imported a containerised one that took 3 months to order and commission 1 M TV sets and 2 M watches: A clear sign that we believe we have arrived and can know enjoy the trappings of wealth then when a foreign multinational lands and takes over the business we plead for state protection Geo-spatial Revenue Collection Information System (GEOCRIS): The young man will soon be whisked off to some foreign capital where he will be feted and rewarded while we continue searching for a "database" Internet bandwidth to double: We have become a nation obsessed with infrastructure projects, what have we done with the existing bandwidth? Safaricom to lay own fiber: As shareholders of Safaricom it is criminal to allow management to spend resources on duplicating efforts, CCK & NEMA need to stop double standards and apply the same rules across the board. With the digital signal distribution they say 2 are more than enough, they refuse to enforce mast sharing (Kudos to Yu & Airtel). Would it not be better if Safaricom was to use the money to improve their service delivery levels and footprint? Treasury building new data center in CDB: If the government is serious about shared services why is it that different ministries are busy building new data centers thereby further entrenching the silo structures MPesa has grown up: We keep treating MPesa like a bouncing new born yet it is a mature application that now has an ID and will be voting in the next election, where is the next big thing? OpenData a failure: We opened data but forgot to teach the locals how to harness its potential, what we need is not more data but to use what we have. Feeding a 4" water pipe into a home is a sure recipe for disaster, for the uninitiated your water supply is based on a 0.5" pipe There is a story that was once told by the Hon. Raila Odinga after returning from an official visit to one of the Asian Tiger Nations where after a presentation on their stratospheric growth he asked for a copy of the master plan. In response the hosts asked why he would want a copy of the document they copied from Kenya when they visited in the late 60's. We might as well convert the country into a university as is said "those who can do, those who can't teach" Regards Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696

1 0

UN Agency's Leaked Playbook: Panic, Chaos over Anti-Internet Treaty
by Alice Munyua 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/11/26/un-agencys-leaked-playbo… The International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency at the center of a firestorm over new efforts to regulate the Internet, is preparing a social media campaign to target what it expects will be fierce opposition to a revised telephone treaty being decided next month at a secret conference in Dubai. That’s according to a key ITU internal planning document that appeared Saturday on the website WCITLeaks, which has been posting a steady stream of documents leading up to the conference. Even as ITU officials accelerate increasingly clumsy efforts to deflect the wrath of Internet users over next month’s World Conference on International Telecommunications, more documents leaking out ahead of the meeting continue to expose the agency’s misstatements. The WCIT conference will consider revisions to a 1988 treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations. At the meeting, 193 member nations consider dozens of proposed amendments, including several that would bring the Internet under ITU jurisdiction and substantially change the architecture and governance of the Internet. Other proposals would, if adopted, give countries including Russia, China, and Iran UN sanctioned-authority to monitor and censor incoming and outgoing Internet traffic under the guise of improving “security.” The newly-leaked document is the agenda for an “ITU Senior Management Retreat” held in Geneva in September. It includes a detailed report on resistance to WCIT and the agency’s plans to counter criticism of its secretive processes. It also includes links and passwords for presentations given by outside public relations and advertising executives from leading global agencies. (The passwords were still active as of Nov. 24th.) The document, marked “confidential,” suggests senior ITU officials have become both paranoid and panicked over growing outrage over both the form and substance of the upcoming negotiations. Material included with the agenda paints a pathetic picture of the150 year-old UN agency struggling to defend itself from attacks by what the agency believes is a “well-financed and well-organized campaign originating in the USA” whose goal is to “discredit the ITU and WCIT.” The two-day meeting also featured leading media consultants invited to help the agency formulate a strategy to avoid the kind of global outrage that mortally wounded a secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty earlier this year, and which did in copyright legislation known as SOPA and PIPA in the U.S. in January. Both ACTA and the US copyright bills were widely expected to pass with little opposition until Internet users organized physical and virtual protests that caught lawmakers by surprise. According to the internal ITU document, the agency had already launched what it calls a “counter-campaign”–a media blitz the agency plans to expand in light of what the ITU sees as the likely event of significant hostility to the revised treaty after the conference. Following the WCIT meeting, the ITU says, the counter-campaign will focus on ways to “mitigate the risk” of an “intensive anti-ratification campaign in [the US and Western Europe], based on the so-called lack of openness of the WCIT process, resulting in a significant number of countries refusing to ratify the new ITRs.” A Crisis of the ITU’s Own Making The “so-called lack of openness” has little to do with growing outrage over WCIT. The real objections to the conference have more to do with substance than the secrecy of the negotiations. First and foremost, there is strong opposition within the US and EU delegations to expanding the UN’s jurisdiction over IP networks in any form. (The current ITRs do not extend to the Internet.) Globally, concern is also growing over increasingly direct efforts by some national governments to hijack the conference into mandating changes to the engineering-driven, multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance that relies on non-governmental international organizations such as the Internet Society, ICANN, and the W3C. These changes are seen as preludes to future restrictions on content and users implemented through the reengineering of key resources. In response to early proposals along these lines, Congress unanimously passed a joint resolution over the summer urging the US delegation, led by Ambassador Terry Kramer, to reject any extension of the ITU’s authority to Internet matters, or to allow ITU member states to use the conference to advance longstanding anti-Internet agendas. Last week, the EU debated a sternly-worded proposal urging its members likewise to resist Internet-related proposals. Also last week, Google launched its own campaign, urging users to take direct action against the WCIT. “Some governments want to use a closed-door meeting in December to increase censorship and regulate the Internet,” the company said. “Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even allow them to cut off Internet access.” --

2 1

CCK reinstates glide path for Mobile Termination Rates (MTR)
by Wambua, Christopher 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Listers The CCK Board has today reinstated the glide path for the Mobile Termination Rate (MTR). Effective 1st July 2012, the Mobile Termination Rate has declined from the KES 2.21 to KES 1.44 per minute. This resolution is expected to enhance competition in the mobile telecoms industry. Attached is the press statement on the CCK Board's decision. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager/Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Division Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448, NAIROBI 00800 KENYA

3 2

And ze plot, it thickens...Is this brinksmanship from Google?
by Brian Munyao Longwe 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/27/itu_vs_en/ *sits back with popcorn to watch the movie* [image: logo] *Brian Munyao Longwe* | Mobile: 254715964281 http://mashilingi.blogspot.com <http://www.facebook.com/brianmunyao> Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/brianmunyao> <http://www.twitter.com/blongwe> Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/blongwe> <http://ke.linkedin.com/pub/brian-munyao-longwe/0/32/254> LinkedIn<http://ke.linkedin.com/pub/brian-munyao-longwe/0/32/254> Contact me: [image: Skype] blongwe Want a signature like mine? <http://r1.wisestamp.com/r/landing?promo=16&dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisestamp.…> Click here.<http://r1.wisestamp.com/r/landing?promo=16&dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisestamp.…>

1 0

Data Protection Law | Practicalities
by S.M. Muraya 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Important info here: http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2012/11/violence-prone-areas-mapped-action-… A digital media professional recently told me when they go out to record or picture hardship areas they do inform the government (security personnel) of trouble (violence) they note brewing in certain locations. As law enforcement data is digitized and law enforcement processes are automated, much criminal evidence (electronically distributed) will be stored in data centers. Information that gets to the top / security chain of command in a week or month for action will be available to them in a day or two if not at their fingertips in a minute or two. There will be threats to our local data centers. Data centers require military grade security and distribution all over the country. What is our plan? Who will secure our facilities? The Regular Police? the GSU? the Department of Defense? All of them plus others working together? How does the Data Protection Law we are formulating factor Physical Security / Distribution?

1 0

The Hypocrisy Threatening the Future of the Internet
by Alice Munyua 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Another view best Alice ---------------------------------------- http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ The Hypocrisy Threatening the Future of the Internet by Jean-Christophe Nothias - Editor NOVEMBER 22, 2012 The upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai looms as a moment of truth for the Internet’s governing rules and economic model. In all, representatives of 193 countries will come together to review the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) agreed in Melbourne 25 years ago. The United States (US) government, a leading voice in the sector, is strongly opposed to any changes to the treaty (itself an update of an earlier agreement), arguing the Internet has nothing to do with ‘traditional’ telecommunications, and – more ominously – that freedom is at stake. In contrast to this ‘no changes proposed’ plan, other member states are likely to bring different perspectives and ideas to feed into discussions at the 11-day December event, which will be moderated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized United Nations (UN) agency. The fight is growing increasingly vocal, while raising questions of concern to all about the overwhelming power of the US in relation to the Internet and the need for structural re-balancing. Before looking at the critical proposals to be discussed in Dubai, as well as the arguments now flooding the public sphere, however, let’s first survey the battlefield where this war is raging. The ITU Secretariat itself has no power to propose amendments to the ITR, nor has the organization expressed a desire to control the Internet. The ITU, as an institution, has the power to adopt amendments, on the basis of consensus of the membership. As a UN body, the ITU’s DNA is rooted in notions of human rights and human development, alongside a technical cooperation mandate. None of this would allow room for a power grab. In fact, the ITU is focused on reaching out to voting member states, as well as other concerned players, in order to facilitate an honest, fair-play approach to international telecommunications regulation. All member states have had the right to circulate proposals to be discussed in Dubai. Each has also been encouraged to launch national consultation processes prior to WCIT-12. The ITU itself has shared preparatory documents online, and initiated a public forum to collect comments and proposals from any interested party. The agency represents a large and open coordinating point where not only governments, but also over 500 private sector entities, members of academia and civil society have been preparing the debate to come. It is noticeable, however, that the most influential non-government player – Google – has never sought to become a consulting member, and in fact has declined several invitations from the ITU Secretariat to do so. At this stage, nobody is able to say with any certainty which proposals, often dramatically opposed, will be adopted at the conference, with any treaty amendments requiring a simple majority. Five key issues form the focus of international wrangling ahead of WCIT-12: net neutrality, payment principles for senders and receivers, control, cyber security and censorship, even though the last three are not on the agenda. Despite the headline-grabbing implications of the latter, however, it is the first two that shape as perhaps the most critical to the future of the Internet as we know it. At the most basic level, ‘net neutrality’ refers to non-discrimination in transiting data packets. The Internet today is going through critical transformations that threaten to create, if left unaddressed, issues of even greater magnitude. For years, data delivery was based on a ‘best effort’ principle – every connected network operator would do their best to transfer data, with no timing guarantee, defined hierarchy, nor specific quality requirement. Two major challenges, however, are now transforming the industry. In the context of data, speed is money: all web-based businesses are well aware that speed improves end-user experience, and boosts revenues. On top of constant increases in traffic, video streaming has also emerged as a significant bandwidth consumer. Fierce competition is pushing the market to secure ‘quality of service’ guarantees around resolution, smooth play and start-up time. A portion of the data circulating today over the Internet will increasingly be subject to contractual commitments, and will need, therefore, to secure top-priority laissez-passer. Step by step, the speed issue is creating a split between ‘economy class’ data, and ‘premium’ and ‘first class’ data. Those with the money to pay will be able to afford the best speed and quality. For others, it will be a case of ‘we’ll take care of you when we have the available bandwidth.’ Arbitrage over which data goes first is an issue impacting all Internet users worldwide. Previously, this was not the case (and no one could complain) due to the ‘best-effort’ approach. It is clear to many of the Internet industry’s major players dealing with Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), Front End Optimization, a new protocol challenging the 30-year old Transmission Control Protocol and other emerging technologies, that the next competitive battleground is quality, and therefore the need for reserved bandwidth. This will dramatically change the use of the Internet, as well as the revenue share between players. Another significant element of the ‘speed battle’ relates not to data flows, but to infrastructure capacities. We know that emerging and developing economies are already slow on their own infrastructure development, and facing challenging conditions to identify additional funds to build necessary facilities and purchase equipment to increase broadband access. A parallel infrastructure divide between broadband and non-broadband countries will exacerbate the split in data ‘classes.’ Similarly, revenues will inevitably follow technology – more to the rich, less to the poor. Many proposals are on the table ahead of WCIT-12, and it would be meaningless to look into each, as only a few have a chance to achieve a voting majority. One idea by ETNO, the 50-member European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association driving broadband growth in Europe, however, has gained some support and visibility from the ITU membership. African and Arab states have made proposals equivalent in intent, albeit using different language. ETNO's idea concerns Article 3 of the Melbourne treaty: “Operating Agencies shall endeavor to provide sufficient telecommunications facilities to meet requirements of, and demand for, international telecommunication services. For this purpose, and to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays.” A non-voting member of the ITU, ETNO can, like any other entity, defend and push its ideas to all member states. The organization’s argument appears reasonable in terms of principle, but is unacceptable to the US. A ‘paying sender’ principle would place the US in a premium position as a payer. The current situation is actually the opposite: in effect, a ‘paying receiver’ system. When, for example, a citizen of Botswana uses Google’s search engine, the relevant operating agency of Botswana will ultimately have to pay the operator sending the data. Consequently, when a massive spam campaign is enacted, the consumption of bandwidth is assigned to the receivers. Few people realize that the largest share of spam is sent from servers based in the US. Naturally, these servers are paid for the service. Yet, this also creates a ‘consumption of bandwidth’ for the receivers, resulting in greater usage charges. Critically, the connections between the approximately 40,000 autonomous servers at a global level are ruled by contractual agreements between operating agencies. All are linked to a national territory and must deal with the regulations in their home jurisdiction. The commercial agreements between operating agencies are secret. It is very difficult – if not impossible – for a journalist, academic or public official to access such information. While video pricing is known, we still have no clear picture of the revenues flowing from the interconnections between bandwidth operators. Switching to a model that combines both principles – that is, where sending and receiving parties each contribute to infrastructure costs – would modify the distribution of revenues between operating agencies. Most significantly, American actors would have to pay other national operators. Part of the redistribution could be used to assist emerging and developing countries develop broadband infrastructure, reducing the technological deficit and boosting economic growth. Google – amongst other big senders – would be unable to continue using freely ‘collective global capital’ (the worldwide infrastructure network) for which it did not spend a penny. The fact that Google is building its own CDN centers is not comparable, albeit the company’s actions may indirectly help to resolve data ‘traffic jams’ by locating content closer to end users, and reducing the ‘journey’ of data packets. Amending the ITR to introduce a new payment approach would be revolutionary – a revolution not welcomed, however, by US interests. Listening to the assembled US voices preaching against any changes at WCIT-12, a central argument is based around the notion of defending the Internet as a pure and perfect example of a democratic, decentralized system, allowing all users a controlling stake in some kind of balanced and participatory wonder. The old credo by David Clark in 1992 – “we reject presidents, kings and voting; we believe in rough consensus and running code” – is part of the web wonderland hagiography, but not reflective of today’s Internet reality. Even The Economist appears blind to the fairytale: “for something so central to the modern world, the Internet is shambolically governed. But sometimes chaos... is not disastrous: the Internet mostly works. And the shambles is a lot better than the alternative – which nearly always in this case means governments bringing the Internet under their control.” The Internet works because it operates according to agreed principles, rules and centralized control – one must maintain a clear-eyed perspective. Amongst the voices speaking in foreboding terms of potential WCIT-12 outcomes is Joe Waz, who co-wrote a blog in the Huffington Post with Phil Weiser, former Senior Advisor for Technology and Innovation to the National Economic Council’s Director at the White House, and now Dean of Law at the University of Colorado. “The least understood or appreciated factor in the Internet's growth and success is its amazing capacity for self-governance, and its ability to resist the traditional tools of government regulation.” This might be true when speaking about a web where users can create and participate in unlimited communities, websites or blogs, but this does not equate to control over the only critical command center of the Internet – its rooting system. Without the right IP, domain and link, the Internet goes nowhere. Despite the fact that the US government never really owned the Internet, it ‘offered’ control of its backbone and policy-generating function to a private Californian association – the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – that has engaged in activities representing “US governmental regulation in all but name” according to Michael Froomkin. The first question one must ask is: how can you give something away that doesn’t belong to you? The second: how do you maintain control once you’ve handed it over to friendly private entities? By controlling the private entities one would assume! Having done so, the cherry on the cake would be announcing to the public at large that the transfer of control from governmental to private hands should be viewed as a great success story. This is what happened in 1998, despite fierce resistance from Jon Postel. As one of the founding fathers of the Internet and ‘ruler’ of its early governance structure, Postel attempted to save the Internet from falling into the control of US government hands. Postel died, however, just weeks before the White House Special Advisor heading an ad hoc interagency task force on electronic commerce was able to claim full victory over the academics who were, until then, managing the central rooting system. Postel entered the Internet Society’s (ISOC) Hall of Fame in 2011, along with Vint Cerf, Google’s ‘Chief Internet Evangelist’ and cardinal des basses oeuvres, now a key player in campaigning for the regulatory status quo. Ironically, Postel was nominated alongside Cerf. Similarly ironic – and tragic – was the fact that Ira Magaziner, the White House Special Advisor once depicted as Hillary Clinton’s ‘Rasputin’, deliver a speech at Postel’s memorial ceremony in Los Angeles in 1998, at the same time the US government officially transferred Internet governance powers to ICANN. Both Cerf and Magaziner were instrumental in the take-over. Foreseeing these developments, Postel himself had turned to the UN and ITU, but to no avail. Constructing a fairytale usually requires a cast of ‘bad guys.’ Vladimir Putin declares that WCIT-12 should address Internet governance, and you get the plot line that Russia wants to control the Internet and its infrastructure networks. Ditto China. Finally, add the influence of Dr Hamadoun Touré, ITU’s Malian Secretary-General who received his PhD in the former USSR, to the mix. Now we have all the necessary threads to point to a thinly-disguised attempt by the dark forces of totalitarianism to seize cyber control in the best Cold War style. What a nice (paranoid) story – supported by no substantive evidence. This brings us to the fourth issue identified at the outset – cyber security. Each of the US, Israel and Japan have developed official cyber military doctrines, though the US is by far the country with the largest budget devoted to digital or cyber war resources. Like air or naval power, the Pentagon has now added cyber power to its five major domains of military action. Eleanor Saitta, Technical Director of the International Modern Media Institute, has warned about the increasing militarization of the Internet. "Even as the 193 nations of the ITU meet in December, some will be silently unleashing state-sponsored cyber attacks upon each other, as well as mass surveillance and intervention targeting their own citizens". The fifth issue is censorship. As most are aware, any country today has the ability to control its own cyberspace, blocking or censoring any of its citizens. At the same time, censorship of Internet-based speech has proven difficult, as recent global tumult toppling repressive government regimes has shown. A Russian and Chinese proposal for a code of conduct serves to both challenge the US, as well as attempt to add legal weight to Moscow and Beijing’s national censorship toolkits used to restrain citizen freedom. “It is obvious that this kind of proposal will have no support from the developed countries” acknowledges Alix Desforges, from the Institute Français de Géopolitique at Université Paris 8. “Today, countries prefer to sign bilateral agreements on security issues. We’re miles away from international cooperation.” Touré himself emphasizes that according to the prevailing international regulatory framework, such national “restrictions are permitted by article 34 of the ITU’s Constitution, which provides that the 193 member states reserve the right to cut off, in accordance with their national law, any private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the state, or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency. And the International Telecommunications Regulations cannot contradict that provision, either.” With the clock ticking down to Dubai, Cerf is very busy coordinating a global campaign against any revision of the ITR. Only a few days ago he was video-linking with Sharan Burrow and Paul Twomey before an audience of international correspondents based in London. Twomey is a former ICANN CEO and President (2003-09). In 1997, as CEO of the National Office for the Information Economy, an Australian government unit developing Internet policy, he befriended Magaziner, leading to his initial involvement with the nascent ICANN. The two later partnered in a consultancy called Argo P@cificLondon. Burrow, also an Australian, is the Secretary General of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – strangely, a group now fighting against revision of the Melbourne treaty. “An unfettered internet, free of political control and available to everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious proposal by a little known United Nations body” writes the Equal Times, an online publication of the ITUC. Burrow has launched a ‘Stop the Net Grab’ campaign, which has registered a little over 1,000 supporters (as of 18 November). She also convinced Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, to co-sign a letter to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, urging his intervention to maintain a “multi-stakeholder approach” – a view endorsed and supported by Cerf, who has denied the legitimacy of governments in the context of Internet matters. According to Cerf, the Internet should be governed by rules set by “the Internet community,” which rightly override national regulations. Such an approach would need much clarification. For instance, what would be the representative principles of such a community? The grey zone where US officials and people like Cerf mingle is larger than meets the eye. There are many (disconcerting) examples. Take the Congressional hearing back in May, which called upon the US to defend its position over the Internet and led to the approval of a bipartisan resolution opposing proposals in a “UN Forum.” Before passing the resolution, three speakers participated in the hearing: Vint Cerf, Sally Shipman Wentworth, a senior manager at ISOC and a former State Department Official, and David A Gross, also a former State Department official turned lobbyist, representing all the major private sector players (including Google). Another example of Google’s omnipotence is an article by a Google employee (Patrick S Ryan) published in the Stanford Technology Law Review, which strongly attacks the WCIT-12 process, the ITU and any envisaged reform of the ITR. Ultimately, all Cerf’s efforts may only end up focusing more attention on the current ‘non-democratic’ nature of Internet governance, as well as the associated inequalities of the business side of the web. They may also raise legitimate concerns over Google’s power to finance behind-the-scenes maneuvering to preserve a favorable regulatory environment. Google is a giant of email, personal data, mobile telephony, content diffusion, cloud computing, the digitalization of books, intellectual property rights, search engines and advertising revenues, aggressively aggregates media content, and exploits global telecommunications network infrastructure without contributing to costs. A handful of countries like Germany and France are now launching legal action on behalf of their content producers and Internet users to stop these strong-arm tactics. As WCIT-12 approaches, it is clear that telecommunications networks are entering the fray, ready to fight for their own future. On the media front, the issue goes far beyond the fact that over 80 percent of global digital revenues flow to Google and Facebook. Democracy requires independent media. Almost all are now lost to the law of the click for the sake of being seen by Google News, while dreaming of catching a scrap of Google’s leftover advertising revenues. We all know about these developments, but feign to ignore them. Even amongst the most prominent human rights defenders one can observe a surprising attitude: every month Amnesty International UK’s Head of Marketing spends approximately US $10,000 to secure key words to link to the NGO’s website. One can only wonder how much money Amnesty International contributes on a global level to Google’s deep pockets, which bulged to the tune of nearly US $38 billion in revenue in 2011 alone. Democracy is at stake, when many of us are asleep or comforting ourselves with benign fairytales. (Photos: DR) --

3 2

Worst service providers
by alice＠apc.org 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

I am not sure if there is anyone else experiencing daily @kenyapower outages. And every weekend the so called "scheduled maintenance" they get my first award for the worst service provider in Kenya. Coming close is @telkomKenya @orangekenya. I have never bothered with a landline. I am from the generation that never needed one. I applied for it for the first time two years ago. It took nearly 4 months to have it installed. Since then it has never functioned. But they do send bills :( For @kenyapower I look forward to the day we do not have to accept mediocrity and can move to another provider. For @Telkomkenya good luck Best Alice

6 7

Konza, a disconnect
by robert yawe 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Software development is no longer about a physical location, so as the world goes virtual we continue to move backwards obsessed with physical infrastructure Freelancer.com is proud to announce that we have just acquired vWorker! Headquartered in Tampa , Florida , vWorker has over 2.5 million enterprise and professional users from around the world, who have been paid over US$139 million through the site from 1.3 million projects. Founded by Ian Ippolito in 2001 originally as RentACoder.com, the marketplace was one of the earliest companies of its kind in the world. It rapidly developed an exceptional reputation for attracting quality programmers and grew at an astonishing pace. From 2007 to 2010 RentACoder.com was named by Inc. magazine as one of the 5000 fastest growing private companies in the USA . In 2010, Entrepreneur Magazine called RentACoder â€œone of the hundred smartest, most innovative, hands-down brilliant companies on our radar". Originally focusing on programming and IT-based work, in 2010 the site expanded to include a wide selection of work categories including graphic design, writing and more. To reflect this expansion, the company changed its name to vWorker - short for â€œvirtual workerâ€. Over the next few days, we will be migrating vWorker users onto Freelancer.com. This is great news for our existing users as it makes the worldâ€™s largest marketplace even stronger with over 6.6 million professionals! This means more employers, more freelancers, and more opportunities. Current employers will see greater variety and competition among freelancers in the marketplace, while current freelancers will see a marked increase in the amount of work available on the site. Freelancer.com is the world's largest freelancing marketplace for small business. We connect over 6.6 million employers and freelancers globally from over 234 countries & regions. Through our website, employers can hire freelancers to do work in areas such as software, writing, data entry and design right through to engineering and the sciences, sales and marketing, and accounting & legal services. The average job is under US$200, making outsourcing for the first time extremely cost effective for small businesses.

5 4

Global Internet User Survey Reveals Attitudes, Usage, and Behavior
by Alice Munyua 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Great study. http://www.internetsociety.org/survey Best Alice Global Internet User Survey Reveals Attitudes, Usage, and Behavior Survey of more than 10,000 Internet users in 20 countries highlights online behavior and usage in addition to views about privacy and identity, human rights, censorship, and society [WASHINGTON, DC and GENEVA, Switzerland 26 November 2012] A worldwide survey of more than 10,000 Internet users in 20 countries conducted by the Internet Society revealed attitudes towards the Internet and user behavior online. The Global Internet User Survey is one of the broadest surveys of Internet user attitudes on key issues facing the Internet. This year's survey covered areas such as how users manage personal information online, attitudes toward the Internet and human rights, censorship, and the potential for the Internet to address issues such as economic development and education. "Todays online users have high expectations for the Internet and its impact on our lives and society, while also expressing concerns over censorship and excessive governmental controls," said Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. "As part of realizing the Internet Society's vision of an Internet that is for everyone, this survey uniquely focuses on users and their experiences, attitudes, and opinions on how to meet the challenges and opportunities facing the Internet and society in general. We are committed to the Internets continued open growth and evolution, not only for those who enjoy the Internet today, but until everyone is able to access and benefit from an open Internet." Key findings from this year's survey cover a broad range of topics. The Internet and Human Rights: * Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right. * Eighty-nine percent agreed or agreed strongly that Internet access allows freedom of expression on all subjects, and 86 percent agreed or agreed strongly that freedom of expression should be guaranteed. * Sixty percent of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that Internet access has contributed significantly to civil action and political awareness in their country. Internet censorship: * Thirty percent of users agreed strongly that censorship currently exists on the Internet. * Sixty-six percent of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that governments in countries with no Internet censorship have a responsibility to keep the Internet free of censorship in countries where the Internet is being censored/controlled/shut down. * More than 70 percent of users agreed or agreed strongly that more government involvement would make the Internet too controlled or would limit content they can access. * More than two-thirds agreed or agreed strongly that increased government control would inhibit the growth of the Internet and/or stifle innovation. Online privacy and identity: * Even when users know they are sharing personal data with a site or service, most users (80 percent) do not always read privacy policies and a significant fraction (12 percent) of respondents admitted that they never read privacy policies. * Of users who logged into online services, only half reported that they logged out. * Nineteen percent of respondents were aware of circumstances in which personal data was used in a way they did not expect. The most commonly reported consequences were: unsolicited communications, stolen personal data, private data becoming public, impersonation, and financial loss. The Internet and economic and societal issues: * Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that the Internet would play a significant role in solving global problems, including reducing child mortality (63 percent), improving maternal health (65 percent), eliminating extreme poverty and hunger (61 percent), and preventing the trafficking of women and children (69 percent). * An even higher percentage of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that the Internet would increase global trade and economic relationships (81 percent), improve the quality of education (80 percent), and improve emergency response during a natural disaster (77 percent). * A majority of respondents felt strongly that the Internet plays a significant role in making improvements to business, science, and technology in areas such as: expanding the availability of goods and services (66 percent), allowing entrepreneurs to conduct business across all countries (65 percent), and advancing science and technology and creating a technologically recognized workforce (61 percent). Attitudes towards the Internet: * Ninety-eight percent of users agreed or strongly agreed the Internet is essential for their access to knowledge and education. * More than 80 percent agreed or agreed strongly that the Internet plays a positive role for their individual lives as well as society at large. * Nearly 75 percent of users strongly agreed that access to the Internet allows them to seek any information that interests them. General Internet usage: * Internet users nearly universally (96 percent) indicated they accessed the Internet at least once a day. * More than 90 percent of Internet users surveyed globally indicated they use social media, with a majority (60 percent) using it daily, an increase of 10 percent over 2011. * Connection speed (73 percent) and reliability (69 percent) ranked slightly above more affordable monthly fees (68 percent) among factors that would increase usage. Other factors included more content in their local language (50 percent) and more online availability of government and/or community services (49 percent). The Internet Society's Global Internet User Survey (GIUS) provides reliable information relevant to issues important to the Internets future. As an ongoing effort, the survey provides information, informs and supports the activities of the global Internet Society community, and makes the data it collects openly available for all. While other ICT surveys focus on economic, infrastructure, or other Internet use indicators, the GIUS focuses on users, which are the source of innovation that has driven the Internets development, evolution, and dramatic growth over the past four decades. The first GIUS in 2011 gathered the responses of 6,088 Internet users in 11 countries. This year, the GIUS was conducted on behalf of the Internet Society from July to August 2012 by Redshift Research, a leading business market research firm. The survey questionnaire engaged 10,789 Internet users in 20 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, UAE, and the United States. Of the respondents, 53 percent were male and 47 percent were female. Results from the survey varied across countries; future reports will provide additional insight into these variations. The complete questionnaire, full resultsincluding results by countryand more information on survey methodology are available at: http://www.internetsociety.org/survey https://www.internetsociety.org/news/global-internet-user-survey-reveals-at…

1 0

Wardless registration & the diaspora
by robert yawe 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Hi, IEBC had initially indicated that we shall be able to register from any registration center and select ones preferred voting center, when I went to register I was informed that this was not the case and that the center where I register will be my polling station. If that is the case does it mean that the USA is now a part of Kenya and what is the name of the ward, constituency and county? The reason for not allowing wardless registration was a fear of manipulation of the data as it traveled across the wide area network (how do ATMs & the SWIFT system offer secure transactions?) The other reason is that it will allow for easier voter ferrying as they will only need to appear at the specific polling stations on election day, so isn't that the situation with the 4 M people in the diaspora? Regards Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696

4 5