- KICTANet - KICTANet

Blockchain Taskforce Report
by Ali Hussein 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

Listers Has anyone perhaps have had a look at the above report? Shouldn't this report have been released by now? Almost 9 months later? Dr. Ndemo, as Chair of the Taskforce please give us an update? Regards *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *AHK & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

1 0

Why “Leapfrogging” in Frontier Markets Isn’t Working
by Alice Munyua 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

Ali, Your thoughts? https://www.cgdev.org/publication/why-leapfrogging-frontier-markets-isnt-wo…

2 1

South Sudan IGF and SIG is happening next week
by Nelson Kwaje 20 Mar '19

20 Mar '19

Dear listers, Yours truly with the help of Article 19 and UNESCO South Sudan office will be organizing the first South Sudan IGF and SS-SIG next week. The country has a long way to go and I am glad the Kenyan experience is helping us in making some small steps on the other side. See info on the links below. http://southsudanigf.net/first-south-sudan-internet-governance-forum-28th-m… http://southsudanigf.net/south-sudan-digital-rights-workshop-internet-acces… Regards Nelson Kwaje Team Lead, Tech and Innovation Unit WEB4ALL LTD www.web4all.co.ke Tel : +254711250795 Skype : nelson kwaje Twitter : @nelsonkwaje Building ICT Solutions That Matter "There are enough success rooms to accommodate all of us. No one needs to fail for another to succeed. Not all of us will succeed in the same manner or at the same time." Nelson Kwaje

1 0

Google to prompt Android users to choose preferred browsers to allay EU concerns | Reuters
by Alice Munyua 20 Mar '19

20 Mar '19

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-android/google-to-prompt-andro…

1 0

[Big tech is hacking minds for profit] addiction algorithms and subversive content are NOT human rights!
by Patrick A. M. Maina 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Listers, Big-tech lobbyists have become so adept at hacking the human brain (social engineering) that they have convinced civil society activists and even some critical government institutions (e.g. constitutional courts) that their commercial interests are "human rights" and that their unregulated operations are a manifestation "free speech" and/or "democratic ideals". This is complete brainwash and very regrettable given that it unethically subverts, distorts and distracts society from rational discourse regarding critical issues like free speech, democracy and human rights. The consequence of Big tech's irresponsible profit-seeking continue to accumulate - globally: Question for Internet NGOs: Are you really protecting the internet, or are you protecting FANG business interests? Why are you not speaking up more about the negative impact of FANG-type business models on society and the internet? CNN: "People could easily become radicalized before social media. Many are still radicalized without it. But social media, often in combination with other factors, has proven itself an efficient radicalizer, in part because it allows for the easy formation of communities and in part because of its algorithms, used to convince people to stay just a little longer, watch one more video, click one more thing, generate a little more advertising revenue." https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/17/tech/youtube-facebook-twitter-radicaliza… Did Zimbabwe court get it wrong on the internet? Social media apps are not the internet. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001310324/court-says-inte… ==================== There are increasing concerns that screen-based learning could be risky for young children (especially below 14 years)... From blue screen eye damage issues, to ergonomics (spine / posture / small text), unintended stifling of creativity, and so on. Perhaps Kenya's laptop program would best benefit High school students from grade 10 (Form 1) and above? "Silicon Valley parents are raising their kids tech-free — and it should be a red flag." https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-t… "In 2007, Bill Gates, the former CEO of Microsoft, implemented a cap on screen time when his daughter started developing an unhealthy attachment to a video game. Later it became family policy not to allow kids to have their own phones until they turned 14." "Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple until his death in 2012, revealed in a 2011 New York Times interview that he prohibited his kids from using the newly-released iPad. "We limit how much technology our kids use at home." "Tim "Apple" Cook, the current Apple CEO, said in January that he doesn't allow his nephew to join online social networks. The comment followed those of other tech luminaries, who have condemned social media as detrimental to society." The damage being caused to our children's brains, by uncontrolled exposure to algorithms is massive and at an unprecedented scale. This might turn out to be worse than what the Tobacco industry did before they got regulated. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001316924/kenyan-parents-… There needs to be a policy definition of what the internet is and especially what it is not - so that when dangerous platforms are shut down, the civil society does not get tricked to pursue ruthless corporate interests thinking that they are "defending internet freedoms", "free speech" or "democracy". Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross Domain Innovator | Independent Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

1 0

TODAY’S DEADLINE: Public Consultation on National Broadband Strategy for Kenya
by Nanjira Sambuli 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Good day, Are we to assume that concerns raised here regarding today’s deadline for submitting comments have gone unheard? Regards, Nanjira. Sent on the move. > On 11 Mar 2019, at 19:18, info(a)elvisjonyo.co.ke wrote: > >> On 2019-03-11 13:51, Nanjira Sambuli via kictanet wrote: >> +1, Ali, >> Additionally, are there reflections on the successes and shortcomings >> for the 2013-17 period? >> For instance the goal on broadband speeds for rural vs urban areas, a >> very lofty goal therein? >> Regards, >> Nanjira. >> Sent on the move. >>> On 11 Mar 2019, at 07:29, Ali Hussein <ali(a)hussein.me.ke> wrote: >>> Gimode >>> Greetings. Seeing that you posted this email on Friday, 8th March, I'm curious to understand how the committee can expect to get substantive responses within a week on such a critical piece of document? >>> I think it's time this country reviews what it means when the constitution talks about Public Participation. I know that there are members of the August House in this list. I challenge them to address this issue. I fear that government officials are taking us through a 'tick the box' exercise when it comes to public participation. >>> Ali Hussein >>> Principal >>> AHK & Associates >>> Tel: +254 713 601113 >>> Twitter: @AliHKassim >>> Skype: abu-jomo >>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim >>> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, >>> Chiromo Road, Westlands, >>> Nairobi, Kenya. >>> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. >>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:04 PM Gimode, Chiimbiru via kictanet <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: >>>> Dear Listers, >>>> You will recall the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology (MoICT) constituted an inter-agency Steering Committee to review of Kenya’s first National Broadband Strategy (NBS) for the period 2013-2017. The Committee draws membership from the MoICT, Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), Vision 2030 Delivery Secretariat (VDS), National Communications Secretariat (NCS) and the ICT Authority (ICTA). >>>> The team is at the tail-end of the review of the NBS and is seeking views from the members of the public to enrich the NBS for the period 2018 – 2023 in line with Constitution of Kenya 2010. >>>> Attached is a public notice on the same. >>>> You can access the consultation paper on the Authority’s website on this link: https://ca.go.ke/consumers/public-consultations/open-consultations/ >>>> The deadline for submission of comments is 15th March 2019. >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Chiimbiru Gimode, CMRP, MPRSK. >>>> Communications Officer >>>> Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) >>>> Head Office: CA Centre,Waiyaki Way,Westlands, Nairobi I P.O Box 14448 Nairobi 00800. >>>> Regional Offices: Mombasa I Nyeri I Kisumu I Eldoret >>>> Office Line : 0703-042-524 I Website : www.ca.go.ke I Twitter : @CA_Kenya >>>> Facebook : Communications Authority of Kenya I YouTube : CA Kenya I Instagram: CA Kenya >>>> Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/photos/cck-kenya >>>> Core Values: >>>> Integrity | Innovation| Excellence >>>> “Today is only one day in all the days that will ever be. But what will happen in all the other days that ever come can depend on what you do today’’-Ernest Hemingway >>>> Please be responsible, consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>> DISCLAIMER:- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use by the individual(s) or entity to whom it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Additionally, if you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by a reply e-mail. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> kictanet mailing list >>>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet >>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ >>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com >>>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. >>>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40elvisjonyo.co.… >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or >> qualifications. > It is unreasonable and dishonorable to expect the public to peruse through a document and give comments in one week. You might as well promulgate it as is. > >

4 5

[NBS Working group representation] SMEs & indigenous startups NOT involved!
by Patrick A. M. Maina 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Dear Listers, The National Broadcast Strategy was drafted by over 70 participants representing 40 organizations. On closer scrutiny, the private sector (and non-profit) representation appears heavily skewed in favor of big-corp interests with over ~90% of participants representing large entities (or mid-size entities in partnership with, or historically associated with advancing the interests of, large entities). Here's the breakdown: * 10 Local companies (of which 60% are the largest, most visible Kenyan ICT corporations).* 9 Foreign companies or MNCs* 5 Non-profits* 2 Universities* 14 Government Agencies * 0 Indigenous ICT SME stakeholders (non-startups) * 0 Internet Startup Stakeholder(s)* 0 Indigenous tech innovators / inventors * 0 Indigenous tech policy representative(s)----- 40 organizations (~71 participants) ----- This elucidates why government policies tend to be *heavily and unfairly biased* towards large corporations, multinationals and NGOs to the detriment of SMEs and indigenous startup ecosystems (despite SMEs being the actual bedrock of Kenya's economy; the most innovative sector - albeit neglected and lacking opportunities for exposure; and the biggest jobs creators overall). Big corp's dominance at policy level is unfairly hogging government attention and thus preventing the development of a well coordinated tech-startup ecosystem based on a national ecosystem master-plan that would significantly and exponentially boost our economy within a very short period. This is one reason why our top graduates and innovative youth are jobless - relying on NGO handouts for survival (or having to grovel in the media to get PR-motivated "rescue offers" from companies that would otherwise have turned down their application for merit-based consideration). I think it is hypocritical, unethical and wrong for big corp to say it "cares" about the community when doing CSR - when behind the scenes it is busy hoarding all the meaningful opportunities, resources and government incentives that would be far more helpful to the same community in a sustainable way. Our President's call for promotion of SMEs, local Innovation, self-employment ("Tujiajiri") and millions of jobs for our youth might never materialize if things continue this way. The important role of SMEs and indigenous startups / innovations in supporting the Big 4 agenda needs to be emphasized and promoted. We need proportionate (and affirmative) policy representation at SME and Indigenous Startups / Innovations level. These representatives should be actual, experienced founders / innovators (who have been in the trenches and truly know where the shoe hurts) - not private "incubators" who will always be conflicted in favor of the hands that feed them (their MNCs / big-tech / big-corp partners). I humbly request government stakeholders on this list to kindly take note of the above problem and take action to remedy it please, in public interest. Opportunity should be equitably distributed in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Millions of jobs can be created (and we can avoid massive capital outflows) if this is done properly. Adopting the right policies is what made China take 700 Million people out of poverty in just 40 years. They have shown that it can be done. Let our policies be driven by similar goals, in line with Big 4 agenda: To take 40 Million Kenyans out of poverty and into a path of sustainable prosperity within 5-10 years. Have good evening.Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross Domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

2 1

[NBS Working group representation] SMEs & indigenous startups NOT involved!
by Patrick A. M. Maina 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Correction: NBS = National Broadband Strategy Dear Listers, The proposed National Broadband Strategy was drafted by over 70 participants representing 40 organizations. On closer scrutiny, the private sector (and non-profit) representation appears heavily skewed in favor of big-corp interests with over ~90% of participants representing large entities (or mid-size entities in partnership with, or historically associated with advancing the interests of, large entities). Here's the breakdown: * 10 Local companies (of which 60% are the largest, most visible Kenyan ICT corporations).* 9 Foreign companies or MNCs* 5 Non-profits* 2 Universities* 14 Government Agencies * 0 Indigenous ICT SME stakeholders (non-startups) * 0 Internet Startup Stakeholder(s)* 0 Indigenous tech innovators / inventors * 0 Indigenous tech policy representative(s)----- 40 organizations (~71 participants) ----- This elucidates why government policies tend to be *heavily and unfairly biased* towards large corporations, multinationals and NGOs to the detriment of SMEs and indigenous startup ecosystems (despite SMEs being the actual bedrock of Kenya's economy; the most innovative sector - albeit neglected and lacking opportunities for exposure; and the biggest jobs creators overall). Big corp's dominance at policy level is unfairly hogging government attention and thus preventing the development of a well coordinated tech-startup ecosystem based on a national ecosystem master-plan that would significantly and exponentially boost our economy within a very short period. This is one reason why our top graduates and innovative youth are jobless - relying on NGO handouts for survival (or having to grovel in the media to get PR-motivated "rescue offers" from companies that would otherwise have turned down their application for merit-based consideration). I think it is hypocritical, unethical and wrong for big corp to say it "cares" about the community when doing CSR - when behind the scenes it is busy hoarding all the meaningful opportunities, resources and government incentives that would be far more helpful to the same community in a sustainable way. Our President's call for promotion of SMEs, local Innovation, self-employment ("Tujiajiri") and millions of jobs for our youth might never materialize if things continue this way. The important role of SMEs and indigenous startups / innovations in supporting the Big 4 agenda needs to be emphasized and promoted. We need proportionate (and affirmative) policy representation at SME and Indigenous Startups / Innovations level. These representatives should be actual, experienced founders / innovators (who have been in the trenches and truly know where the shoe hurts) - not private "incubators" who will always be conflicted in favor of the hands that feed them (their MNCs / big-tech / big-corp partners). I humbly request government stakeholders on this list to kindly take note of the above problem and take action to remedy it please, in public interest. Opportunity should be equitably distributed in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Millions of jobs can be created (and we can avoid massive capital outflows) if this is done properly. Adopting the right policies is what made China take 700 Million people out of poverty in just 40 years. They have shown that it can be done. Let our policies be driven by similar goals, in line with Big 4 agenda: To take 40 Million Kenyans out of poverty and into a path of sustainable prosperity within 5-10 years. Have good evening.Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross Domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

1 0

(Submission by KICTANET Indigenous Stakeholders) Public Consultation On The National Broadband Strategy For Kenya
by Patrick A. M. Maina 15 Mar '19

15 Mar '19

Dear Sir / Madam, Please find attached submissions for KICTANET Indigenous Stakeholders. Due to limited time provided, it was not possible to complete our review and feedback. Please consider offering a time extension, ideally of about 3 weeks, so that we can give more detailed and comprehensive inputs. Thank you and Best Regards, Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross Domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations | KICTANET Indigenous stakeholder]

1 0

Rethinking Affordable Access
by Nanjira Sambuli 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

Worthwhile read. https://a4ai.org/rethinking-affordable-access/ Rethinking Affordable Access - Alliance for Affordable Internet This guest post was prepared by Steve Song and appeared first on his website Many Possibilities. Everyone needs affordable access to communication. Affordable access strategies that don’t target everyone end up magnifying the digital divide in a kind of Matthew effect: those with affordable phone/internet services have access to ever increasing education resources, opportunities, services, social safety nets (the list goes on) such that the unconnected fall further behind just by standing still. You may not agree completely with this statement but let’s assume for the purpose of this article that it is true. And if it is true, then we have a problem because access growth is slowing down. Growth is slowing whether you look at mobile subscribers or internet penetration. To date, a combination of public and private investments in telecommunications has managed to connect about half the world to the internet. Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) in particular are the runaway success story when it comes to providing affordable access in regions thought unreachable. So why, given the rapid growth of the last fifteen years, are things slowing down? The one-line answer is that we have connected the easy-to-connect half, the relatively wealthy living in relatively densely populated areas. Connecting poor people is sparsely populated rural areas is a much bigger challenge. In a recent Guardian article, Sonia Jorge of the Alliance for Affordable Internet Access (A4AI) suggests that universal internet access is as far away as 2050. That same article suggests that the reason growth is slowing is a combination of lack of skills and lack of investment. It is undeniable that lack of skills to take advantage of digital tools and services is a significant barrier to uptake. It is also true that those skills are connected to affordability. We discover value online by experiencing it and by experimenting to discover what is valuable to us. When access is expensive, the discovery of value in being online is overshadowed by concerns about the cost of being online. Lack of investment is also a complicated issue. The vast majority of MNOs are private companies that serve their shareholders. Even where MNOs are government-owned, there is often more interest in generating a profit than in providing universal, affordable access. It is unsurprising then that MNOs invest in areas where both population density and incomes levels are higher. Spectrum auctions that levy millions of dollars from MNOs in advance of network deployment only compound this trend as operators worry about an increased debt burden. Universal Service Funds (USFs) are the primary mechanism that has been established to try to ensure that poorer and more remote regions also have access. Operators are typically taxed a percentage of their turnover that goes into a fund run by a Universal Service Agency, whose purpose is to finance access into unserved regions. The history of USFs and the associated agencies that manage them is pretty mixed. These agencies are typically government bureaucracies that have little experience managing millions of dollars and are risk averse by the very nature of being bureaucracies. Worse, funds with millions of dollars often attracts the worst kind of kleptocratic behaviour. That said, USFs have made a difference. In the early days of mobile network growth, they created incentives for MNOs to invest in areas that were not economic priorities for them. This led to the growth of infrastructure into previously unserved regions. However, these subsidies have typically succeeded in regions where MNOs would have found themselves eventually, that is, areas that have populations dense enough to create profits for MNOs Where USFs have really run into problems is in trying to push MNOs into regions that are not economically viable for them. Stories abound, although seldom publicly, of USF funds that have completely subsidised the capital costs of cell tower build-outs for MNOs in remote areas but those cell towers are not operated by the MNOs because the towers don’t generate profits, or perhaps not sufficient profit. In one Southern African country, the USF agency has paid for the build-out of 103 base stations in rural areas; 77 of which are not operational. This is not particularly surprising. Often, the operational costs (e.g. maintenance, supply of diesel for back-up generators, etc.) can exceed the revenues generated by calls on the base stations in remote, sparsely populated regions where income levels are lower than in urban areas. For an MNO that is accountable to its shareholders, it only makes sense to turn those towers off. And that is where we find ourselves today. Access growth is slowing because the economics just don’t make sense. So what to do? A recently published report commissioned by the World Bank entitled “Innovative Business Models For Expanding Fiber-optic Networks And Closing The Access Gaps” attempts to answer that question. Their conclusions don’t exactly break any new ground for the World Bank, however. An extremely short (perhaps unfair) summary would be: Enable market forces; the private sector has been most successful at deploying networks. Try to get out of their way. Regulate only as a last resort where there is absolutely clear evidence that the market has failed. Government investment should be cautious and only implemented with a clear vision. The problem with the above recommendations is that this course of action got us to where we are now — but it doesn’t address the fundamental problem of access economics that the MNOs face. Nor does does the proposed strategy mitigate any of the downsides of MNO network deployments, which is often a lack of market competition. If new thinking is required, what might that look like? Here are some news ways of looking at the problem. We Don’t Live in a Single Economy The conventional analysis of the access challenge treats the economy as a single entity but the reality is that the economics of the rural poor is very different from comparatively wealthy big cities. French economic historian, Fernand Braudel, makes a distinction between global and local economies. Companies that operate in the global economy are easy to spot because the endgame for those companies is monopoly. Whether you are MTN or Amazon or McDonalds, the goal is to occupy the maximum possible amount of the market. These kinds of companies get most of our attention. Growing to this size is seen as a virtue. And indeed, there has been a lot of success in the growth of mobile access. Silicon Valley has a particular obsession with scale. Where else would growth hacking be an actual profession. While there has been some pushback to this, scale remains the brass ring for internet companies in particular. In contrast, local companies seek to serve an immediate market, one which they typically have much deeper knowledge of and are able to serve in a manner that a global company cannot. The economics of these local companies are different than those of global companies. Some things are more expensive, but many things are cheaper when it comes to serving a local market. Thus the local baker’s labour costs per loaf of bread are higher but they don’t incur any shipping costs and can tailor their production specifically to demand. Not to mention the fact that they can greet you every day and be a part of your life and your community. This is not news. Governments around the world have recognised the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and have policies developed to encourage their growth. The economic contribution of small business is substantial. In the United States, small businesses employ 47.5 percent of all private sector employees. In South Africa, SMEs contribute 34 percent towards Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provide employment to about 60 percent of the labour force. But nowhere do we see a deliberate strategy to empower small and medium telecommunication/internet access providers. Again, this is not surprising. Historically, building a telecommunications company required millions of dollars of investment in international connectivity, national network infrastructure, last mile infrastructure, handsets, agent networks, marketing, the list goes on. It was a risky bet too. Choose the wrong underlying technology (e.g., WiMAX mobile ten years ago) and you could lose millions. All this has changed. Telecommunications networks are becoming disaggregated. Increasingly international, national, and metropolitan network infrastructures are available as wholesale services to any operators, lowering the bar to market entry for smaller operators who can focus on last-mile delivery. Also, communication technology in general has dramatically dropped (and continues to drop) in price. Not only has WiFi technology become extremely affordable but all kinds of communication technologies from point-to-point microwave to GSM to LTE base stations, even fibre optics now have prices that are within the reach of the community network and small-scale operator. “When a flower doesn’t bloom, you fix the environment in which it grows, not the flower.” Alexander Den Heijer Tell me if this sounds familiar: You’re in a meeting about affordable internet access and someone mentions the importance of community networks and small-scale operators. Someone stands up, usually from a big operator, sometimes government, sometimes the regulator, or even the ITU and says, “Oh we recognise the value of community networks… but do they really scale?” The implied answer is “No, of course not.” But what if we could connect millions of people affordably through small businesses i.e. ISPs and community-owned networks without scaling? Not far from where I now live in rural Nova Scotia, is a small community of about 500 people called Lawrencetown. They got fed up with not having decent access to broadband and being ignored by the incumbent telcos and formed a cooperative to build a WiFi network that serves the community. They started out charging about USD45 per month for 20 Mbps service but reduced the price to USD30 per month because they found they were making too much money. They don’t need to be any bigger than they are. They were able to do this because: Access to backhaul is affordable and open; The administrative barriers to setting up an ISP are very low; and, WiFi access technology is very cheap. Their success has emboldened the community to explore the use of a cooperative to deliver both healthcare and energy. We now live in world that has conspired to make it possible for local entrepreneurs and/or community groups to solve their own access challenges. What is missing is the enabling policies and regulation to let a million of these little (and not so little) flowers bloom. Community-Owned Infrastructure In addition to creating an enabling environment for local access solutions, we need to break out of the Manichean world of private sector networks vs government networks. In particular, community ownership of telecommunications infrastructure needs to be elevated to the mainstream of affordable access debates. We need to dispel the picture that many people seem to have of community-owned networks: two tin cans and a piece of string. It is true that in the early days of wireless hacking with WiFi, tin cans actually featured but it was that kind of hacking that spurred the growth of WiFi as a credible backhaul technology. More to the point, as the status of telecommunications infrastructure is changing from luxury to essential utility, there are lessons we can learn from the growth of another essential utility that started out as a luxury: the electricity grid in the United States. In the early part of the 20th century, much of rural America had no access to electrical power. Rural farmers and ranchers banded together to form cooperatives to build their own power infrastructure. But they likely would not have succeeded had there not been enabling policies and programs put in place by the government. The following 3 minute video which tells the story of US electrical cooperatives is well worth watching. Today, those same cooperatives are rolling out fibre optic infrastructure to address lack of broadband service in those same regions. Cooperatives can take many forms. They can be tiny like the one in Lawrencetown. They can address access challenges in regions that aren’t viable for large operators such as Rhizomatica are doing in rural Oaxaca, Mexico, or Zenzeleni in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. They can embody commons principles established by Elinor Ostrom as Guifi.net are doing in Catalunya, Spain. They can enable farmers to dig their own fibre trenches to deliver 1Gbps (symmetric) internet service in rural northern England as B4RN are doing. Cooperatives are a time-tested model for addressing collective resource challenges, especially but in no way limited to in rural areas. Why should we prioritise their growth? Here are a few reasons: Cooperatives lower consumer costs. Cooperatives are non-profits and reinvest surplus back into the network, either by lowering costs (as Lawrencetown did) or by expanding the network. This is particularly relevant in areas that may have enough demand to support one network operators but not two. Subsidising a commercial operator to build a network may solve the access challenge but does not address the affordability challenge. Cooperatives invest in local economies. In a remote community, calling someone a block away typically generates revenue for the incumbent operator headquartered in the capital. It siphons revenue away from remote, poor communities. Community-owned networks ensure that revenue spent on telecommunications is spent locally, creating more local economic circulation. Cooperatives build local skills. The technical skills to build and manage communication networks is within reach of anyone with the right learning environment. Cooperatives provide a space for local skills development in a 21st century career. Cooperatives can help to unwind inequitable social systems. We know that communication technology is an amplifier which can magnify positive outcomes like entrepreneurship and education but which can also reinforce existing social and economic inequities. Because cooperatives are not driven by a profit motive and because they are local, they can both understand and collectively choose to address challenges that face their communities in a meaningful way. Cooperatives build… community. Perhaps that sounds like a tautology but there is nothing like having a project in common to build community bonds/ties and the social fabric that holds us all together. This is a “yes, and” scenario This article should not be interpreted as an argument against big telcos. The success of large-scale, commercial telecommunications networks is undeniable. They have great advantages thanks to their economies of scale, however, the evidence is mounting that the large network model alone is not enough to connect everyone affordably. Small businesses are now are practical reality in the world of telecommunications and the internet, but are limited, not by technology, but by the lack of an enabling policy and regulatory environment. Similarly, community ownership of telecommunications infrastructure in the form of cooperatives and similar structures is a proven success model that cries out for policy, regulatory, and investment support. Locally-owned commercial and/or community connectivity initiatives will grow the market which will ultimately be good for big telcos too. The best news for regulators is that enabling local connectivity initiatives directly addresses one of the biggest concerns raised in the World Bank report: risk. Smaller initiatives can fail without causing systemic harm. They can innovate faster and be more responsive to local needs. Cooperatives are owned by their members. What better way to ensure skin-in-the-game, arguably one of the best ways to mitigate risk. It’s time to move the word “local” into the mainstream of telecommunications policy, regulation, and investment. For more updates on our work, follow us on Twitter at @A4A_Internet. Follow Steve at @stevesong. Regards, Nanjira. Sent on the move.

1 0