- KICTANet - KICTANet

test - plse ignore
by John Walubengo 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

seems my posts are hanging somewhere...this is a test and if it pops thro' just ignore it. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

1 0

Fibre-optic project begins
by alice＠apc.org 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Business News Fibre-optic project begins By Washington Gikunju The Government may use subsidies to lower bandwith costs for outsourcing centres in the country, a minister has said. This would help call centre businesses stay competitive until construction of fibre-optic links forced costs down. Information and Communications minister, Mr Mutahi Kagwe, said this on Wednesday at the signing of a $2.7 million (Sh191 million) contract with Tyco Telecommunications to fund a survey on the construction of a fibre-optic link to Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The US-based firm is to undertake a four-month mapping of the Indian Ocean to determine where a fibre-optic cable could be laid. The cable will be known as The East African Marine Systems (Teams). The Kenyan government through Telkom Kenya and the UAE government, through Etisalat, have entered into a memorandum of understanding for the construction of Teams. Kagwe argued that the current cost of bandwith is too high and is driving outsourcing companies in the country out of business. It currently costs Kenyan call centres over 30 times more to transmit data than it costs Indian rivals. "We are talking about real jobs here and that is why this measure has to be taken," said Kagwe. He, however, said that this is only a temporary measure as bandwith costs are expected to come down significantly with the coming of the fiber optic cable expected to be completed by early next year. Bandwith costs are the costs incurred to relay information (voice and data) from one point to the other. The high bandwith costs in Kenya are attributed to the fact that the country relies on satellite linkage, which has a lower capacity, as opposed to fiber optic cables (physical connection), which have a higher capacity. The sub-marine survey is scheduled to start in February and will last for about two months after which tendering process for the undersea cable will commence. Mr Jeffrey Stark, Tyco Telecommunications sales and marketing director for Europe, Middle East and Africa, said that his company was ready to commence work in February. "We have a ship, deep sea boats and divers at the ready," Stark said. "The process is going to involve a detailed survey of the underground terrain and establishing the exact passage for the cable." The successful laying of the cable is expected to reduce telecommunication costs in the country significantly. The information minister called on investors to start positioning themselves to take advantage of the telecommunications boom to follow. Permanent Secretary, Dr Bitange Ndemo, explained that a separate company (a "special purpose vehicle") would be created to manage the cable. The government is expected to own 40 per cent of the project. The tender process for procurement of a financing consultant is ongoing. The financing consultant, who will be known as the `lead arranger', will be responsible for promotion of the project to potential private sector investors. Telkom Kenya will hold the Teams project in trust for the Government until the company that will manage the project is registered. Kenya is also involved in the construction of the African East African Submarine Cable System (Eassy) project.

1 0

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