- KICTANet - KICTANet

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Nancy Bosire 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

KICTAnet, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. -Nancy Accept Nancy Bosire's invite: https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/153750284/1SOSR0Vc/ ------------------------------------------ "Increasingly, if you're not LinkedIn, you're left out." --CNN Money ------ (c) 2007, LinkedIn Corporation

2 1

Fw: [Fibre-for-africa] Fwd: Govt Ministers Approve $ 2bn 'Uhurunet' Cable
by Florence Etta 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

FYI sorry for crossposting FE ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Government Ministers Approve $ 2bn Submarine Cable to Connect Africa From: "Samuel Mikenga" <SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org> Date: Thu, October 18, 2007 8:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Government Ministers Approve $ 2bn Submarine Cable to Connect Africa Government Ministers responsible for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) from eastern and southern African countries endorsed a $ 2 bn submarine cable project to connect Africa, and called for its speedy implementation. This was revealed at a press conference held, 15 October 2007 in Johannesburg, South Africa. With a capacity of 3.84 Terrabits/sec, the 50,000 km cable is designed to provide telecommunications connectivity to Africa and connect the continent to the Americas, India, and Europe. It is expected that completion of this project will greatly contribute to reduction of telecommunications costs that have been a hindrance to doing business in Africa. Recognising the urgent need to have ICT broadband infrastructure to support high-quality, high-speed and reliable electronic communications in Africa and connecting to the rest of the world at affordable prices thus accelerated regional and continental integration; we welcome this initiative and recommit ourselves to ensuring a speedy implementation of this important project, a statement read by the Ugandan Minister for ICT, Dr Ham Mukasa Mulira, who chaired the Ministers meeting, read in part. The Ministers named the submarine segment of the NEPAD network UHURUNET; its terrestrial segment, UMOJANET; and recommended the Holding Company of the Submarine cable, BAHARICOM. Under the arrangement, NEPAD Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) will be the largest single shareholder. We have accordingly directed The NEPAD e-Africa Commission to present on our behalf the proposed submarine cable system to the meeting of African Ministers responsible for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and/or Telecommunications, and to the Heads of State and Government Summit, Dr Mulira added. The Government of Rwanda has invited African Ministers to the Connect Africa Summit to be held in Kigali on 29-30th October 2007, under the Patronage of President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Agyekum Kufour, the President of Ghana and current Chairperson of the African Union, and other invited Heads of State. African Owned Cable South African Minister for communications, Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri said the experiences in South Africa and Mauritius show that private sector-led undersea cable projects, where the private clubs decide the cost of telecommunications, have never been beneficial to countries in urgent need of affordable broadband connectivity. She said that the NEPAD cable would be majority African owned and advised that the best initiatives for Africa were those that were not only geared towards making profits but also putting Africas development concerns under consideration. Many Benefits The collaboration on the construction of a highly capacity submarine cable system initiative to connect Africa to the rest of the world is coordinated by the NEPAD e-African Commission. Says Dr Henry Chasia, the Executive Deputy Chairperson of NEPAD e-Africa Commission, This is a joint collaboration to leverage different submarine cable initiatives for the development of a high capacity African submarine cable as part of the accelerated implementation of the Kigali protocol This submarine cable will have landing points provisions in all coastal and Island countries, provide increased capacity to all destinations, and participants will benefit from economies of scale , added Dr Chasia. To enable all African countries enjoy the benefits of UHURUNET and UMOJANET, the Ministers directed the NEPAD e-Africa Commission to work with the African Union Commission to develop the modalities to enable any African country that may wish to access to the Kigali Protocol, do so. It is expected that the cable will be completed before the FIFA 2010 World Cup scheduled to take place in South Africa. Ends Notes for Editors 1. UHURU is a Kiswahili word meaning freedom. The submarine segment of the NEPAD network was named UHURUNET in recognition of the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Sub-Sahara African independence from colonial rule and the importance of the cable for economic freedom in Africa. 2. UMOJA is a kiswahili word meaning togetherness. The Ministers designated the terrestrial segment of the NEPAD network as UMOJANET in recognition of the spirit of unity in action among, and united action by all the stakeholders of the countries of Eastern and Southern Africa involved in the project. 3. BAHARI is a Kiswahili word that means sea. The Ministers recommended that the holding company of the submarine cable be named BAHARICOM because it was operating an under-sea cable. 4. About the Protocol The Protocol on the Policy and Regulatory framework for NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network is based on the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Its main objective is to facilitate and commit the Parties to the construction and operation of the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network on Open Access principles of operation, which ensure a level playing field and equal access to the infrastructure. Hosted by the Rwandan Government and African Union (AU), the protocol signing ceremony of ICT Ministers from Eastern and Southern African countries participating in the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network, including the Submarine Cable Segment, took place in Kigali, Rwanda on 28-29 August 2006. The ceremony was presided over by the Rwandan President HE Paul Kagame. The protocol provides for the formation of an Inter-Governmental Assembly (IGA), which is responsible for ensuring the speedy implementation of the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network. Currently, the signatory countries are in the process of ratifying the Kigali protocol to make it operational. Project Run under NEPAD Principles The NEPAD e-Africa Commission is working to ensure the realization of the priority ICT objective for Africa: all African countries getting connected to one another by broadband fibre optic cable systems that will in turn link them to the rest of the world through existing or planned sub-marine cable systems. Since its adoption by Heads of States and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) in November 2004 as a NEPAD flagship Project, the ICT Broadband Infrastructure Project, is being run under the auspices, context and principles of NEPAD, which emphasize collaboration among African countries, and specifically African ownership and leadership. For more information, please contact: Samuel Mikenga Manager, Public Communications NEPAD e-Africa Commission Email: SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org Tel: +27 12 841 4523 (office); Tel: +27 725 296 769 (mobile) Fax: +27 12 841 4094 CSIR Building 43B Meiring Naude Road Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA Website: www.eafricacommission.org Samuel Mikenga Manager, Public Communications NEPAD e-Africa Commission Email: SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org Email: s.mikenga(a)paris.com Tel: +27 12 841 4523 (office) Tel: +27 725 296 769 (mobile) Fax: +27 12 841 4094 CSIR Building 43B Meiring Naude Road Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA Website: www.eafricacommission.org _______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa ___________________________________________________________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10: current challenges facing the eRegulator
by John Walubengo 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

My apologies to David Murray (Celtel) - wrongly referred to by his predecessors name (Gerhard)...my bad. Old habits do indeed die hard ;-) walu. --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > quite enriching indeed this research by IDRC. > > It seems to have spoken for the Consumer > Societies/Assosciations. I never knew me as a consumer > deserved such 'rights & privilages' as highlighted in > your > summary below. And yes, I do miss the input from > Operators. Other than Jonathan (AccessKenya), it looks > most have opted to watch events as they unfold. Mugambi > (TKL) Kai(KDN) Michael J (Safaricom), Gerhard (Celtel), > Sammy B(TESPOK) any contributions on these discussions? > > walu. > --- eadera(a)idrc.or.ke wrote: > > > Interesting discussions. > > > > I would like to enrich the discussions by sharing the > > results of an > > IDRC Research study aimed at understanding consumer > > issues in the ICT > > sector and practical ways in which they could be > > addressed. It's > > entitled "holding companies to account" - report > > attached, > > recommendations here below for quick reference. Anyone > > interested in > > the published hardcopy report or CD Rom, please let me > > know and we > > will be glad to share these with you (we have several > > copies). > > > > Kenya is one of the case studies with an African > overview > > included. > > Kenyan operators participated in the interim results > > sharing session. > > It was also shared with ARICEA regulators and very well > > received. > > > > However one of the greatest challenges was getting > > complaint data > > from the operators for open analysis - key question - > how > > can > > complaint data be declared public domain information? > > This would open > > a wide range of opportunities for accountability and > > redress. > > > > Beyond making information available (even if you > provide > > it directly > > to mobile phones), what practical avenues exist to > > redress > > complaints? Effective ways? What mechanisms would > provide > > greater > > bargaining power for consumers? > > > > IDRC is currently considering a follow-up > action-oriented > > initiative > > that will engage with regulators and consumer bodies, > > where they > > exist, to explore some practical solutions to these > > issues. The > > demand has come from regulators in 5 countries > following > > the ARICEA > > presentation. > > > > It would be nice to hear contributions from operators > and > > the > > regulator, they are missing in the discussions > > > > Edith Adera > > > > ****** > > Recommendations: > > > > Key issues from a consumer perspective: From all the > > evidence > > gathered for > > this study it is clear that three broad issues affect > > consumers > > adversely: > > price of service, quality of service and access to > > service. > > As operators become more established, regulators need > to > > shift their > > emphasis from the industry part of their mandate to > > addressing the > > consumer > > interest more directly under each of these three > > headings. A > > key area for concern affecting large numbers of > consumers > > is the lack > > of > > price competition in most African > > mobile markets. > > > > A consumer framework law, regulation and codes of > > conduct: Where > > consumer > > and competition law exists, it is important to > encourage > > the > > undertaking of > > test cases to demonstrate that these laws can operate > and > > that the > > successful conclusion of test cases will help > regulators > > support the > > consumer interest in their discussions with industry. > > Where it has > > not > > already occurred, regulators need to encourage > > competition > > (particularly in > > the services layer) to help address the issues of price > > and quality > > of service. > > > > Complaint resolution: Where it does not already occur, > > regulators > > need to > > ensure that a Code of Conduct (covering the rights and > > responsibilities of > > consumers) is a condition of licence for operators, > along > > with the > > obligation to publicise the existence of the Code of > > Conduct. > > > > Regulators need to publicise their own complaints > > procedures > > effectively > > and gather data from complaints made that can influence > > policy and > > regulation. Where it does not already occur, the > Consumer > > function > > within the regulator needs to be: properly resourced, > > managed at a > > senior > > level and have direct access to senior management. > > > > The informed consumer the need for information to help > > choice: > > Serious consideration should be given regulatory > > enforcement of > > compulsory > > disclosure by the operators > > of accurate, comparable statistical information > relating > > to the > > numbers and > > breakdown of customer complaints. While this is likely > to > > be resisted > > by > > the companies concerned, and although careful > formulation > > is necessary to ensure comparability and > > comprehensiveness, it would > > greatly incentivise customer responsiveness on the part > > of the > > companies. > > It would act as a powerful tool to promote consumer > > empowerment and > > freedom > > of choice. > > > > If compulsory disclosure proves impossible to implement > > then > > regulators > > should themselves initiate independent surveys that > > identify levels > > of > > consumer satisfaction. > > > > As with the example from India given in Box 4, > regulators > > need to set > > a > > simple "basket" of performance indicators on which > > operators can be > > judged > > and the results from these studies should be published > at > > least > > on an annual basis. On a slightly broader front, > > regulators need to > > be more > > proactive in educating consumers about market issues > like > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] The “Internet of Things,” the Internet and Internet Governance
by Eric Osiakwan 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Anne-Rachel Inné" <annerachel(a)gmail.com> > Date: 18 October 2007 00:01:57 GMT+03:00 > To: africann(a)afrinic.net > Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] The “Internet of Things,” the Internet > and Internet Governance > Reply-To: africann(a)afrinic.net > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/ > 7101616_the_internet_of_things_governance/ > > The "Internet of Things," the Internet and Internet Governance > Oct 16, 2007 5:52 PM PST | Comments: 1 > By Brian Cute > > As the second Internet Governance Forum approaches, it is an > appropriate moment to take stock of how the Internet Governance > dialogue has evolved since the conclusion of the WSIS Summit in 2005. > One year after the first IGF in Athens, it is clear that government, > industry and civil society stakeholders are still grappling over the > direction and focus of the IGF. For skeptics who view the IGF as > little more than a talk shop that kicked the Internet Governance "can" > down the road five years, the evolution of this dialogue is of minor > consequence. For those who view the IGF as something more, it is clear > that the IGF dialogue will indeed evolve and, along the way, will > impact the conceptual approach governments take to the Internet > itself. There is little doubt that some governments will choose to > borrow concepts from the IGF when developing law and policy and will > ultimately apply them to the Internet within their respective > jurisdictions. Given the global nature of the Internet, this should be > a fundamental concern. > > While this important dialogue about the Internet continues at the IGF > in Brazil next month, another no less important debate is emerging > with regard to RFID technology and the so-called "Internet of Things." > The Internet of Things is a term coined to describe a future > ubiquitous sensor network that collects commercial and personal data > in public and private settings created, in part, through the rollout > of RFID technology. The Internet of Things, according to some, is > defined by the ability of things or devices to communicate and > interact with each other. An ITU Internet Report from 2005 forecasts > that with the implementation of RFID, "[c]onnections will multiply and > create an entirely new dynamic network of networks—an Internet of > Things." Questions have arisen about what governance principles should > apply to the Internet of Things and analytical reference to IGF > governance concepts will inevitably be made. > > Although RFID is not a new technology, supply chain and consumer-based > implementations remain at a relatively nascent stage. Since RFID > implementations are occurring primarily in the business supply chain > and not yet at consumer points-of-sale, one must ask what the > "Internet of Things" actually is today and what, if any, governance > principles should be applied. More importantly, before applying > governance principles, it is necessary to examine the nature of the > various RFID networks that would constitute the Internet of Things. > Depending on their architecture, security and modes of > interconnection, emerging RFID networks between commercial entities > could be considered "private networks" or "closed user groups," > (Private networks utilizing TCP/IP are addressed in RFC 1918 which > likewise recognizes these distinctions between private and public > networks). Private networks and closed user groups are generally > exempt from traditional telecommunications regulations since they do > not interconnect with the "public telecommunications network" or other > open, public networks like the Internet. In some contexts, the > question of whether a private network is subject to a regulatory > obligation actually turns on the manner in which the private network > interconnects with the public network. Given these important > distinctions, it would be premature to apply less than fully conceived > IGF governance concepts to one constituent network aspect of a yet to > be realized Internet of Things. > > It is important that all stakeholders exercise great care in > addressing questions of governance, policy and regulation as the > Internet evolves. Common agreement on terminology and concepts is > necessary and a sound understanding of the Internet itself by all > stakeholders cannot be assumed. For example, a great deal of focus in > the IGF remains on "critical Internet resources" which, to date, has > meant domain names, root servers and IP address administration. The > Internet is obviously much more than these three important elements > and a holistic view of the Internet within the IGF is necessary before > governance questions can be properly framed. If the IGF dialogue is to > provide analytical building blocks for application of governance > principles to new technologies and evolving networks, there is a > premium on the IGF dialogue getting the conceptual framework right. If > the IGF becomes nothing more than a Chinese menu for governments to > select a preferred "governance point-of-view" to apply to the Internet > of today or tomorrow, then the IGF, like the WSIS before it, will > become another opportunity missed. > > Stay Updated: To receive weekly email updates from CircleID sign up > here or see the list of RSS feeds. > > More Under: infrastructure, internet governance, policy regulation > > Source Credit: This has been a featured post from Brian Cute, > President, Eastham Global Strategies, L.L.C.. To learn more, visit > this participant's full profile page. > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > Eric M.K Osiakwan ICT Integrator Internet Research www.internetresearch.com.gh emko(a)internetresearch.com.gh 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: +233.21.258811 Cell: +233.24.4386792 Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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] [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need?
by Eric Osiakwan 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Anders, I totally agree with your submissions below and yes we must work towards a market approach however sometimes the marshall plan is needed to create the foundation for the market forces to play. As you know i now turn to have a balance on the extremes as i believe thats what would make the full impact, this is not to say your submission is an extreme one but that though it is important for you present this other picture, we must work towards a balance of the two that would make maximum impact at the speed of light. Eric here On 16 Oct 2007, at 14:26, Anders Comstedt wrote: > Dear Wakabi and others > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > see how > the sector and, above all, its users are financially drained? > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business that > the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or excluding the > licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open and competitive > markets. How is that? Why is competition restricted and prices not > coming > down, in particular considering the low purchase power of the > users? Some > people obviously don't want to change the ball game. > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders make it a > little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance its own > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > same time > even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the users are > not given > more choices from several competing providers? Shifting value to > much to > users, or? > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > other > purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > maximising the > government revenues in the process. The scarce spectrum resource is > in many > ways used as an over inflated bogus argument in lack of any better. > True, it > is to some extent an issue and the licensing should focus on it, > skipping > licensing and all other restrictions on open market, free provision of > service. On the contrary, dominant players should be obliged to > interconnect, not being sheltered from competition. > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you like > to drive > investments? > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > prices > turns out to be a good business proposal (like http:// > www.openreach.co.uk ) > as it is always cheaper than do-it-yourself if you have a few service > competitors using it. High utilisation would create a lower cost > base for > all operators. But it requires organisational structure that lowers > operational and political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a flimsy > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > USERS > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > the users > and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is dominated by a > producer > perspective globally, but in places where strong user agents are > balancing > these forces we get a more reasonable chunk of the value > distributed to all > parties. How will user agents come forward in the debate? > > > The ITU > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > revenues > for the coming two years into an African backbone and global > interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to all > providers, > new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for the ITU! Or is > the ITU > too dominated by folks who don't want to change the ball game to the > advantage of users? > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > Sincerely > > Anders Comstedt > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > [mailto:fibre-for-africa-bounces@lists.apc.org] För Wairagala Wakabi > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 > Till: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > Netters, > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, Rwanda on > October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services needed for > business, government and consumer applications continue to be > either very > expensive or not available due to limited broadband network > infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and access remain > inadequate > as does the availability of locally relevant content, applications and > services. > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > East and > Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues that need to be > addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in Africa to be > realised. > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6]=Joining > %20the%2 > 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > Wakabi > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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

[Fwd: KARA QUARTERLY LUNCHEON - Operators Vs Consumers: Who Does Kenya'sCommunication Policy Favour?
by alice 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

*__**Dear KARA Members, Partners & Friends,__* *_KARA QUARTERLY LUNCHEON - 7: A SPECIAL INVITATION:_* *__* We trust that this mail finds you well. In our acclaimed tradition of holding well-attended and best-rated public forums, in the public interest, we are pleased to invite you to our 7^th Quarterly Luncheon with details as follows; Date : Thursday, 15 November 2007 Time : 12.00 pm 2.30 pm Venue : Sarova Panafric Hotel Theme : *_Operators Vs Consumers: Who Does Kenya'sCommunication Policy Favour?_* *__*Guests : Eng. John N. Waweru, Director General, Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) Entry : Ksh. 1,500 (members) and Ksh. 1,800 (others) Note : Corporate tables of 10 are available K indly fill out the attached form and/or get in touch with my colleague Nancy to confirm your attendance in time as participation at our functions strictly require prior confirmation. We are pleased to announce that mobile telephony market leader *Safaricom Limited * <http://www.safaricom.co.ke>is the Platinum Category Sponsor. We look forward to your continued partnership. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, Stephen Mutoro *_Chief Executive Officer_* The Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (KARA) Natu Court, Suite E-39, Ngong Rd/Ring Rd Kilimani Junction P.O Box 1411-00100, GPO Tel. 254-020-3873828 or 3874331 Fax: 3862872 Cellphones: 0725983445 or 0733779585 NAIROBI, Kenya E-Mail: info(a)kara.or.ke <mailto:info@kara.or.ke> or kara(a)africaonline.co.ke <mailto:kara@africaonline.co.ke> Web: www.kara.or.ke <http://www.kara.or.ke> KARA - /"Together, We Will"/

1 0

FW: CONSUMER PROJECT FINAL REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS
by eadera＠idrc.or.ke 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Interesting discussions. I would like to enrich the discussions by sharing the results of an IDRC Research study aimed at understanding consumer issues in the ICT sector and practical ways in which they could be addressed. It's entitled "holding companies to account" - report attached, recommendations here below for quick reference. Anyone interested in the published hardcopy report or CD Rom, please let me know and we will be glad to share these with you (we have several copies). Kenya is one of the case studies with an African overview included. Kenyan operators participated in the interim results sharing session. It was also shared with ARICEA regulators and very well received. However one of the greatest challenges was getting complaint data from the operators for open analysis - key question - how can complaint data be declared public domain information? This would open a wide range of opportunities for accountability and redress. Beyond making information available (even if you provide it directly to mobile phones), what practical avenues exist to redress complaints? Effective ways? What mechanisms would provide greater bargaining power for consumers? IDRC is currently considering a follow-up action-oriented initiative that will engage with regulators and consumer bodies, where they exist, to explore some practical solutions to these issues. The demand has come from regulators in 5 countries following the ARICEA presentation. It would be nice to hear contributions from operators and the regulator, they are missing in the discussions Edith Adera ****** Recommendations: Key issues from a consumer perspective: From all the evidence gathered for this study it is clear that three broad issues affect consumers adversely: price of service, quality of service and access to service. As operators become more established, regulators need to shift their emphasis from the industry part of their mandate to addressing the consumer interest more directly under each of these three headings. A key area for concern affecting large numbers of consumers is the lack of price competition in most African mobile markets. A consumer framework law, regulation and codes of conduct: Where consumer and competition law exists, it is important to encourage the undertaking of test cases to demonstrate that these laws can operate and that the successful conclusion of test cases will help regulators support the consumer interest in their discussions with industry. Where it has not already occurred, regulators need to encourage competition (particularly in the services layer) to help address the issues of price and quality of service. Complaint resolution: Where it does not already occur, regulators need to ensure that a Code of Conduct (covering the rights and responsibilities of consumers) is a condition of licence for operators, along with the obligation to publicise the existence of the Code of Conduct. Regulators need to publicise their own complaints procedures effectively and gather data from complaints made that can influence policy and regulation. Where it does not already occur, the Consumer function within the regulator needs to be: properly resourced, managed at a senior level and have direct access to senior management. The informed consumer the need for information to help choice: Serious consideration should be given regulatory enforcement of compulsory disclosure by the operators of accurate, comparable statistical information relating to the numbers and breakdown of customer complaints. While this is likely to be resisted by the companies concerned, and although careful formulation is necessary to ensure comparability and comprehensiveness, it would greatly incentivise customer responsiveness on the part of the companies. It would act as a powerful tool to promote consumer empowerment and freedom of choice. If compulsory disclosure proves impossible to implement then regulators should themselves initiate independent surveys that identify levels of consumer satisfaction. As with the example from India given in Box 4, regulators need to set a simple "basket" of performance indicators on which operators can be judged and the results from these studies should be published at least on an annual basis. On a slightly broader front, regulators need to be more proactive in educating consumers about market issues like underlying mobile prices and consumer broadband and contention ratios. If information is central to making informed choices, regulators need to develop effective communications strategies to talk directly to consumers and (as is already happening in some countries) these need to take account of the levels of education and literacy amongst consumers. The role of the regulator: Regulators need involve consumers in their work and ensure that their perspective is fed into their work. A number of different approaches are available to help bring this about. Regulators ought to seek to work closely with consumer bodies as a way of strengthening the consumer aspects of their mandates. Depending on the constitutional framework of the regulator, it may be possible to provide direct support for this kind of work. Particular emphasis might be given to supporting those complainants that lack the wealth and education to negotiate existing complaints processes. An independent consumer movement what role in the telecoms and internet sector?: Consumer organisations should be encouraged to respond to consumer complaints in the telecoms and Internet sector and asked to make input into policy processes.

2 1

Fwd: Ghana: Govt to get $500m for Ghana Telecom?
by Mike Theuri 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

It will be interesting to see how these two comparable privatisation initiatives conclude: The long drawn-out saga of Telkom Kenya's privatisation appears to be drawing to a conclusion with the news that a consortium led by British Telecom, backed by Libyan financiers, is now the favourite to secure a 40% operating stake in the company, valued at US$84m. http://globaltechforum.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=11094&tit… ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Govt to get $500m for GT? GT PhoneBooth Singapore Telecom is reportedly in discussions to purchase a stake of between 51% and 66% in Ghana Telecom and is being advised by Merrill Lynch on the buy-in. The sale could reportedly fetch Ghana Telecom more than US$500 million. According to Ghana Telecom, strategic investors are undertaking due diligence as part of the company's privatization to sell a majority interest. Other reported parties interested in Ghana Telecom include Portugal Telecom and France Telecom. SingTel has traditionally mainly invested in cellular operators in south east Asia and Australia. Telekom Malaysia held a 30% interest and management control in Ghana Telecom but was reportedly forced to exit the venture two years ago saying it couldn't manage the business with the government, as majority shareholder, continually overriding its decisions. Telenor also ended its subsequent management contract with Ghana Telecom in 2005 on strained terms. Source:GHP . __,_._,___

1 0

Urgent,but rare request
by Judy Okite 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Dear All,looking for an active ICT person who is physically challenged. Pls get intouch with me off-list. Kind Regards, -- Judy Ann Okite, +254-721237507,+254-734252336 P.O. BOX 2228 00100, NAIROBI,KENYA. "Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it."

8 15

Day 4 of 10:- eContent Requirements for Regulators
by Rebecca Wanjiku 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Brian, i think CCK can work with radio stations, print media, and ensure that information available on the website and the attendant rights are well communicated otherwise, we will be upholding the fallacy that those who can chat or use email know about the important info regarding ICTs in the country or the rights and obligations for that matter. in short, CCK must REACH OUT to all.... Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <brian(a)isisweb.nl> To: rebeccawanjiku(a)yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:24:06 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 4 of 10:- eContent Requirements for Regulators Hi Alice, On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:07 PM, alice wrote: > >> "My question: besides colorful brochures what concrete actions are >> our regulators taking to ensure that every citizen is aware of >> their rights, privileges and what services are available to them. >> Regards Brian" >> > The CCK recently unveiled the CCK service chatter that sets public > expectations Re: dealing with the Commission and its staff > interchangeably called the "The Customer Service Charter " it > outlines rights and responsibilities and the procedure to follow > if CCK service standards are not met. available at www.cck.go.ke This is excellent - but how will this help my grandma in shags - how does she find out that there's a website? How does she find out that she actually has certain rights as a telecoms consumer? How does she know what avenues to take to set up a rural ISP? Where I'm heading to - and I hoped that this came out of the example I gave of the Indian CMA - is something called OUTREACH. To what extent do our regulatory authorities reach out to the technologically, geographically and financially challenged? I know I'm straying from the e-content discussion but I think it's a good tangent. Maybe we need to think outside the box and come up with creative ways of getting this e-content right into the hands of the consumers. Maybe an E-Book with lots of pictures and sounds to help the layperson come to grips with the often abstract and confusing concepts that plague regulatory authorities? Brian _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku(a)yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

1 0