- KICTANet - KICTANet

African Lakes - Kenyan Investors and Entrepreneurs are gettign screwed by Telkom South Africa and the self seeking Board of African Lakes's Chairman - David Montgomery
by alice＠apc.org 09 Feb '07

09 Feb '07

(Apologies for cross posting) From: Richard Bell <Richard(a)Bell.co.ke> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:01:31 +0300 To: <mucheru(a)wananchi.com> Subject: FW: African Lakes - Kenyan Investors and Entrepreneurs are gettign screwed by Telkom South Africa and the self seeking Board of African Lakes's Chairman - David Montgomery You can send it to anyone else as well. We need as much publicity as we can get. First prize would be a statement from some government department indicating that they don't want South African firms simply marching into Kenya. Could Ndemo help? R -------------------------------------- Subject: African Lakes - Kenyan Investors and Entrepreneurs are getting screwed by Telkom South Africa and the self seeking Board of African Lakes's Chairman - David Montgomery Long time. Anyway we're in the process of getting screwed by Telkom South Africa and the Board of African Lakes. I'm attaching copies of the latest two announcements that went out (the juicy bits are in yellow). I'm also attaching a file that contains an exchange of emails that shows just how unreasonable the company are being (although this on can't be released verbatim since its supposed to be confidential). > http://www.londonstockexchange.co.uk/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id > 1402054&source=RNS > > http://www.londonstockexchange.co.uk/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id > 1402307&source=RNS > > Basically we are getting screwed and the only way that we can win now is > to > create sufficient bad publicity for Telkom South Africa that is scares > them > off. > > There follows some more background showing what Telkom South Africa have > been up to in other markets. "Does Kenya really want this thousand pound > bully boy taking over Kenya's Internet Industry?" > > Any chance you can get a piece into next week's East African. I am on > Email, can be called on +254 733 617 186 and up till tomorrow on my UK > Mobile + 44 7772 251 772. am ready to go on the record and am happy to be > quoted. > > Kind Regards, > Richard Bell > > PS. If you are in any doubts about whether the African Lakes' Chairman > David Montgomery is a shyster, just put in a call to Private Eye in > London. > They'll give you chapter and verse > > ======================================= > http://www.tag.org.za/tagad.jpg > > ============================== > http://whenrealitybites.blogspot.com/2007/01/telkom-faces-r2bn-bill-after-la > wsuit.html > > ================================== > > Telkom faces R2bn bill after lawsuit > > November 23, 2006By Thabiso Mochiko Johannesburg > > Telkom faces more than R2 billion in damages and legal fees after it lost > a > five-year legal battle against US-based computer software supplier > Telcordia. Telkom's costs, which have been estimated by Telcordia at > between > R2 billion and R2.5 billion, represent more than 20 percent of this > financial year's annual profit of R9.3 billion. > > > Telkom's shares dropped 3.7 percent to close at R130 yesterday. The Top 40 > index gained 0.38 percent. Telcordia's lawyer, Lennard Cowan, said > yesterday > that the two companies would now start negotiating the settlement, which > would amount to about R2.5 billion, including legal costs. He said the > negotiations were unlikely to be finalised before the end of December. > > > The group executive for legal services, Anton Klopper, said Telkom was > studying the judgment and evaluating "options regarding the protection of > its rights". "The consequence of the judgment is, among other things, that > the parties will return to and continue with the arbitration proceedings > as > they were prior to Telkom's review application to the high court," said > Klopper. He said the arbitrator had made an interim award that only > addressed certain aspects of the case. This had been effectively upheld by > the judgment of the supreme court of appeal. > > > The remainder of the matter would be dealt with at the upcoming > arbitration > proceedings. Two years ago Telkom estimated its contingent liabilities > from > the Telcordia matter to be $47 million (R340 million at yesterday's > exchange > rate). Telkom said in this year's annual report that in the 2001 financial > year, it had written off R119 million of this investment. It incurred > expenditure of R594 million up to March 2002. > > > Cowan said it was not clear whether Telcordia would set up shop again in > South Africa as it had opened a local office specifically for the Telkom > contract. The appeal court's judgment upheld a 2002 decision by an > international arbitrator, but overturned a 2003 judgment by the Pretoria > high court. The battle started five years ago when Telkom cancelled a > contract with Telcordia, claiming that the state-of-the-art software > applications ordered had not been delivered. > > > Telcordia then lodged a case with an international arbitrator, claiming > $130 > million plus interest at a rate of 15.5 percent a year for money > outstanding > and damages. Telkom reacted by making counterclaims against Telcordia > worth > about $331 million, including for a refund of money already paid to the US > company. The appeal court did not uphold this claim. Telcordia received a > partial ruling in September 2002 from an international arbitrator chosen > by > the two companies. The arbitrator accepted Telcordia's interpretation of > the > contract. But Telkom refused to accept this and applied to the Pretoria > high > court to review the judgment and set aside the partial award. In 2003 the > court ruled in favour of Telkom. But Telcordia then took the matter to the > appeal court, which said the high court had dealt with the matter as an > appeal and not a review, and therefore upheld the international court > award. > This meant Telcordia could recover damages from Telkom because it had > breached the agreement. > > > In this year's annual report, Telkom claimed that it had been approached > by > Telcordia's representatives to consider certain settlement proposals. - > With > additional reporting by Sapa > > > ========================================= > Press > > Telkom has also attracted attention for improperly conducting itself in > contract dispute with Telcordia resulting in a decision from the Supreme > Court of Appeal against its favour in which the Judge described Telkoms > legal team as conducting "verbal manipulation". [3] > > On the 19th January 2007, a full page advertisement was taken out in The > Mail and Guardian, a national South African newspaper. Money for the ad > was > donated by dissatisfied South African individuals and businesses. The page > is used as a public outcry, detailing some of the things Telkom has done > in > hopes of bringing more attention to the current situation in South > Africa's > telecoms industry. The effort was organised by the Telecoms Action Group, > TAG > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > >

1 0

events and conferences
by Rebecca Wanjiku 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

if you have any events left out, please fwd to me, Conferences and events International Outsourcing Conference 28 February - 02 March 2007 Country: Nigeria City: Abuja ICANN meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, March 25-29, 2007 AITEC Uganda Exhibition & Conference 18-20 April 2007 Country: Uganda City: Kampala The African CDMA Forum 23-25 April 2007 Country: South Africa City: Johannesburg AITEC Kenya Exhibition & Conference 08-10 May 2007 Country: Kenya City: Nairobi East African Contact Centre Showcase 24-25 May 2007 Country: Kenya City: Nairobi AITEC Ghana Exhibition & Conference 20-22 June 2007 Country: Ghana City: Accra ICANN Meeting June 26-30, 2007 San Juan, Puerto Rico The African VoIP Forum, East Africa 26-28 June 2007 Country: Kenya City: Nairobi African BPO & Contact Centre Conference, Kenya 24-26 July 2007 Country: Kenya City: Nairobi AITEC Tanzania Exhibition & Conference 08-09 August 2007 Country: Tanzania City: Dar Es Salaam African VoIP Forum, West Africa 22-24 August 2007 Country: Nigeria City: Lagos ACT 8: The African Computing & Telecommunications Summit 04-07 September 2007 Country: South Africa City: Cape Town The African BPO & Contact Centre Conference, Mauritius 26-28 September 2007 Country: Mauritius City: The African Banking Technology Conference 17-19 October 2007 Country: Nigeria City: Lagos The African Satellite & Wireless Broadband Conference, East Africa - 2007 23-25 October 2007 Country: Kenya City: Nairobi The African Satellite & Wireless Broadband Conference, West Africa - 2007 12-14 November 2007 Country: Nigeria City: Lagos The Africa-Europe ICT Summit 16-20 July 2008 Country: United Kingdom City: London Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

3 2

Re: [kictanet] Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests
by Eric Osiakwan 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

This sounds like a modern day sermon...... If we cant realise this then we loose the opportunity to leverage the last frontier in Societal strength which is the multi-stakeholder power. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: <alice(a)apc.org> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:09:30 +0300 >Sounds like utopia but realisable. In this day and age, no one sector can >deliver the complexities of sustainable development alone. Therefore, >partnerships between government, businesses, civil society and media (what >is referred to as multi stakeholder partnerships) have become a growing >feature world wide. Additionally, the interactions of ICTS with development >and poverty reduction goals are so complex that a range of resources and >competencies need to be brought together to create solutions to specific >challenges. One of the reasons that the UN WSIS process adopted multi >stakeholder process and now others like the ITU are following. >Kenya ICt Action network is based on this philosophy and one of the lessons >we have learnt is that diversity is a reality and it is important to >understand different values, encourage dialogue and integrate views into >joint solutions. And I believe that with the amount of discussions, e-mail >reading, listening, etc we are all in a position to understand and reconcile >our various interests to shape/build consensus. > > >alice > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Michael Joseph" <MJoseph(a)Safaricom.co.ke> >To: <alice(a)apc.org> >Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:25 AM >Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests > > >>I think you have done a good job in summing up the objectives of the >> various participants and stakeholders. I think all the objectives can >> and should be met if all parties understood each other's key objectives >> and operating environments (including an understanding of the costs to >> achieve them). I think we have progressed a great deal in the last 4 >> years with operators, the regulator and the Government beginning to >> understand and appreciate each other roles. >> >> To improve matters, more honest dialog with each other in an environment >> where no one is superior to the other, where the "big whips" are packed >> away, and hopefully a new framework in terms of the new ICT bill where >> the roles and expectations of each stakeholder is clearly spelt out. >> >> Sounds like Utopia but that that's my opinion. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael >> >> CEO >> Safaricom Limited >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke(a)kictanet.or.ke >> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] On >> Behalf Of John Walubengo >> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:03 PM >> To: Michael Joseph >> Subject: [kictanet] Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests >> >> <<<I must stay that the previous theme 'Projected Impact of >> OFC on Stakeholders' has been quite turbulent. We did >> recieve about 20 postings on this theme(during 4 calender >> days) and it has been a challenge trying to sieve through >> them in order to create a brief and reasonable account of >> the issues, proposals and predictions. In the interest of >> moving forward, I would wish to introduce the next theme >> and but will provide the summary of issues in the final >> report.>>>. >> >> In general, the Operators have an obligation to maximize >> profit for their shareholders by virtue of having taken a >> risk and committed funds into a particular line of business >> (OFC included). The Consumer on the other hand will always >> want services at the lowest cost possible (including free >> services). The Regulator is mandated - in part - to >> provide a level playing field for the Operators and a >> protection mechanism for Consumers. Finally, the >> Government's main role would be to improve the livelihoods >> of its citizens e.g. providing essential services, >> conducive policy, legislative and regulatory environment >> for all the stakeholders. >> >> Indeed, the above brings out the automatic tensions that >> come to play because each stakeholder wants to pursue their >> interests which in most cases would be in conflict. E.g. >> Private sector would naturally follow the lowest path to >> profit e.g. charge highly, concentrate in high-income zones >> and recoup their investments in the shortest time possible. >> Nothing illegal with that, but if the Government >> intervention is lacking in such a situtation, then certain >> parts of society (citizenry) would be excluded from >> accessing some of the (essential) services provided by the >> Businesses. On the other hand, forcing Business to provide >> these services to low income communities, or forcing them >> to under-price without compensatory schemes (incentives) >> would be the quickest way to run down the business (denying >> Govts Tax Revenues). >> >>>From the previous theme, it was evident that the current >> status and relationships, particularly between Consumers >> and Operators is not too healthy. Similarly, the existing >> relationship between Govt and the Regulator came into >> question and various models and frameworks for improving on >> these was proposed. Infact, if all things remain constant >> and the OFC was delivered tomorrow, I suspect that the >> tensions between the stakeholders may go a notch higher, >> possibly compouded by intense Operator(with OFC access) vs >> Operator(without OFC access) wars. >> >> How then can these wars be pre-empted? What are the top >> three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, >> Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win >> situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation? Two >> days on this conclusive phase...start talking along this >> theme keeping in mind some Netiquette as recommended by the >> list administrator. >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________ >> Never Miss an Email >> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=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/mjoseph%40safaricom.co.ke >> The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may >> be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named >> addressee. >> Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be >> guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the >> contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or >> manipulated. >> The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the >> author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. >> Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent >> permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents >> of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious >> and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage >> the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems. >> If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and >> immediately delete this email from your system. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.org > > >_______________________________________________ >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" --

5 5

Fwd: Kenya Telecentre Network Workshop
by chelimo kenneth 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

Note: forwarded message attached. --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

1 0

Fwd: Gorbachev wades into piracy row
by Alex Gakuru 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

"Glasnost" open source community. If you anybody would like to have free Ubuntu Desktop installed, see link below http://www.billowsbpo.co.ke/ubuntu.html. Linux has never been this simple and so safe, and it is all free. (so no advertising here) Ubuntu - "Linux for Human Beings" Asante Bw. PS for the freedom of information, I foresee its my uses Gakuru Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [BBC Online] Gorbachev wades into piracy row Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has urged Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to intercede in a computer piracy case against a Russian headteacher. The plea came in an open letter published on Mr Gorbachev's website. Microsoft representatives in Russia brought the case against Alexander Ponosov, accused of running pirated software on school computers. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also criticised the prosecution of Mr Ponosov, in Perm, east of Moscow. Mr Gorbachev's letter, on the website run by his charitable foundation, said "many people in Russia regard this scandalous case as trumped-up, launched on the initiative of Microsoft corporation to set a precedent". 'Show mercy' "We have great respect for the work of Microsoft's programmers... and are in no way casting doubt on the principle of punishment for intellectual property violations. "However, in this case we ask you to show mercy and withdraw your complaint against Alexander Ponosov," the letter read. Mr Gorbachev said that under Russian criminal law the teacher could face "imprisonment in Siberian camps". The Perm region lies in the Ural Mountains, between Moscow and Siberia. Microsoft accuses the teacher of knowingly using pirated Windows software in the school and causing the company losses put at 266,000 roubles ($10,000; £5,000). Mr Ponosov says he is innocent, that the software had been pre-installed and he did not know it was unlicensed when he obtained the computers. At his news conference on 1 February, President Putin said investigators should "go after the distributors, not the users". "It's ridiculous to just arrest a chap for using computers," he said. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6332441.stm > rgds, Alex Gakuru --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1 New Members Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Kenya safaris Kenya travel Kenya phone card Corporate culture Kenya tanzania safari Yahoo! HotJobs Find the right one Search for jobs across the web Yahoo! Mail Get on board You're invited to try the all-new Mail Beta. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___ --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

2 3

adopt a school
by Rebecca Wanjiku 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Adopting schools It all started with Adopt a light, an ambitious city lighting project. Now, Manu Chandaria, industrialist cum philanthropist wants to apply the same concept in ICTs. Speaking at the ICT for Development opening ceremony, Chandaria challenged Kenyans to adopt schools and make sure they can access computers. You can change the face of your village school. Just go there and donate a computer. You can change the face of Kenya, Chandaria said. He also disclosed that he will finance a digital training centre in Mariakani. The centre will be expected to act as a base to establish digital villages in coastal area. One digital village will cost approximately shs 140,000 (USD 2000). Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

1 0

yote yawezekana na ICTs
by Rebecca Wanjiku 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Yote yawezekana na ICT. In 1982, Kenya was holding a major conference seeking to bridge the missing link in telephone connectivity. Twenty five years down the line, another major conference- seeking to bridge the digital divide between the rural and urban areas. The ongoing expo, dubbed ICTs for Development, is bringing together people from all sectors and is geared towards improving connectivity and business prospects in rural areas. Information and Communication minister Mutahi Kagwe presided over the opening ceremony and reiterated the governments commitment to improve connectivity and boost business prospects in both rural and urban areas. To underline the governments commitment, Kagwe pointed at the fast tracking of multiple Optic Fibre Cable (OFC) i.e. TEAMS, EASSy and FLAG. The minister promised to speed up implementation of the ICT policy though the draft bill is yet to be published in the Kenya Gazette. Regarding telephone connectivity, the ministry wants to raise the number of users from the current 7.5 m lines to 23 million and raise the number of internet users from the current 1.5 million to 5 million. He commended the print media for highlighting ICTs issues but argued that the media could even play a bigger role. The ministry is organizing an ICT road show that will visit all major towns in the country, and the 210 constituencies. While the minister was quick to challenge the private sector to demystify e-commerce to ordinary men and women, he forgot to mention lack of proper legislation would hamper e-commerce in the country. As the private sector explains about e-commerce as the vehicle to economic recovery, there is need to explain that the same government that is touting ICTs as the savior to our economy is the same government that is dragging its feet on legislation. Whether it is the Attorney Generals responsibility or the ministrys the public assumes they all sing from the same hymn book and they all appreciate the role of ICTs. Yes, yote yawezekana na ICTs! Ends Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

1 0

Fwd: [Idlelo2] Permanant Secretary of Kenya speaks about negotiating for cheaper development tools
by Bill Kagai 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek Keats <dkeats(a)uwc.ac.za> Date: Feb 7, 2007 9:44 AM Subject: [Idlelo2] Permanant Secretary of Kenya speaks about negotiating for cheaper development tools To: Idlelo <idlelo2(a)fossfa.net> I am writing this from the 1st International Conference in Computer Science and Informatics (COSCIT 2007), in Nairobi Kenya. In the opening session, Dr. B. Ndemo, Permanant Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of Information & Communication, gave a speech about ICT in Kenya. He spent quite a bit of time talking about negotiating a deal with Microsoft to make their software cheaper for Kenyans, including developer tools so that Kenyans could become software developers. The local Microsoft representative was in the audience, naturally. Members of the Microsoft "technical officer" team follow politicians and policy makers around like flies follow sick dogs. She left when the Permanant Secretary left. Apparently, a meeting of many of the computer scientists in Kenya was not important enough for her; certainly not as important as being visible to the Permanant Secretary. When the Permanant Secretary made this pronouncement about these negotiations, completely ignoring all that is happening in Kenya with respect to FOSS, I was shocked and saddened. I wanted to ask why waste time removing impediments to creating Kenyan software developers, when with FOSS we can start immediately. There is nothing to negotiate, the tools are as good or better than the tools for Windows, and there are no barriers to innovation. Java, C, C++, C# Python, .NET, PHP, BASIC, and most other environments are available on GNU/Linux. Why do Kenyans need to waste their money getting permission from Microsoft to use these languages for training software developers? This mystery that is only explainable by the constant lobbying pressure from the "technical officers" and their like. There is absolutely no rational basis for it. The minister is implicitly saying that it is right for Kenya to pay money to Microsoft and create a long-term dependence on them, thus using the Kenyan taxpayer's money to create development opportunities in Redmond Washington, an area of the world that really needs dollars from Kenya. It is clear that Dr. Ndemo does not understand that innovation happens faster when barriers are as few as they can reasonably be. With Free Software, this is the case. With propriteary tools, barriers have to be negotiated, and this limits and inhibits innovation. I wanted to show the Permanant Secretary my Ubuntu desktop, equipped with Free Software development tools for which I need neither permission nor to pay license fees to use, and which I can use immediately, no negotiation required. The Permanant Secretary clearly just doesn't get it. Unfortunately, the session did not have a question peroid, and he left along with the Microsoft lap dog (er, I mean representative) before I could use my own keynote space to show him what Free Software can do. So Kenyans active in FOSS, you have a responsibility, this man is in need of some educating. Please make an appointment, go see him. Show him what you are accomplishing with software Freedom. We need to find a way to balance the lobbying power of Microsoft, so that truth and logic have a reasonable chance of prevailing. cheers Derek All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/uwc2006/content/mail_disclaimer/index.htm _______________________________________________ Idlelo2 mailing list Idlelo2(a)fossfa.net http://mailman.dst.gov.za/mailman/listinfo/idlelo2

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests
by Lucy Kimani 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

Walu: "What are the top three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation?" In my humble opinion and this is of course from a consumer perspective I would list priorities as follows: 1)As was pointed out the Operators, Regulators and Govt have been working closely for the past 4 years, clearly missing was the consumer in this relationship, and this needs to change. I am glad the current discussions have highlighted the need to include the consumer as an important stakeholder in all policy making etc. 2)The consumer association that is yet to be registered for reasons not clear to me needs to be a reality -- The consumer needs a face, so there is an entity to negotiate, partner, and hold the various bodies accountable on behalf of consumers, and the consumers need to know they have an entity that will address their concerns. 3)I am confident I speak for many consumers when I say that we are all looking for quality and affordable telecommunciation services so whatever model the OFC adopts needs to ensure the consumer gets closer to achieving these objectives. LK > <<<I must stay that the previous theme 'Projected Impact of > OFC on Stakeholders' has been quite turbulent. We did > recieve about 20 postings on this theme(during 4 calender > days) and it has been a challenge trying to sieve through > them in order to create a brief and reasonable account of > the issues, proposals and predictions. In the interest of > moving forward, I would wish to introduce the next theme > and but will provide the summary of issues in the final > report.>>>. > > In general, the Operators have an obligation to maximize > profit for their shareholders by virtue of having taken a > risk and committed funds into a particular line of business > (OFC included). The Consumer on the other hand will always > want services at the lowest cost possible (including free > services). The Regulator is mandated - in part - to > provide a level playing field for the Operators and a > protection mechanism for Consumers. Finally, the > Government's main role would be to improve the livelihoods > of its citizens e.g. providing essential services, > conducive policy, legislative and regulatory environment > for all the stakeholders. > > Indeed, the above brings out the automatic tensions that > come to play because each stakeholder wants to pursue their > interests which in most cases would be in conflict. E.g. > Private sector would naturally follow the lowest path to > profit e.g. charge highly, concentrate in high-income zones > and recoup their investments in the shortest time possible. > Nothing illegal with that, but if the Government > intervention is lacking in such a situtation, then certain > parts of society (citizenry) would be excluded from > accessing some of the (essential) services provided by the > Businesses. On the other hand, forcing Business to provide > these services to low income communities, or forcing them > to under-price without compensatory schemes (incentives) > would be the quickest way to run down the business (denying > Govts Tax Revenues). > >>From the previous theme, it was evident that the current > status and relationships, particularly between Consumers > and Operators is not too healthy. Similarly, the existing > relationship between Govt and the Regulator came into > question and various models and frameworks for improving on > these was proposed. Infact, if all things remain constant > and the OFC was delivered tomorrow, I suspect that the > tensions between the stakeholders may go a notch higher, > possibly compouded by intense Operator(with OFC access) vs > Operator(without OFC access) wars. > > How then can these wars be pre-empted? What are the top > three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, > Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win > situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation? Two > days on this conclusive phase...start talking along this > theme keeping in mind some Netiquette as recommended by the > list administrator. > > walu. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never Miss an Email > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

1 0

Internet Society (ISOC) will be forming Regional Policy Advisory Groups
by alice＠apc.org 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

If you are interested, please send an email to: rpag-africa(a)isoc.org ar --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/RPAG.shtml ISOC to form regional policy advisory groups Call for Expressions of Interest The Internet Society (ISOC) will be forming Regional Policy Advisory Groups (RPAGs) to assist realize one of its key goals, that of further internationalizing its public policy work. An RPAG will be created for each region and will assist ISOC tailor its public policy activities at a regional and global level. The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will comprise a small number of experienced and articulate policy advisor volunteers. The RPAGs' role will be, inter alia, to actively work within ISOC and to provide advice as to the formation of ISOC policy programs and activities in region, identify and engage with influential thinkers and public policy makers as needed, contribute to shaping and supporting the focus and formation of the ISOC Regional Bureaus, and to promote and pursue the policy goals of the Internet Society as per the Strategic Operating Plan (www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/) The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will be managed by ISOC's Policy Director. Each RPAG will comprise individuals selected by the Internet Society from within each region and appointed for a year. The advisory nature of the RPAGs must be emphasized and the RPAGs themselves will have no particular legal standing, etc. The RPAGs will be supported via electronic means, with conference calls and meetings as needed. The RPAGs may be asked to represent ISOC interests’ vis-à-vis policy makers and influencers, and to support, as agreed, Chapter and Bureau activities. Those interested in being considered for a position on a Regional Policy Advisory Group should be recognized policy leaders and be committed to, and comfortable articulating, the principles, values and vision of the Internet Society. The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will be established on a staggered basis. We are currently seeking expressions of interest for two regions, Africa and North America. If you are interested in being considered for either, please respond to the appropriate e-mail address below with CV and cover note: rpag-africa(a)isoc.org rpag-northamerica(a)isoc.org

1 0

Fw: Invitation to a Free Public Lecture on "Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization" on 8th February 2007 at KICC, Aberdares Rm @10.am
by alice＠apc.org 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization Presented by the Lead Author Richard Newfarmer Economic Advisor, Trade Department, World Bank Thursday, 8th February, 2007, 10.00am ? 12.00noon Aberdares Room, KICC Imagine a world where developing countries are the key drivers behind global economic growth, where about half or more of the purchasing power of the global economy stems from the developing world, a world where the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen from 1.1 billion now to 550 million in 2030. These are the key messages of the Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization?a publication that has a lot of relevance to Kenya?s medium term development strategy, Vision 2030.=

1 0

VRFY TST 1
by Odhiambo WASHINGTON 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

VRFY TST. cheers - wash +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ Odhiambo Washington . WANANCHI ONLINE LTD (Nairobi, KE) | wash () WANANCHI ! com . 1ere Etage, Loita Hse, Loita St., | GSM: (+254) 722 743 223 . # 10286, 00100 NAIROBI | GSM: (+254) 733 744 121 . (+254) 020 313 985 - 9 | +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+ "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post

1 0

quick test - 20070206 5.15p.m
by John Walubengo 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

plse ignore...if O.K. Otherwise I did send a message 30min ago and it hasn't popped up. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

1 0

Fwd: REF: CONTRACT: N°410.2 SUPPORT TO ICT SECTOR IN EAST AFRICA - MAURITIUS, MADAGASCAR AND KENYA
by Bill Kagai 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrice J. Ferriere <pferrier(a)intnet.mu> Date: Feb 6, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: REF: CONTRACT: N°410.2 SUPPORT TO ICT SECTOR IN EAST AFRICA - MAURITIUS, MADAGASCAR AND KENYA To: billkagai(a)gmail.com Sir, Our company has been short-listed by the CDE to carry out the project as referred to above. This project aims at improving the ICT sector of the concerned countries by reinforcing their management capacities, by generalizing the access to freeware use and by creating a flow of partnerships with European companies of the same sector. The project consist selecting in each country from three to five companies of the ICT sector, in analysing them and bringing them some additional training as regards to marketing and sales. Moreover these companies will be able in a second phase to have personalised coaching over a period of one year. This project will offer them the possibility to have access to managerial and technical training and will be able to participate in a program of distribution and utilisation of Open Source applications in the region and also to have the possibility to partner with European companies on the same size. I am actually in Nairobi until the 9th of February 2007, I am at Hotel Heron(2720740<javascript:void(0)>) and will be pleased to meet you any time convenient to you. Best Regards Patrice J. Ferriere Senior Consultant EXS/IBL *( * +230 202-8203 *8 * pferrier(a)intnet.mu *2 * +230 202-8210 *** 10, Dr Ferriere St. Port-Louis ~ Mauritius *) * +230 423-3007 *Disclaimer and confidentiality note:* ------------------------------ This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If this email contains an attachment, please note the following paragraph: This material has been checked for computer viruses and although none has been found, I cannot guarantee that it is completely free from such problems and do not accept any liability for loss or damage which may be caused. Please therefore check any attachments for viruses before using them on your own equipment. If you do find a computer virus please inform me immediately so that I may take appropriate action. ------------------------------

1 0

Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests
by John Walubengo 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

<<<I must stay that the previous theme 'Projected Impact of OFC on Stakeholders' has been quite turbulent. We did recieve about 20 postings on this theme(during 4 calender days) and it has been a challenge trying to sieve through them in order to create a brief and reasonable account of the issues, proposals and predictions. In the interest of moving forward, I would wish to introduce the next theme and but will provide the summary of issues in the final report.>>>. In general, the Operators have an obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders by virtue of having taken a risk and committed funds into a particular line of business (OFC included). The Consumer on the other hand will always want services at the lowest cost possible (including free services). The Regulator is mandated - in part - to provide a level playing field for the Operators and a protection mechanism for Consumers. Finally, the Government's main role would be to improve the livelihoods of its citizens e.g. providing essential services, conducive policy, legislative and regulatory environment for all the stakeholders. Indeed, the above brings out the automatic tensions that come to play because each stakeholder wants to pursue their interests which in most cases would be in conflict. E.g. Private sector would naturally follow the lowest path to profit e.g. charge highly, concentrate in high-income zones and recoup their investments in the shortest time possible. Nothing illegal with that, but if the Government intervention is lacking in such a situtation, then certain parts of society (citizenry) would be excluded from accessing some of the (essential) services provided by the Businesses. On the other hand, forcing Business to provide these services to low income communities, or forcing them to under-price without compensatory schemes (incentives) would be the quickest way to run down the business (denying Govts Tax Revenues). >From the previous theme, it was evident that the current status and relationships, particularly between Consumers and Operators is not too healthy. Similarly, the existing relationship between Govt and the Regulator came into question and various models and frameworks for improving on these was proposed. Infact, if all things remain constant and the OFC was delivered tomorrow, I suspect that the tensions between the stakeholders may go a notch higher, possibly compouded by intense Operator(with OFC access) vs Operator(without OFC access) wars. How then can these wars be pre-empted? What are the top three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation? Two days on this conclusive phase...start talking along this theme keeping in mind some Netiquette as recommended by the list administrator. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

4 3

Re: [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days)
by joseph kihanya 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

The regulatory framework I am afraid has to have its background against what is and has become current over the last 15 years or so globally. It can be viewed both at the national level and at the international arena. It is important to note that regulation in telecommunications is a public policy matter for any country. Governments must design and implement regulation based on the needs of a particular country and its peculiar historical or other circumstances, of course tending towards best practices. Telecommunications regulation in the transition from a monopolistic and largely anti- market based approaches to supply of services, to a market based approach in a liberalized era, mandated most governments and hence societies to seek regulatory oversight. This was against an anticipated reduction of oversight given that market forces/ competition was to guide, in the long term, the development of this industry as in others. Consensus appears to be that in the short term-as a guide/ facilitator to liberalization, regulatory bodies were and are required. It is indeed even anticipated that it is in this transitional stage that the regulators will be so busy – for the obvious reasons that the new players may gain dominance very quickly and attain the monopolistic tendencies of the historical operators. Why is regulation in telecommunications important? 1. It authorizes new operators. 2. It removes barriers to entry. 3. It mandates interconnection between players. 4. It oversees the penetration of services in areas that commercial imperatives would not allow or pursue. The objectives of transparent telecommunications regulation are mainly the following; Oversee competitive markets by;  Promoting efficient supply of services.  Ensuring good QOS  Promote advances services  Enable the maintenance of efficient pricing.  Prevent abuse of significant market powers.  Protect consumer rights/privacy rights.  Facilitate interconnection thereby efficient use of telecommunication services.  Oversee the optimal use of the finite radio frequency spectrum. From the foregoing, it is clear that, in the short term at least, most countries, Kenya included have an interest to regulate telecommunications services provision. The question therefore only remains as to whether the OFC is within the ambit of what may be regulated in the industry. Deregulation is a theme that is in play in most jurisdictions that have achieved above optimal competitive markets. The case of the UK under the Communications Act 2003 and the role of OFCOM are in point. Given that there is no direct call for deregulation even under the National ICT policy 2006, it would appear that the strategies suggested at 3.3.1 in relation to information technology infrastructure would entail a fair amount of regulation. This is especially given the fact that despite encouragement of the laying of the infrastructure, only so few options will be available, Indeed, in the OFC case, perhaps 2 will be a lucky option for many for the next 5-10 years or more. Do we then need a regulatory framework? My answer is yes and perhaps for tempering, a hesitant qualifier. Competition laws are likely to be the most fundamental “regulatory framework” for the OFC as indeed for any other services. It is particular to note that even in the UK the Office of Fair Trading and OFCOM share equivalent powers in relation to fostering competition. The CCK will have to; in the very short to medium term translate from the “licenser”- facilitator of entry- primarily- to a serious competition oversight body with sound, quick and efficient determinations. If I am not wrong the only recorded competition determination relates to the cyber-café association- common pricing attempt- I stand to be corrected. Interconnection determinations have been one- Kencell vs TKL ? This will be countered and perhaps also enhanced by an independent competition body- the workings of the anti-monopolies commissioner under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act (Chapter 504 Laws of Kenya), are highly opaque. Other countries, such as Australia have also undergone a transformation from maintaining industry specific competition principles and statutes for the telecommunication sector to an all inclusive co- competition oversight regime in the interim and a sustainable sole competition / regulatory framework for all industries. As such therefore, regulation for the OFC may be through the competition framework under the CA 1998 or the KICT BILL 2006. Complete lack of regulation may therefore not be an option at all. Whatever business model is adopted, the Key question is whether as a country in acute need of the OFC, we would facilitate its provisioning of services within the country without any regard to any oversight of any sort for whatever purpose. At the international level. The WTO and the ITU also anticipate regulatory oversight in telecommunications too and Kenya, being party to these organizations would be hard pressed to provision services without oversight (if that were possible), especially since the OFC will be extra-territorial. I would suggest that a reading of this Reference paper at the WTO would elaborate on this aspect. See www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm The best regulatory models would for me therefore be within the competition framework. It would be difficult to try and regulate any/the OFC, singularly, as it would also perhaps border on the unconstitutional, there being a bar againts discrimination under our Constitution. Sector specific competition regulation under the CA1998 may work in the meantime but in the long run a clear policy that has a generic definition of what significant market power is, would serve the industry best. Kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders Cool! u r on e-record- we expect something Regulatory from you on or before Day 10. thanx, walu. --- joseph kihanya <kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thanks Walu for the discussion moderation. > > I am doing something on the regulatory framework and will > post by day 10. > > On operators I would expect that there woulda be a > reciprocation in price and QOS issues. > I would expect that there would be publicly accessible > interconnection agreements under the non-discriminatory > technology-neutral Open Access principles . > I would also expect that there would have to bea busines > realignment to conform with new entrants at the local > lvel who the operators would indeed agree not to want to > "take over" asa soon asa a ROI looks good. > > > On the regulator, the paradigm shift in allowing > competition and enforcing it would be key.Competition > alone despite all that is siad about it is not known to > benefit consumers largely where duopolies or oligopolies > exits. product and price shadowing takes centre stage and > one is not sure that the alternatives are not > exhorbitant. > > The regulator must also enforce QOS. > > The consumer must be ready for a vibrant market and take > up alternatives that make the best "cents".He /She must > be able to walk out..and perhaps to an > ombudsman(regulator) where QOS is not as per SLA or > other "promises.Whining loudly may help(See South > Africans vs Telkom SA in the Daily News recently) > > Kihanya > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> > To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:11:24 AM > Subject: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of > OFC on the Stakeholders > > > I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the > last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are > the > Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC. > > Three models seem to have persisted throughout the > discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led > (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru > mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable > Management fits in squarely with the Open Access > thinking, > whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, > Private > Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a > fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a > cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and > future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points > or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The > cable > becomes an essential service or public good, from where > Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a > Profit. > > Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a > variant model where the cable is –privately owned but > promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims > to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable > infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. > They > also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather > than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and > Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that > to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers) > > Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably > Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he > mentioned > that Commercial interest should be let loose to play > dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model > is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, > commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a > submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns > (profit) in the shortest time possible –social > connotation > notwithstanding. > > And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The > short-terms interests of investors must be balanced > against > the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a > affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be > voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex > their muscle – probably now and more in future when the > OFC > is laid-out. > > In all this, the various financing options were not so > pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO > recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models > (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope > someone could make comment on that within the remaining > three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the > likely impact of the above models on the existing > stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That > is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders > in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. > The > efloor is again open and we have two days on this one. > > walu. > Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online > discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. > ~~~~~000~~~~~~ > Theme Reminder: > 1) Why OFC (1day) > 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) > 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) > 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans > (2days) > <Ongoing-Open> > 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) > <Pending> > 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) > <Pending> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green > Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green > Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com

8 14

Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd)
by Wainaina Mungai 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

Apologies... 1. The correct link to the ICT consumer story is: http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum_files/forum0207.php . 2. Some consumer responses (graphs) on the impact of liberalisation/privatisation are available at http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum_files/forum0107.php > -------Original Message------- > From: Wainaina Mungai <wainaina(a)madeinkenya.org> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > Sent: 05 Feb '07 14:49 > > Increased participation by NGOs/not-for-profit would be one way to go for consumer-focused engagement. > > My understanding of the trust issues between consumers and other players is that the private sector rightfully pursue what makes them money. They have also fought for consumers and we are enjoying some of the benefits together. However, there are limits to what we should expect of commercial ventures. On the other hand, the government and the regulator have to delicately balance loyalties to all the players. > > The consumer needs: > 1. Education/information {most consumers do not make informed choices on ICT products/services} > 2. An non-governmental/not-for-profit platform for articulating issues (a consumer association or something in that line). > 3. Greater involvement in all ICT policy and implementation processes throgh both their initiative and deliberate involvement by government, regulator and other players. > > ##By consumer, I mean the mwananchi in a market centre in Bondo aka "Wanjiku" who is usually the final consumer. This definition deliberately leaves out service providers who are at a higher level as "consumers". See http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum0207.php for an example of what a small-scale business consumer thinks of ICTs. > > Regards, > > --- > Wainaina Mungai > http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum.php > > SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: alice(a)apc.org > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > > Sent: 05 Feb '07 09:38 > > > > Hi Alex and all > > > > (Please note that my views/contributions to this debate are personal and do > > not in any way reflect the official view of the CCK) > > > > There is normally quite a lot of tension between commitment and flexibility > > that all governments face when creating and implementing communications > > polices and rules. Primarily government is responsible for developing > > policy, which by extension establishes regulatory authorities which works to > > a mandate set by the legislation. The role of regulatory authorities is > > primarily facilitative it is not its role to provide detailed management of > > the sector and major policy issues should still be decided by government ( > > in the interest of the public read consumers) with operators themselves > > taking care of commercial and operational matters. > > Therefore the independence of a regulator cannot be absolute but it can and > > should operate with the sustained support of the government with which rests > > the ultimate responsibility for the health of the sector by the policies > > governments adopt and implement. > > > > Back to Walu's question "how can/should the Consumers as one of the > > > Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, Operator, Govt, > > > in the future dispensation (when OFC has > > > been provisioned?)" > > > > >From a consumer perspective what would be ideal would be to get involved in > > development of consumer protection policies and regulations which would > > provide users with all the information required to make informed choices > > thus deriving benefits from competitive service provisioning. > > The regulators should also aim at maintaining public confidence through > > 1. Implementation of suitable consultation mechanisms > > 2.encouraging good practice by providers as well as provision of > > universal high quality service, > > 3. Ensure all providers are treated fairly while assuring consumers if > > fairness in tariffs transparency in billing as well as opportunity to > > redress poor performance and/or misconduct > > > > All the above and more should ideally be developed into a set of consumer > > affairs guidelines applying to all service providers in all categories, be > > it infrastructure etc and end users. > > > > best > > alice > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alex Gakuru" <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> > > To: <alice(a)apc.org> > > Cc: <ke-intenetusers(a)bdix.net> > > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory > > ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > > > > > > > Lucy, > > > > > > >not to mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a > > > theory, and government >foot prints are all over the place... > > > > > > It was shocking to hear, in contempt of court, they publicly proclaimed > > > that they were not "independent" but just a part of government (at the > > > World Bank breakfast meeting three weeks ago). As far as I know, this > > > contravenes a recent court ruling to the effect that CCK decisions are not > > > tied to government policy. Thus far, CCK is a not a "regulator", perhaps a > > > vested interests, sound proof glass house where consumer cries cannot > > > reach? > > > > > > But welcome to Kenya, and see how our laws are flouted and court played, > > > but when it comes to LICENSES... it is like "god" speaking to sinners. And > > > all the talk about fresh new laws...? > > > > > > When I learnt the poem "who killed Cock Robin" as a child, I had no idea > > > it would make any sense in my grown life. But with the so many official > > > barriers to affordable communication this robin poem > > > <http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/robin.htm> now makes a lot of sense. > > > > > > Have a laughly day. > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > Lucy Kimani <lkimani(a)comnews.co.ke> wrote: > > > Alex, > > > > > > Just to add to what you say below, my take just by observing the various > > > players in the telecom industry these couple of months, as well as the > > > policy makers and those suppossed to be regulating/implementing these > > > policies is that there is too much "conflict of interest" and no wonder > > > the consumer gets a raw deal! > > > > > > - A regulator that is more concerned with keeping the operators happy > > > rather than looking out for the tax payer paying their salaries not to > > > mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a theory, and > > > government foot prints are all over the place... > > > - Operators eager to keep the status quo, but in the meantime trying to > > > out do each other to steal, and or maintain the customer base, fighting > > > dirty comes to mind, or is it capitalism at its best? > > > - A government looking to grow the GDP and hopefully looking to lower the > > > bandwidth price in the process, but being pulled in different directions > > > by the various forces and one can only hope they dont wind up carrying the > > > donkey on their backs!!! > > > > > > LK > > > oops! > > >> > > >> ... but seriously there quite a number of underlying issues. But in > > >> short:- > > >> > > >> 1. Regulator - Should begin by establishing a relationship framework with > > >> consumers and multi-located businesses and facilitate them with their own > > >> fibre rollouts- Remember it is cheap and can pass overhead on electric > > >> poles, riverbeds, hills etc especially where big telcos do not find the > > >> business case to do it. Help change "LICENSE" a facilitative piece of > > >> paper not an intimidating obstacle to consumer - affordable > > >> telecommunication. > > >> > > >> 2. Operators - they assist in the operations/management of > > >> consumer-customer owned last mile fibre and/or mash (2.4 and 5.8 GHz) > > >> networks > > >> > > >> 3 Government - Ministry of Information should ensure the wonderful > > >> consumer protection clauses in the ICT policy (and upcoming Information > > >> laws) do not end as relics. The implementation strategy has to be theirs. > > >> So don't ask me :-) > > >> > > >> 4. Everyone - to be honest. > > >> > > >> Briefest I could get. > > >> > > >> /Alex > > >> > > >> John Walubengo wrote: Alex, > > >> > > >> Plse, to avoid information overload, plse give a preamble > > >> (executive summary) of what your links do elaborate in what > > >> I believe would be much detail. > > >> > > >> It will be much, much more helpful in that you would assist > > >> us in internalising the whole idea/model...so back to > > >> Mucheru's qtn. How can/should the Consumers as one of the > > >> Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, > > >> Operator, Govt, in the future dispensation (when OFC has > > >> been provisioned?). > > >> > > >> walu. > > >> NB: we shall start on the Closing phase on Monday. I > > >> remembered Kenyans (and other African users?) are not > > >> active internet users on weekends.. > > >> > > >> --- Alex Gakuru wrote: > > >> > > >>> Glad to: > > >>> > > >>> Loss of internet users affects everyone and economic > > >>> retardation, knowledge society, will be washed away, just > > >>> like we lost fibre cable in 1995 see Vohra Speech < > > >>> http://www.isoc.or.ke/speeches/launch_vohra.pdf> > > >>> > > >>> Thus, read my frustrations in the light of the many > > >>> proposals made officially but nothing has ever been done. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Synopsis: > > >>> > > >>> 3 things for now maybe more later (if needed.) > > >>> > > >>> 1. Boost IT confidence for otherwise, there will not be > > >>> any market left for business, no e-government, > > >>> information society.... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You can find them on > > >>> http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2156/a/22411 > > >>> > > >>> The two reports are: > > >>> > > >>> - Policy for the IT society - Recommendations from the > > >>> members of the IT > > >>> Policy Strategy Group > > >>> > > >>> An overall document with recommendations on what the > > >>> government should do. > > >>> It includes information from the 2nd report... > > >>> > > >>> - Broadband for growth, innovation and competitiveness > > >>> > > >>> > In April 2004 the Government´s IT Policy Strategy Group > > >>> set up a > > >>> > working group on IT infrastructure and broadband. The > > >>> primary task of > > >>> > the working group has been to support the Strategy > > >>> Group by working, > > >>> > within the framework of a free market, for futureproof, > > >>> accessible, > > >>> > competitionneutral, technologyneutral and coherent > > >>> electronic > > >>> > communications networks, which are capable of meeting > > >>> the challenges > > >>> > of the future. This report summarises the discussions > > >>> and proposals. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2. Because Regulator apparently never catchup, then > > >>> establish consumer complaints portal (something like > > >>> http://spokane.bbb.org/) > > >>> - ICT policy provides for consumers to frequently > > >>> their concern areas ( a pity all our labored official > > >>> documents were pulled down and replace with a template at > > >>> www.information.go.ke documents. > > >>> - Consumers register complaints against businesses at > > >>> this portal. When the company addresses the issue, the > > >>> complaint is struck off. governments not allowed to > > >>> transact with business above certain complaints ratio - > > >>> Promotes business ethics. > > >>> - Register members=>Consumer make responsible > > >>> complaints not malicious to their competitors > > >>> > > >>> 3. Regulation. > > >>> > > >>> What is self regulation? > > >>> - A corporate basement corner "self-regulation" desk > > >>> or acceptance to complaints, criticism and accepting the > > >>> impact of one's action to others > > >>> - Regulator will have a "regulatory" job in this > > >>> environment > > >>> - Currently consumer complaints collected by CCK just > > >>> accumulate dust in their archives and this would be a > > >>> good way to measure their performance contracts. > > >>> (Business disputes area addressed in a flash) record. So > > >>> in a way consumers, will "regulate" the Regulator. > > >>> > > >>> This is just a synopsis let me know if it suffices > > >>> > > >>> Alex > > >>> > > >>> Joseph Mucheru wrote: Alex, > > >>> > > >>> I may have missed you post, but have you proposed an > > >>> appropriate > > >>> Consumer/Business/Regulatory structure that you believe > > >>> will work? It would > > >>> help to have an idea of what you are proposing as a > > >>> structure. > > >>> > > >>> Thank you > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Joseph Mucheru > > >>> Executive Director > > >>> mucheru(a)wananchi.com > > >>> > > >>> > From: Alex Gakuru > > >>> > Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet > > >>> > Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0800 (PST) > > >>> > To: > > >>> > Cc: > > >>> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate > > >>> Regulatory Models for > > >>> > OFC (2days) > > >>> > > > >>> > Kenya has been profusely bleeding internet users. > > >>> > > > >>> > In 2005, we had 1.5 million internet users but in Sept > > >>> 2006, ITU revised the > > >>> > number to 1 million. CCK then urged some of us who > > >>> raised this concern that > > >>> > they disputed the figure and urgently launched an > > >>> Internet users study-census > > >>> > on 01 Nov 2006 at Mbagathi. We were all promised to > > >>> be called back before > > >>> > end December 2006 for study findings. That never > > >>> happened and January just > > >>> > end. > > >>> > > > >>> > Two week ago at the World Bank RCIP meeting at the > > >>> Jacaranda Hotel, the PS in > > >>> > his presentation stated the number of internet users to > > >>> be 1.25 million. > > >>> > > > >>> > Question, Going by the PS data, what could be causing > > >>> internet loss in Kenya? > > >>> > > > >>> > Eight years after CCK was formed and section 23 and 47 > > >>> of the communications > > >>> > act introduced, The Regulator is yet to show 1 > > >>> practical initiative they have > > >>> > ever implemented to protect consumers. Consumer > > >>> protection, it would appear, > > >>> > is petulant and the law is broken without a blink while > > >>> the Regulator embarks > > >>> > on situation containment-management, and life goes on. > > >>> > > > >>> > Is it time for Civil society to divorce itself from > > >>> over engagement on > > >>> > commercial arrangement discussions between government > > >>> and business and > > >>> > re-dedicate itself to serving the voiceless? > > >>> > > > >>> > Will all this fibre talk translate to real consumer > > >>> cost savings or are they > > >>> > just the usual public marketing of the wonderful world > > >>> to come, but as usual > > >>> > just in the future to keep hope high? > > >>> > > > >>> > In the meantime we continue talk on fibre while a third > > >>> of our internet users > > >>> > are lost. > > >>> > > > >>> > Alex Gakuru > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > Rebecca Wanjiku wrote: the question of regulation > > >>> > is tricky but as Kihanya points out, it is going to > > >>> take a lot of > > >>> > consultations and concessions between government and > > >>> other stakeholders if the > > >>> > OFC is to work and serve the intended purposes, > > >>> > > > >>> > True, other countries have deregulated but what do > > >>> you do in a country like > > >>> > say, Kenya where the anti monopolies commissioner is > > >>> not in the fore front of > > >>> > addressing issues, am sure many people on the streets > > >>> may not know the > > >>> > existence of that office. > > >>> > > > >>> > In the article by Roland Alden that Walu has > > >>> recommended, he argues that > > >>> > many African govts have been resistant to change and > > >>> adds that what is needed > > >>> > is regulation liberalization. Maybe thatâ?Ts what is > > >>> needed. > > >>> > > > >>> > But how do we start talking of deregulation when we > > >>> canâ?Tt agree about the > > >>> > Act that will govern some of these issues. > > >>> > > > >>> > I may not be well versed with the law but am sure > > >>> with the technological > > >>> > development, there will arise disputes that were not > > >>> envisaged in our current > > >>> > laws, how do we deal with that within the judicial > > >>> system, we need an ACT > > >>> > Roland further contends that in some cases, > > >>> regulators may have ordered a > > >>> > party to fulfill its part of the bargain, but when it > > >>> failed, the judicial > > >>> > system "rarely provided any meaningful" compensation to > > >>> the aggrieved party. > > >>> > > > >>> > Regulation, deregulation, appropriate law, and am > > >>> sure > > >> === message truncated ===> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > >> Bored stiff? Loosen up... > > >> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. > > >> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------- > > >> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music > > >> Unlimited._______________________________________________ > > >> 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. > > > " " > > > http://www.accesskenya.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/wainaina%40madeinkenya.org > > >

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd)
by Wainaina Mungai 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

Increased participation by NGOs/not-for-profit would be one way to go for consumer-focused engagement. My understanding of the trust issues between consumers and other players is that the private sector rightfully pursue what makes them money. They have also fought for consumers and we are enjoying some of the benefits together. However, there are limits to what we should expect of commercial ventures. On the other hand, the government and the regulator have to delicately balance loyalties to all the players. The consumer needs: 1. Education/information {most consumers do not make informed choices on ICT products/services} 2. An non-governmental/not-for-profit platform for articulating issues (a consumer association or something in that line). 3. Greater involvement in all ICT policy and implementation processes throgh both their initiative and deliberate involvement by government, regulator and other players. ##By consumer, I mean the mwananchi in a market centre in Bondo aka "Wanjiku" who is usually the final consumer. This definition deliberately leaves out service providers who are at a higher level as "consumers". See http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum0207.php for an example of what a small-scale business consumer thinks of ICTs. Regards, --- Wainaina Mungai http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum.php SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. > -------Original Message------- > From: alice(a)apc.org > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > Sent: 05 Feb '07 09:38 > > Hi Alex and all > > (Please note that my views/contributions to this debate are personal and do > not in any way reflect the official view of the CCK) > > There is normally quite a lot of tension between commitment and flexibility > that all governments face when creating and implementing communications > polices and rules. Primarily government is responsible for developing > policy, which by extension establishes regulatory authorities which works to > a mandate set by the legislation. The role of regulatory authorities is > primarily facilitative it is not its role to provide detailed management of > the sector and major policy issues should still be decided by government ( > in the interest of the public read consumers) with operators themselves > taking care of commercial and operational matters. > Therefore the independence of a regulator cannot be absolute but it can and > should operate with the sustained support of the government with which rests > the ultimate responsibility for the health of the sector by the policies > governments adopt and implement. > > Back to Walu's question "how can/should the Consumers as one of the > > Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, Operator, Govt, > > in the future dispensation (when OFC has > > been provisioned?)" > > >From a consumer perspective what would be ideal would be to get involved in > development of consumer protection policies and regulations which would > provide users with all the information required to make informed choices > thus deriving benefits from competitive service provisioning. > The regulators should also aim at maintaining public confidence through > 1. Implementation of suitable consultation mechanisms > 2.encouraging good practice by providers as well as provision of > universal high quality service, > 3. Ensure all providers are treated fairly while assuring consumers if > fairness in tariffs transparency in billing as well as opportunity to > redress poor performance and/or misconduct > > All the above and more should ideally be developed into a set of consumer > affairs guidelines applying to all service providers in all categories, be > it infrastructure etc and end users. > > best > alice > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Gakuru" <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> > To: <alice(a)apc.org> > Cc: <ke-intenetusers(a)bdix.net> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:14 AM > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory > ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > > > > Lucy, > > > > >not to mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a > > theory, and government >foot prints are all over the place... > > > > It was shocking to hear, in contempt of court, they publicly proclaimed > > that they were not "independent" but just a part of government (at the > > World Bank breakfast meeting three weeks ago). As far as I know, this > > contravenes a recent court ruling to the effect that CCK decisions are not > > tied to government policy. Thus far, CCK is a not a "regulator", perhaps a > > vested interests, sound proof glass house where consumer cries cannot > > reach? > > > > But welcome to Kenya, and see how our laws are flouted and court played, > > but when it comes to LICENSES... it is like "god" speaking to sinners. And > > all the talk about fresh new laws...? > > > > When I learnt the poem "who killed Cock Robin" as a child, I had no idea > > it would make any sense in my grown life. But with the so many official > > barriers to affordable communication this robin poem > > <http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/robin.htm> now makes a lot of sense. > > > > Have a laughly day. > > > > > > Alex > > Lucy Kimani <lkimani(a)comnews.co.ke> wrote: > > Alex, > > > > Just to add to what you say below, my take just by observing the various > > players in the telecom industry these couple of months, as well as the > > policy makers and those suppossed to be regulating/implementing these > > policies is that there is too much "conflict of interest" and no wonder > > the consumer gets a raw deal! > > > > - A regulator that is more concerned with keeping the operators happy > > rather than looking out for the tax payer paying their salaries not to > > mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a theory, and > > government foot prints are all over the place... > > - Operators eager to keep the status quo, but in the meantime trying to > > out do each other to steal, and or maintain the customer base, fighting > > dirty comes to mind, or is it capitalism at its best? > > - A government looking to grow the GDP and hopefully looking to lower the > > bandwidth price in the process, but being pulled in different directions > > by the various forces and one can only hope they dont wind up carrying the > > donkey on their backs!!! > > > > LK > > oops! > >> > >> ... but seriously there quite a number of underlying issues. But in > >> short:- > >> > >> 1. Regulator - Should begin by establishing a relationship framework with > >> consumers and multi-located businesses and facilitate them with their own > >> fibre rollouts- Remember it is cheap and can pass overhead on electric > >> poles, riverbeds, hills etc especially where big telcos do not find the > >> business case to do it. Help change "LICENSE" a facilitative piece of > >> paper not an intimidating obstacle to consumer - affordable > >> telecommunication. > >> > >> 2. Operators - they assist in the operations/management of > >> consumer-customer owned last mile fibre and/or mash (2.4 and 5.8 GHz) > >> networks > >> > >> 3 Government - Ministry of Information should ensure the wonderful > >> consumer protection clauses in the ICT policy (and upcoming Information > >> laws) do not end as relics. The implementation strategy has to be theirs. > >> So don't ask me :-) > >> > >> 4. Everyone - to be honest. > >> > >> Briefest I could get. > >> > >> /Alex > >> > >> John Walubengo wrote: Alex, > >> > >> Plse, to avoid information overload, plse give a preamble > >> (executive summary) of what your links do elaborate in what > >> I believe would be much detail. > >> > >> It will be much, much more helpful in that you would assist > >> us in internalising the whole idea/model...so back to > >> Mucheru's qtn. How can/should the Consumers as one of the > >> Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, > >> Operator, Govt, in the future dispensation (when OFC has > >> been provisioned?). > >> > >> walu. > >> NB: we shall start on the Closing phase on Monday. I > >> remembered Kenyans (and other African users?) are not > >> active internet users on weekends.. > >> > >> --- Alex Gakuru wrote: > >> > >>> Glad to: > >>> > >>> Loss of internet users affects everyone and economic > >>> retardation, knowledge society, will be washed away, just > >>> like we lost fibre cable in 1995 see Vohra Speech < > >>> http://www.isoc.or.ke/speeches/launch_vohra.pdf> > >>> > >>> Thus, read my frustrations in the light of the many > >>> proposals made officially but nothing has ever been done. > >>> > >>> > >>> Synopsis: > >>> > >>> 3 things for now maybe more later (if needed.) > >>> > >>> 1. Boost IT confidence for otherwise, there will not be > >>> any market left for business, no e-government, > >>> information society.... > >>> > >>> > >>> You can find them on > >>> http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2156/a/22411 > >>> > >>> The two reports are: > >>> > >>> - Policy for the IT society - Recommendations from the > >>> members of the IT > >>> Policy Strategy Group > >>> > >>> An overall document with recommendations on what the > >>> government should do. > >>> It includes information from the 2nd report... > >>> > >>> - Broadband for growth, innovation and competitiveness > >>> > >>> > In April 2004 the Government´s IT Policy Strategy Group > >>> set up a > >>> > working group on IT infrastructure and broadband. The > >>> primary task of > >>> > the working group has been to support the Strategy > >>> Group by working, > >>> > within the framework of a free market, for futureproof, > >>> accessible, > >>> > competitionneutral, technologyneutral and coherent > >>> electronic > >>> > communications networks, which are capable of meeting > >>> the challenges > >>> > of the future. This report summarises the discussions > >>> and proposals. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2. Because Regulator apparently never catchup, then > >>> establish consumer complaints portal (something like > >>> http://spokane.bbb.org/) > >>> - ICT policy provides for consumers to frequently > >>> their concern areas ( a pity all our labored official > >>> documents were pulled down and replace with a template at > >>> www.information.go.ke documents. > >>> - Consumers register complaints against businesses at > >>> this portal. When the company addresses the issue, the > >>> complaint is struck off. governments not allowed to > >>> transact with business above certain complaints ratio - > >>> Promotes business ethics. > >>> - Register members=>Consumer make responsible > >>> complaints not malicious to their competitors > >>> > >>> 3. Regulation. > >>> > >>> What is self regulation? > >>> - A corporate basement corner "self-regulation" desk > >>> or acceptance to complaints, criticism and accepting the > >>> impact of one's action to others > >>> - Regulator will have a "regulatory" job in this > >>> environment > >>> - Currently consumer complaints collected by CCK just > >>> accumulate dust in their archives and this would be a > >>> good way to measure their performance contracts. > >>> (Business disputes area addressed in a flash) record. So > >>> in a way consumers, will "regulate" the Regulator. > >>> > >>> This is just a synopsis let me know if it suffices > >>> > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> Joseph Mucheru wrote: Alex, > >>> > >>> I may have missed you post, but have you proposed an > >>> appropriate > >>> Consumer/Business/Regulatory structure that you believe > >>> will work? It would > >>> help to have an idea of what you are proposing as a > >>> structure. > >>> > >>> Thank you > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Joseph Mucheru > >>> Executive Director > >>> mucheru(a)wananchi.com > >>> > >>> > From: Alex Gakuru > >>> > Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet > >>> > Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0800 (PST) > >>> > To: > >>> > Cc: > >>> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate > >>> Regulatory Models for > >>> > OFC (2days) > >>> > > >>> > Kenya has been profusely bleeding internet users. > >>> > > >>> > In 2005, we had 1.5 million internet users but in Sept > >>> 2006, ITU revised the > >>> > number to 1 million. CCK then urged some of us who > >>> raised this concern that > >>> > they disputed the figure and urgently launched an > >>> Internet users study-census > >>> > on 01 Nov 2006 at Mbagathi. We were all promised to > >>> be called back before > >>> > end December 2006 for study findings. That never > >>> happened and January just > >>> > end. > >>> > > >>> > Two week ago at the World Bank RCIP meeting at the > >>> Jacaranda Hotel, the PS in > >>> > his presentation stated the number of internet users to > >>> be 1.25 million. > >>> > > >>> > Question, Going by the PS data, what could be causing > >>> internet loss in Kenya? > >>> > > >>> > Eight years after CCK was formed and section 23 and 47 > >>> of the communications > >>> > act introduced, The Regulator is yet to show 1 > >>> practical initiative they have > >>> > ever implemented to protect consumers. Consumer > >>> protection, it would appear, > >>> > is petulant and the law is broken without a blink while > >>> the Regulator embarks > >>> > on situation containment-management, and life goes on. > >>> > > >>> > Is it time for Civil society to divorce itself from > >>> over engagement on > >>> > commercial arrangement discussions between government > >>> and business and > >>> > re-dedicate itself to serving the voiceless? > >>> > > >>> > Will all this fibre talk translate to real consumer > >>> cost savings or are they > >>> > just the usual public marketing of the wonderful world > >>> to come, but as usual > >>> > just in the future to keep hope high? > >>> > > >>> > In the meantime we continue talk on fibre while a third > >>> of our internet users > >>> > are lost. > >>> > > >>> > Alex Gakuru > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Rebecca Wanjiku wrote: the question of regulation > >>> > is tricky but as Kihanya points out, it is going to > >>> take a lot of > >>> > consultations and concessions between government and > >>> other stakeholders if the > >>> > OFC is to work and serve the intended purposes, > >>> > > >>> > True, other countries have deregulated but what do > >>> you do in a country like > >>> > say, Kenya where the anti monopolies commissioner is > >>> not in the fore front of > >>> > addressing issues, am sure many people on the streets > >>> may not know the > >>> > existence of that office. > >>> > > >>> > In the article by Roland Alden that Walu has > >>> recommended, he argues that > >>> > many African govts have been resistant to change and > >>> adds that what is needed > >>> > is regulation liberalization. Maybe thatâ?Ts what is > >>> needed. > >>> > > >>> > But how do we start talking of deregulation when we > >>> canâ?Tt agree about the > >>> > Act that will govern some of these issues. > >>> > > >>> > I may not be well versed with the law but am sure > >>> with the technological > >>> > development, there will arise disputes that were not > >>> envisaged in our current > >>> > laws, how do we deal with that within the judicial > >>> system, we need an ACT > >>> > Roland further contends that in some cases, > >>> regulators may have ordered a > >>> > party to fulfill its part of the bargain, but when it > >>> failed, the judicial > >>> > system "rarely provided any meaningful" compensation to > >>> the aggrieved party. > >>> > > >>> > Regulation, deregulation, appropriate law, and am > >>> sure > >> === message truncated ===> > >> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ > >> Bored stiff? Loosen up... > >> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. > >> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------- > >> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music > >> Unlimited._______________________________________________ > >> 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. > > " " > > http://www.accesskenya.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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.org > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/wainaina%40madeinkenya.org >

1 0

email courtesy
by Rebecca Wanjiku 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

i am glad that the discussions are passionate, they underline a desire to change and move the industry forward, but some of the emails are bordering on insults and this forum is open to everybody, whether they are right wrong, well-connected, not- so- well- connected and the discconected. whether in government, private sector or academia, everyone is free to contribute to the list without feeling like their comments will make them get crucified or hung out to dry, yes, there is freedom of information, expression, which we all uphold, but let us also have the freedom to let others enjoy the space, we welcome all opinions, leftists or rightists, bring them on.....minus the insults... make the point, no name calling, hope this is ok with everybody, regards becky Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

2 1

Banking Technology Conference
by Fiona Asonga 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

Hi Judy I would like to attend the Banking Conference and get the KICTANET free registration; I hope I am not too late. Fiona Asonga Administrator Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya (TESPOK) P.O Box 27589 – 00506 NAIROBI Tel: +254 20 245036 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- From: Sean Moroney To: bksang(a)education.go.ke Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: [kictanet] African Banking Technology Conference Dear Colleagues, I wanted to invite Kictanet members to participate in our Banking Technology Conference by taking advantage of the 20 free delegate spaces we allocate for members at each of our Kenya events. The full programme is available on our web site. Please notify Judy if you would like to apply for a free registration. I look forward to seeing Kictanet members there - and to having your active participation in the discussions. Best regards, Sean Sean Moroney Chairman AITEC Africa seanm(a)aitecafrica.com UK Tel: +44-(0)1480-880774 UK Fax: +44-(0)1480-880765 UK Mobile: +44(0)7973-499224 Kenya Mobile: +254(0)721-845674 Nigeria Mobile: +234(0)802--0571766 SA Mobile: +27(0)72-610-7153 Skype: seanmoroney www.aitecafrica.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 2:28 PM

2 1

Celtel VS Safaricom
by Midafarica 03 Feb '07

03 Feb '07

Hello all, We all noticed that piece of article in the Business Nation on Tuesday. Reading throgh, I asked myeslf how will CCK, deal with this matter, and is this one similar to those old days of ISPs vs Telkom Micugu

1 0

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

01 Feb '07

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

5 7

any negative impact?
by Rebecca Wanjiku 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

yes, OFC will be a win win situation, there will be investment challenges, regulatory and other challenges yet to come but are there any negative impact that we should be worried about??? any environmental impact??? somebody??????? Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

2 1

apologies for lack of posts
by Rebecca Wanjiku 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

due to technical problems, the list has been down the better part of the day, but am told its ok now, up and running, sorry about that, if you posted, am sure it will come up regards becky Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

1 0

Test 1 @1653
by Odhiambo WASHINGTON 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

This a diagnostic test. Please ignore. cheers - wash +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ Odhiambo Washington . WANANCHI ONLINE LTD (Nairobi, KE) | wash () WANANCHI ! com . 1ere Etage, Loita Hse, Loita St., | GSM: (+254) 722 743 223 . # 10286, 00100 NAIROBI | GSM: (+254) 733 744 121 . (+254) 020 313 985 - 9 | +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+ "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post

1 0

Testing, testing...plse ignore
by John Walubengo 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

123, 123,12..this is another test...looks like we went/are off-air...plse ignore. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

1 0

TEST
by evelyne ofwona 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

--------------------------------- Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.

1 0

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

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

26 Jan '07

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

1 0

Fw: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What isthe best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cableto East Africans?
by alice＠apc.org 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Badru, i could pay a dollar for that if you had some resonance on the other side of the coin where the private sector due to a lot of the factors we know cannot do this ALONE? Eric here On 24 Jan 2007, at 19:16, Badru Ntege wrote: > I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos > which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that > pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is > still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters > who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who > they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess > who is suffering. > > If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the > community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then > next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the > fiber. > > I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and > eventually the price will come down. If government wants to > intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive > to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc. > > Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access > and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time > to develop naturaly. > > Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by > private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is > a business decision. > > Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who > were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting > behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are > sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY. > > Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable > Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels > Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural > communities > Encourage the production of local content > Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to > bring the prices down. > > my 2 cents > > > gathuri njorohio wrote: >> Hi All >> The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to >> disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. >> The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for >> their international traffic when they pass through satellite due >> to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through the >> submarine cable. >> We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to >> promote trade between the countries and I suggest that they should >> also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for >> trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the >> opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the >> countries they are serving. >> A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the >> installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. >> The western africa and central africa can do the same for the >> western cable link. >> The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for the new >> cables. >> The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as >> a neutral body for the development of Africa. >> Eng. Njorohio >> */alice(a)apc.org/* wrote: >> >> (Apologies for Cross positing) >> >> >> >> Attn: Telco Operators, Regulators, Academia, Media, Civil >> Society, >> Consumers >> >> The Last Frontier: The East African Coast remains the last region >> in the >> world that is yet to connect to the cheaper and more reliable >> Global >> Submarine Optical Fiber Network. EASSy, TEAMS and others promise >> to change >> that by providing this crucial link. >> >> EASSy, TEAMS, etc,: What is the best model for providing the >> Fiber >> Optic >> Submarine Cable to East Africans? >> >> Join the Online Discussion: Starting Monday Jan 22nd – Sat Feb >> 3rd >> 2007 and >> make your views be known regarding this historic development. >> >> to subscribe: http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> Please send your details to jkimiti(a)email.kictanet.or.ke >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fibre-for-africa mailing list >> Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org >> http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> Never Miss an Email >> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! >> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/ >> services?promote=mail> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ICT Consultant and Journalist 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" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa >

1 0

Re: [Kictanet] Safaricom must improve or lose to a better option
by joseph kihanya 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

I have sent mail on the agreement/, disclaimer...to evelyne/ smail address? kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: Judy kimiti <jkimiti01(a)yahoo.co.uk> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:11:12 AM Subject: [Kictanet] Safaricom must improve or lose to a better option Safaricom must improve or lose to a better option By Andrew Odete Dear Mr Michael Joseph, I tried calling you for a chat, but the network was down, so I fell back to the old ink and pen. It never lets you down, which is more than I can say for the postal service. That is why I have taken the liberty to write to you through the media, for which I beg your understanding and forgiveness. It is not because I am a cheapskate. Greetings from many readers who have asked me to relay their heartfelt congratulations to you for dragging Safaricom, biting and kicking, into the Sh12 billion-profit mark. The readers are also your subscribers and they have exhorted me to relay their concerns relating on your service to your doorstep. You are top in business First, your customers appreciate that achieving such an unprecedented subscription as you have in the proverbial blink of an eye is worthy of accolades. Many say, and rightly so, that you have come top of the business stakes in the region for listening to and understanding your customers. What is more impressive is that you achieved this in the hitherto unexplored terrain of mobile telephony in Kenya. However, your customers hope that this year, the company will outdo itself and improve on last year's performance. Oh yes, sir, they seem to believe that there is room for improvement on your part. Some even reckon that it is pretty easy to be the "Better Option" in a field where there are not too many service providers to challenge you on the quality of the product. Cheap but clogged While they appreciate that you have increased coverage in the country, they wish you could also increase the quality of telephone service. Clarity of phone calls and reliability of the service is all they want. For instance, when you so very kindly offered cheap calling rates during the festive season, the relentless crush of callers ensured that nobody could get through the network at various times of the day. Your network crashed, as happened increasingly often in the course of last year. Moreover, sir, you know we have such diverse accents and dialects that it helps to have a clear line; otherwise, we could as well be insulting one another over the phone. That would be uncivilised and, if I may say so, unChristmas! When Kananu calls from Imenti, Muli from Masinga or Jaoko from Mbita next to the lake, I want to hear the phonetic innocence of their respective dialects and interpret them accordingly. No reason to toast And when Akinyi jets back to Kenya, and tries out her full-on Texan- cum-Siaya drawl on my ears, it would help to, at least, hear some of her words. This year, Safaricom may need to ratchet it up a notch higher if your subscribers are to see the sense of continuing to top up so that you, in turn, may continue to top the profit league. I am sure you have the savoir-faire to remain the toast of East Africa. Already, your subscribers cannot stop thanking you for the reduced call charges. But I fear that unless you give your customers a new year present in the way of better quality services, an even better option might come along and make toast of you. And now that I cannot get through to you on the phone, sir, I take this opportunity to wish you a happy New Year and to request that you please call me back when the network is back to normal. Thank you. odeteac(a)yahoo.com http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143963704 Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

1 0

Agreement
by joseph kihanya 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Judy/Evelyne Whereas the (winner_______________ ) of the logo cretaion competition (___________) (name)of the competition is not in a contract of service with KICTANET and was commissioned to create the logo, and hereby confirms receipt of the sum of Kshs--------in full and final settlement of that commission, the winner_____________ does hereby confirm that all copyright vests with KICTANET as per section 31(1)(a) of The Copyright Act 2001, (No 12 of 2001, Laws of Kenya ),and hereby confirms that he/ she is the author of the logo and agrees to indemnify KICTANET againts all claims that may arise in future in relation to the logo and this agreement. I hope this helps. Kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: evelyne ofwona <evelyneofwona(a)yahoo.com> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 7:56:54 AM Subject: [Kictanet] MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TRUST FUND COMMITTEE Good morning all, Attached, please find minutes of the above and the Trust Deed Document. Evelyne Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

1 0

Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International Optical Fiber Connectivity?- 1 Day Discussion
by joseph kihanya 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Walu. If you can sell a good thing in few words it is a good thing. here goes... Fibre is simply demonstrably an economically and environmentally "good" thing! Capacity- wise and futuristic use is guaranteed. Lets just say,its very hard to argue against, given the options. QED Kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:57:00 PM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International Optical Fiber Connectivity?- 1 Day Discussion Also, Satellites will remain around because they do have their unique applications mainly in intelligence gathering (e.g for Weather Predictions, Geographical Mappings, Space Research, Military intellegence, etc). These things, Bill, you will agree cannot be done by optical fiber and that is why the rich nations shall continue investing in satellite technologies. However on the communication side of things, the satellite route is a distant 2nd to Optical fiber. walu. --- Kanja Waruru <kanjawaruru(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > on a light note, satellites pollute the atmosphere > since they are junked in outer space after their short > and unreliable life span. someone ought to report > satellite owners to nema. > cheers > Kanja > > --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hey! > > > > 12hrs are ending without an input on the 1st and > > easier > > theme! The silence is too loud! to reduce it, here > > is why I > > think we need international optical submarine > > connectivity > > (as opposed to Satellite). > > > > 1. It is more reliable than satellite connectivity > > 2. It is much more faster (i.e) delay time from one > > continent to the other is less. > > 3. It has unlimited bandwidth capabilities and by > > extension > > 4. It tends (should) be cheaper to buy per Megabit. > > > > Anything I may have left out? Brian, Mucheru and > > others? > > Plse clarify, object or add. > > > > walu. > > > > --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Greetings All, > > > > > > As announced the previous week(s) on this list, we > > wish > > > to > > > kick-off the discussion on this important > > submarine cable > > > developments. > > > > > > The general program is listed below and I would > > like us > > > to > > > get started. But 2 ground rules. > > > > > > ***Keep your contributions brief and to the point. > > (2-3 > > > paragraphs, otherwise members may not have time to > > read > > > through, if you have lengthy additions, just give > > us the > > > url) > > > ***Summary contributions shall be provided at the > > end of > > > each discussion theme. Leading contributions shall > > be > > > acknowledged and rewarded by sponsorship to a > > subsequent > > > face-2-face meeting on the same topic. > > > > > > So the floor is open and the question for the next > > 12hrs > > > is:Why do we need International Optical Fiber > > > Connectivity?- > > > Plse contributed by showing the advantages, > > > opportunities, > > > etc of undersea fiber cable... > > > > > > ~~~~~000~~~~~ > > > The other Questions/Issues that will follow. > > > > > > 1) Why do we need International Optical Fiber > > > Connectivity? > > > (1day) > > > 2) What are the existing (and possible) > > > Business/Financial > > > models for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) > > > 3) What are the existing (and possible) Regulatory > > models > > > for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) > > > 4) What would be the ideal model for East > > Africans? > > > (2days) > > > 5) How will this (ideal) model impact on the > > existing > > > stakeholders(Consumers, Operators, > > Regulators,etc)(2days) > > > 6) How can conflicting stakeholder interest be > > > resolved?(2days) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > The fish are biting. > > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > > > Marketing. > > > > > > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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/kanjawaruru%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > Marketing. > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > _______________________________________________ > 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

2 1

Day 3 of 10: What are the existing Business Models for OFC provisioning
by John Walubengo 25 Jan '07

25 Jan '07

Haven't heard much much from the Consumers...but here is what Consumers in S.A are doing with regard to Telkom S.A and their high communications charges. walu. btw. Telkom SA is a leading sharholder in the SAT3 Consortium model. We hope, that Telkom Kenya will not force similar reactions - 5yrs after implementing EASsy. --- Ashraf Patel <AshrafP(a)osisa.org> wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:48:06 +0200 > From: "Ashraf Patel" <AshrafP(a)osisa.org> > To: <idlelo2(a)fossfa.net> > Subject: [Idlelo2] Telecoms Action Group (TAG) lambasts > Telkom SA on high > Internet prices in full page ad in M&G > > Consumer group fires salvo at Telkom > LESLEY STONES > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > E-Mail article Print-Friendly > > > > STINGING criticism from the world-renowned Reuters news > agency, evidence > from numerous analysts and a verbal lashing by President > Thabo Mbeki himself have failed to penetrate Telkom's impervious skin and force it > to cut its prices. > > So what impact will come from 200 despondent consumers > moaning about the > high cost of a phone call? > > Probably very little, but a full-page advert they placed > in the Mail & > Guardian this week is a piece of public activism that > just may make > Telkom's price-fixing executives squirm in momentary > discomfort. > > The advert placed by the Telecoms Action Group (Tag) was > funded by > individual consumers including a sprinkling of lawyers, > journalists and > representatives of a couple of hi-tech companies. > > It is big, bold and aims straight for the jugular. Under > the headline, > "The more of this you read, the more infuriated you'll > become", the > advert says: "Last year, Telkom recorded a staggering > R9,3bn in profit. > At your expense. Don't expect the government to step in. > They couldn't > give a hoot. They've got a 38% shareholding." > > It points out that South Africans pay five times more for > a local call > now than in 1996, and that our internet access is among > the most > expensive in the world. Telkom has laid off 35000 staff > in seven years, > so its profits sky-rocket while consumers wait up to six > months to get a > line, it says. > > The action group was set up by journalists Richard Frank > and Alastair > Otter, who run the tectonic.co.za newsletter. > > Frank admits that Telkom is unlikely to react. "We are > not naive enough > to think our one advert is going to make Telkom slash its > prices by 50% > and neither is government or the regulator going to do > much," he says. > "The main purpose is to show that consumers have a voice > in SA." > > > > In reply, Telkom issued a statement on Friday saying it > was committed to > adjusting its pricing model consistently in order to make > telecommunications more affordable and accessible to > business as well as > the broader public. > > Its last price revision saw an overall cut of 2,1% on a > basket of > products, while high-speed internet access line rental > fell an average > of 24%, it said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sponsored links > > Software > > Treasury services > > Trading > > Unit Trusts > > Residential Property > > Commerical Property > > Business Directory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd disclaims all liability for any > loss, damage, > injury or expense however caused, > arising from the use of or reliance upon, in any manner, > the information > provided through this service > and does not warrant the truth, accuracy or completeness > of the > information provided. > > Copyright (c) 2005 BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd. All Rights > Reserved > Site Feedback | Privacy Policy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idlelo2 mailing list > Idlelo2(a)fossfa.net > http://mailman.dst.gov.za/mailman/listinfo/idlelo2 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 _______________________________________________ Idlelo2 mailing list Idlelo2(a)fossfa.net http://mailman.dst.gov.za/mailman/listinfo/idlelo2

1 0

Day 2 of 10: What are the existing Business Models for Optical Fiber Provision?
by John Walubengo 24 Jan '07

24 Jan '07

I want to thank all those who contributed (in writing and in silence) during yesterdays 1st day of discussions. Becky will be giving us the summaries in due course. Indeed it was a warm-up to what I believe is going to be a lot more of a complex issue and hence the following long and necessary background information on the Business Models for Provisioning submarine Optical Fiber Cables (OFCs plse not the abbreviation, we shall use it frequently). I stand to be corrected but from what I gather, there seems to be two distinct Business Models for providing OFC, namely, Purely Commercial and Partly Commercial. A third approach, which is yet to be tried (implemented) but is highly acclaimed in Donor and Academic communities, is known as the Open Access approach. Now, in a Purley Commercial Setup, Private Data Communications Companies, usually the top level IBPs Internet Backbone Providers such as Cable&Wireless, BT, France Telecom, MCI, would establish a business need to build an OFC b/w continents in order to exchange traffic between their (ISP) customers that exists on both ends of the OFC. Please note that IBPs are not ideally selling bandwidth directly to the regular you and me, but rather to the ISPs Internet Service Providers who will eventually resale this Internet Access (bandwidth) to you and me. Option I: Purely commercial Model Basically, the IBPs use their own money to put up (down?) the cable and they independently decide who connects to the cables landing (exchange) points and at what rate per month. These private companies are run on a purely commercial basis with the aim of maximising profit at the shortest times possible. Indeed ISPs would not mind the potentially high-prices arising from these model as long as you and me can meet this cost when it is eventually slapped on us. This is the prevailing model for OFCs between America/Europe as well as America/Asia-Pacific but with the advantage that the OFCs in these two realms are abundant to point of having driven the costs extremely down. Option II: Partly Commercial Model. This is what has occurred with the OFC running from Portugal, across the Western Coast of Africa through to S.Africa. The so called SAT3 Cable has been provisioned through a (currently) contentious model that has given the term Consortium a suspicious connotation. At its simplest level, a group of mainly government owned (Public) Telco companies across the affected coast-line get together to form a consortium with a view to seek funds and build the OFC. Thereafter, they retain the privilege of independently deciding who connects to the cable and at what rate per month. From the SAT3 experience, the OFCs monthly rates charged are nowhere near the ones enjoyed currently being enjoyed in the developed economies for various reasons. Their high costs of OFC bandwidth has attracted pressure from Civil Society, Academia and other groups who argue that since (largely) Public Funds were used to build the cable, the Consortium Profit-motive should be moderated (regulated?) to strike a balance with the Public interest (read very cheap rates). The Consortium has ofcourse resisted this thinking arguing that their bandwidth charges are dictated by market forces specifically, Africa has over the years generated little internet traffic volumes that would have made it possible for them to drastically drop down the charges. Circumstances have therefore forced them into a High-cost, Low Volume business model. Furthermore, their Bandwidth charges are incidentally 5-10 times lower than Satellite Bandwidth costs and that should be appreciated. Option III: Open Access Model. And so, in comes the proponents of Open Access Model. In the simplest terms, they argue that Africas socio-economic renaissance hangs on the availability of cheap bandwidth or communication costs. As such, the OFC presents a historic opportunity that should not be left to prevail under short-term, commercial arrangements either within the Private or Consortium models. Open Access Models proposes radical changes at all levels (Political, Legal, Regulatory, Economical, etc) in order to provision international OFC with an alleged bias towards socio-economic development. In particular, they claim that the OFC should be co-owned by both Government and Private sector but should NOT be operated for profit; that is, it should be run at Cost by a body agreed upon. Further, access or connection to the cable should be Open to current and future stakeholders wishing to connect to it AT COST not profit. The fundamental point is that money should NOT be made out of the cable, money and lots of it, should be made out of services (BPO, eCommerce, etc) that would arise from the presence of the cable. Open Access model, foresees a Low-Cost, High Volume Business Model for the Cable. Its biggest limitation is the fact that it remains a fairly academic topic that is yet to be tested particularly in an environment whose political, regulatory and legal structures are not entirely matured. It chances of successful implementations are deemed low. Furthermore, even if it was to succeed, the sceptics are wondering:- of what use is cheap international bandwidth without African (local) Content and an equally developed domestic digital network? Might this not be just another avenue of opening up the emerging African e-markets to be exploited by the developed economies? The Question. So back to the question:- What are the existing Models for provisioning OFC? Plse voice your support, objection, correction or comments on any of the above Models giving reasons why. In addition, feel free to suggest other existing models out there or still under construction. We have only 2days on this theme so let the views start flowing. References/Acknowledgements http://www.fibreforafrica.net/ http://www.africafocus.org/docs06/apc0612.php http://www.fibreforafrica.net/ http://www.diplofoundation.org/poolbin.asp?IDPool=127 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com

3 4

Re: [Kictanet] Day 2 of 10: What are the existing Business Modelsfor Optical Fiber Provision?
by jmunsaka 24 Jan '07

24 Jan '07

Hello John Maybe what we should be addressing here are the issues of Technology to be deployed or Economic models What lessons have we learnt from other similar projects that have taken place on the continent such that we do not fall into the same traps or problems experienced What are the good practices to follow on this prject Maybe this will start the roll of infor Thanks John ---- Original Message ---- From: jwalu(a)yahoo.com To: jmunsaka(a)zamnet.zm Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 2 of 10: What are the existing Business Modelsfor Optical Fiber Provision? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:15:09 -0800 (PST) >Aih! this Day 2 is too quiet. I have copied the the last >paragraph hoping it will kickstart this thread... > >>> > >The Question. >So back to the question:- What are the existing Models >for provisioning OFC? Plse voice your support, objection, >correction or comments on any of the Models below giving >reasons why. In addition, feel free to suggest other >existing models out there or still under construction. >We have only 2days on this theme so let the views start >flowing... > >walu. > >>> >--- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I want to thank all those who contributed (in writing and >> in silence) during yesterdays 1st day of discussions. >> Becky will be giving us the summaries in due course. >> Indeed >> it was a warm-up to what I believe is going to be a lot >> more of a complex issue and hence the following long and >> necessary background information on the Business Models >> for >> Provisioning submarine Optical Fiber Cables (OFCs plse >> not the abbreviation, we shall use it frequently). >> >> I stand to be corrected but from what I gather, there >> seems >> to be two distinct Business Models for providing OFC, >> namely, Purely Commercial and Partly Commercial. A third >> approach, which is yet to be tried (implemented) but is >> highly acclaimed in Donor and Academic communities, is >> known as the Open Access approach. >> >> Now, in a Purley Commercial Setup, Private Data >> Communications Companies, usually the top level IBPs >> Internet Backbone Providers such as Cable&Wireless, BT, >> France Telecom, MCI, would establish a business need to >> build an OFC b/w continents in order to exchange traffic >> between their (ISP) customers that exists on both ends of >> the OFC. Please note that IBPs are not ideally selling >> bandwidth directly to the regular you and me, but rather >> to >> the ISPs Internet Service Providers who will eventually >> resale this Internet Access (bandwidth) to you and me. >> >> Option I: Purely commercial Model >> Basically, the IBPs use their own money to put up (down?) >> the cable and they independently decide who connects to >> the >> cables landing (exchange) points and at what rate per >> month. These private companies are run on a purely >> commercial basis with the aim of maximising profit at the >> shortest times possible. Indeed ISPs would not mind the >> potentially high-prices arising from these model as long >> as >> you and me can meet this cost when it is eventually >> slapped >> on us. This is the prevailing model for OFCs between >> America/Europe as well as America/Asia-Pacific but with >> the advantage that the OFCs in these two realms are >> abundant to point of having driven the costs extremely >> down. >> >> Option II: Partly Commercial Model. >> This is what has occurred with the OFC running from >> Portugal, across the Western Coast of Africa through to >> S.Africa. The so called SAT3 Cable has been provisioned >> through a (currently) contentious model that has given >> the >> term Consortium a suspicious connotation. At its >> simplest level, a group of mainly government owned >> (Public) >> Telco companies across the affected coast-line get >> together >> to form a consortium with a view to seek funds and build >> the OFC. Thereafter, they retain the privilege of >> independently deciding who connects to the cable and at >> what rate per month. From the SAT3 experience, the OFCs >> monthly rates charged are nowhere near the ones enjoyed >> currently being enjoyed in the developed economies for >> various reasons. >> >> Their high costs of OFC bandwidth has attracted pressure >> from Civil Society, Academia and other groups who argue >> that since (largely) Public Funds were used to build the >> cable, the Consortium Profit-motive should be moderated >> (regulated?) to strike a balance with the Public interest >> (read very cheap rates). The Consortium has ofcourse >> resisted this thinking arguing that their bandwidth >> charges >> are dictated by market forces specifically, Africa has >> over the years generated little internet traffic volumes >> that would have made it possible for them to drastically >> drop down the charges. Circumstances have therefore >> forced >> them into a High-cost, Low Volume business model. >> Furthermore, their Bandwidth charges are incidentally >> 5-10 >> times lower than Satellite Bandwidth costs and that >> should >> be appreciated. >> >> Option III: Open Access Model. >> And so, in comes the proponents of Open Access Model. In >> the simplest terms, they argue that Africas >> socio-economic >> renaissance hangs on the availability of cheap bandwidth >> or >> communication costs. As such, the OFC presents a >> historic >> opportunity that should not be left to prevail under >> short-term, commercial arrangements either within the >> Private or Consortium models. Open Access Models >> proposes >> radical changes at all levels (Political, Legal, >> Regulatory, Economical, etc) in order to provision >> international OFC with an alleged bias towards >> socio-economic development. >> >> In particular, they claim that the OFC should be co-owned >> by both Government and Private sector but should NOT be >> operated for profit; that is, it should be run at Cost by >> a >> body agreed upon. Further, access or connection to the >> cable should be Open to current and future stakeholders >> wishing to connect to it AT COST not profit. The >> fundamental point is that money should NOT be made out of >> the cable, money and lots of it, should be made out of >> services (BPO, eCommerce, etc) that would arise from the >> presence of the cable. Open Access model, foresees a >> Low-Cost, High Volume Business Model for the Cable. Its >> biggest limitation is the fact that it remains a fairly >> academic topic that is yet to be tested particularly in >> an environment whose political, regulatory and legal >> structures are not entirely matured. It chances of >> successful implementations are deemed low. Furthermore, >> even if it was to succeed, the sceptics are wondering:- >> of >> what use is cheap international bandwidth without African >> (local) Content and an equally developed domestic digital >> network? Might this not be just another avenue of >> opening >> up the emerging African e-markets to be exploited by the >> developed economies? >> >> The Question. >> So back to the question:- What are the existing Models >> for >> provisioning OFC? Plse voice your support, objection, >> correction or comments on any of the above Models giving >> reasons why. In addition, feel free to suggest other >> existing models out there or still under construction. >> We >> have only 2days on this theme so let the views start >> flowing. >> >> References/Acknowledgements >> http://www.fibreforafrica.net/ >> http://www.africafocus.org/docs06/apc0612.php >> http://www.fibreforafrica.net/ >> http://www.diplofoundation.org/poolbin.asp?IDPool=127 >> >> >> >> >> >> >_____________________________________________________________________ >_______________ >> Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who >> know. >> Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com >> > > > > >_____________________________________________________________________ >_______________ >Looking for earth-friendly autos? >Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. >http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > >_______________________________________________ >kictanet mailing list >kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke >http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/ma >ilman/options/kictanet/jmunsaka%40zamnet.zm

1 0

ITWeb comment on AfricaOnline deal
by Brian Longwe 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

All of a sudden it seems everyone wants a piece of AfricaOnline - this telco gets some criticism about their ambitions.... .....although the Uganda Telecom deal provokes some interest - would Telkom SA really add value? Regards, Brian ------------------ Telkom mum on Africa move By Damaria Senne and Nicola Mawson Posted: 22 January 2007 Telkom has refused to say whether it has bid for Kenya-based pan- African Internet company Africa Online, owned by African Lakes Corporation (ALC), a London-based group. “The reports linking Telkom SA as a bidder for Africa Online are speculative and Telkom will not comment on media speculation,” says the fixed-line operator. Media reports indicate that, two weeks ago, Kenyan-based group Africa Telecoms announced plans to offer £15.50 a share in cash for all African Lakes' shares, valuing the ordinary shares held by Africa Online's parent at £4.2 million, Balancing Act reports. However, soon after the cash offer was reportedly made, ALC confirmed that it was in discussion with interested parties for the sale of the ALC group or of Africa Online separately. Other media reports indicate Telkom is one of the interested parties bidding for the shareholding of Africa Online. Strange move An analyst, who asked that his name be withheld, says a move by Telkom to bid for an Internet service provider (ISP) would be “strange”. He says he cannot understand why the fixed-line operator would buy into an ISP rather than other, more lucrative, operations such as mobile or fixed-line communications. “If Telkom does move into Africa, adding IT to a telecoms portfolio would be the way to go, but, I'm not sure that it would add any significant value to their business,” he says. Instead, the analyst argues, the addition of an ISP may subtract value from Telkom because of low penetration rates and a lack of sophisticated technology on the continent. “Telkom has far more serious issues to sort out at this stage,” he says, referring to impending competition as Neotel enters the market and Telkom's bid for Business Connexion comes before the Competition Tribunal. Back door entry BMI-TechKnowledge senior analyst Tertia Smit says buying into an ISP would be another way for Telkom to enter the African market, with the idea of establishing a presence in African countries where Africa Online has operations, before making a bid for larger players like fixed-line and mobile operators. The ISP has operations in Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Telkom, however, would not discuss whether it has put such a strategy in place. The group, which has previously expressed its intention to explore investment opportunities internationally, has unsuccessfully bid on a number of telecoms companies, including Nitel in Nigeria. CEO Papi Molotsane also previously said the fixed-line operator plans to explore joint opportunities in Africa with Vodacom, of which Telkom holds 50%. Last year, Telkom confirmed its interest in buying into Ugandan Telecom.

1 0

Why do we need International Optical Fiber Connectivity?- 1 Day Discussion
by John Walubengo 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

Greetings All, As announced the previous week(s) on this list, we wish to kick-off the discussion on this important submarine cable developments. The general program is listed below and I would like us to get started. But 2 ground rules. ***Keep your contributions brief and to the point. (2-3 paragraphs, otherwise members may not have time to read through, if you have lengthy additions, just give us the url) ***Summary contributions shall be provided at the end of each discussion theme. Leading contributions shall be acknowledged and rewarded by sponsorship to a subsequent face-2-face meeting on the same topic. So the floor is open and the question for the next 12hrs is:Why do we need International Optical Fiber Connectivity?- Plse contributed by showing the advantages, opportunities, etc of undersea fiber cable... ~~~~~000~~~~~ The other Questions/Issues that will follow. 1) Why do we need International Optical Fiber Connectivity? (1day) 2) What are the existing (and possible) Business/Financial models for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) 3) What are the existing (and possible) Regulatory models for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) 4) What would be the ideal model for East Africans? (2days) 5) How will this (ideal) model impact on the existing stakeholders(Consumers, Operators, Regulators,etc)(2days) 6) How can conflicting stakeholder interest be resolved?(2days) ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

2 3

Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International OpticalFiberConnectivity?- 1 Day Discussion
by jmunsaka 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

Dear All The opportunities that exist in rollling our fibre in the region should not be underestimated. Here is one chance we have to have reliable service in the region whose impact will make the satellite people rethink their pricing to the region as they will have competition..ie we shall have a choice at least unlike the case now Nice day John ---- Original Message ---- From: mleonardo(a)yahoo.com To: jmunsaka(a)zamnet.zm Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International OpticalFiberConnectivity?- 1 Day Discussion Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:54:23 -0800 (PST) >The long lifespan of optic fibres viz a viz satellite, should be a >good for cost/benefit in the long run for our country so long as >ownership is right and to our advantage. > > Second, we don't have satellite up 'there' so this gives us another >opportunity to 'kujivunia kuwa wakenya' -)) > > > > > >charles nduati <charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Walu, > >The fact that we are the only ones in the whole world >who are not connected is enough justification. Unless >we want to continue to be refered to as the darkest >part of the globe. > >Charles Nduati > >--- Kagwe James wrote: > >> 1.Based on fiber optic cables which are harder to >> tap or eavesdrop thus >> more secure. >> 2. Possible to have voice, data and video ride on >> without significant >> quality deterioration. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke(a)kictanet.or.ke >> >[mailto:kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] >> On Behalf >> Of John Walubengo >> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:27 AM >> To: Kagwe James >> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International >> Optical >> FiberConnectivity?- 1 Day Discussion >> >> Hey! >> >> 12hrs are ending without an input on the 1st and >> easier >> theme! The silence is too loud! to reduce it, here >> is why I >> think we need international optical submarine >> connectivity >> (as opposed to Satellite). >> >> 1. It is more reliable than satellite connectivity >> 2. It is much more faster (i.e) delay time from one >> continent to the other is less. >> 3. It has unlimited bandwidth capabilities and by >> extension >> 4. It tends (should) be cheaper to buy per Megabit. >> >> Anything I may have left out? Brian, Mucheru and >> others? >> Plse clarify, object or add. >> >> walu. >> >> --- John Walubengo wrote: >> >> > Greetings All, >> > >> > As announced the previous week(s) on this list, we >> wish >> > to >> > kick-off the discussion on this important >> submarine cable >> > developments. >> > >> > The general program is listed below and I would >> like us >> > to >> > get started. But 2 ground rules. >> > >> > ***Keep your contributions brief and to the point. >> (2-3 >> > paragraphs, otherwise members may not have time to >> read >> > through, if you have lengthy additions, just give >> us the >> > url) >> > ***Summary contributions shall be provided at the >> end of >> > each discussion theme. Leading contributions shall >> be >> > acknowledged and rewarded by sponsorship to a >> subsequent >> > face-2-face meeting on the same topic. >> > >> > So the floor is open and the question for the next >> 12hrs >> > is:Why do we need International Optical Fiber >> > Connectivity?- >> > Plse contributed by showing the advantages, >> > opportunities, >> > etc of undersea fiber cable... >> > >> > ~~~~~000~~~~~ >> > The other Questions/Issues that will follow. >> > >> > 1) Why do we need International Optical Fiber >> > Connectivity? >> > (1day) >> > 2) What are the existing (and possible) >> > Business/Financial >> > models for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) >> > 3) What are the existing (and possible) Regulatory >> models >> > for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) >> > 4) What would be the ideal model for East >> Africans? >> > (2days) >> > 5) How will this (ideal) model impact on the >> existing >> > stakeholders(Consumers, Operators, >> Regulators,etc)(2days) >> > 6) How can conflicting stakeholder interest be >> > resolved?(2days) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >_____________________________________________________________________ >___ >> ____________ >> > The fish are biting. >> > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search >> > Marketing. >> > >> >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com >> > >> >> >> >> >> >_____________________________________________________________________ >___ >> ____________ >> 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/jkagwe%40aforbes.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/charlesnduati2002%40ya >hoo.co.uk >> > > >CHARLES N. NDUATI >BUSINESS MANAGER >JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD >JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY >JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA >P. O. BOX 79324-00200 >NAIROBI, KENYA >TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 >MOBILE:254-722728815 >EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk >www.jkuat.ac.ke > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new >Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.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/mleonardo%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------- >Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful >email and get things done faster.

2 1

Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International Optical FiberConnectivity?- 1 Day Discussion
by Kagwe James 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

1.Based on fiber optic cables which are harder to tap or eavesdrop thus more secure. 2. Possible to have voice, data and video ride on without significant quality deterioration. -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke(a)kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:27 AM To: Kagwe James Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Why do we need International Optical FiberConnectivity?- 1 Day Discussion Hey! 12hrs are ending without an input on the 1st and easier theme! The silence is too loud! to reduce it, here is why I think we need international optical submarine connectivity (as opposed to Satellite). 1. It is more reliable than satellite connectivity 2. It is much more faster (i.e) delay time from one continent to the other is less. 3. It has unlimited bandwidth capabilities and by extension 4. It tends (should) be cheaper to buy per Megabit. Anything I may have left out? Brian, Mucheru and others? Plse clarify, object or add. walu. --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Greetings All, > > As announced the previous week(s) on this list, we wish > to > kick-off the discussion on this important submarine cable > developments. > > The general program is listed below and I would like us > to > get started. But 2 ground rules. > > ***Keep your contributions brief and to the point. (2-3 > paragraphs, otherwise members may not have time to read > through, if you have lengthy additions, just give us the > url) > ***Summary contributions shall be provided at the end of > each discussion theme. Leading contributions shall be > acknowledged and rewarded by sponsorship to a subsequent > face-2-face meeting on the same topic. > > So the floor is open and the question for the next 12hrs > is:Why do we need International Optical Fiber > Connectivity?- > Plse contributed by showing the advantages, > opportunities, > etc of undersea fiber cable... > > ~~~~~000~~~~~ > The other Questions/Issues that will follow. > > 1) Why do we need International Optical Fiber > Connectivity? > (1day) > 2) What are the existing (and possible) > Business/Financial > models for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) > 3) What are the existing (and possible) Regulatory models > for Optical Fiber Submarine Cables?(2days) > 4) What would be the ideal model for East Africans? > (2days) > 5) How will this (ideal) model impact on the existing > stakeholders(Consumers, Operators, Regulators,etc)(2days) > 6) How can conflicting stakeholder interest be > resolved?(2days) > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > Marketing. > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > _______________________________________________ > 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com > ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 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/jkagwe%40aforbes.co.ke

5 4

JKUAT CERTIFICATE IN IT SECURITY
by Bill Kagai 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

JKUAT CERTIFICATE IN IT SECURITY - [NOW INCORPORATING PERSPECTIVES FROM THE INDUSTRY] DATES - 12 - 16 February 2007 [Full-Time - 8.30am to 5.00pm] VENUE JKUAT e-Government Academy- Juja Campus http://www.jkuategovacademy.ac.ke/ COURSE CONTENT This is a pioneer industry driven executive course with real life experiences in the Kenya ICT Industry. In this executive course, Mr. Edwin Wambugu will deliver lectures on how KREP Bank, Celtel and PacketStream have managed to overcome security issues in launching the SokoTele system that allows transfer of money through the Celtel network. Over and above the industry perspectives, this is a unique, authoritative, high-value, hands-on practical course which will provide participants with essential understanding of the tools, methodologies and vulnerabilities that hackers/intruders could employ to exploit the IT systems of their organisations. Most organisations now realise that in order to defend themselves against the threat of attack by hackers, crackers, and indeed any individual intent on causing disruption to their IT systems, IT staff must have an informed and current understanding of the present-day methodologies, tools, and vulnerabilities which allow these exploits to happen. During this course, participants will learn about the hacker mindset and become familiar with the tools and methodologies that are used to attack systems. Using state-of-the-art classroom setups, delegates work with LINUX/UNIX and Windows systems, and associated server software. A wide range of hacking tools and security auditing tools are used during the course. COURSE OBJECTIVES This course fulfills two vital objectives for anyone working in IT systems administration, IT security or IT support roles: 1.The course builds a strong awareness of the wide range of risks and threats now faced even by organisations which believe they have strong security solutions in place. 2.The course provides delegates with a solid understanding of the control measures that need to be put in place in order to limit an organisation's vulnerabilities and risk of attack. By the end of this course, the participant will have learnt about: -The tools, techniques and methodologies employed by hackers in a dedicated lab environment. -How hackers can collect and assimilate information about an organisation's infrastructure whilst avoiding detection. -How information may be used to assess your IT systems' weaknesses and subsequently launch an attack against target systems. -The techniques that are typically used to gain access into a system. -The types of tools that are used to elevate access on a system. -The techniques used by hackers to conceal their tracks and the methods via which access to a target system may be maintained. -The limitations of security firewall systems and the tools used to bypass them. -How hackers bypass Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). -Measures that you can employ to secure and protect information against hacker attacks. COURSE SPECIAL FEATURES -Targeted Tracks: You will benefit from the expertise of industry front-runners, learn from real-world case studies and leave with everything you need to know to safeguard your wireless networks and devices -Tangible Take-Aways will be given to you including useful documents, guidelines and checklists that you can use as a springboard to your own initiatives. -Optimum networking opportunities are available through breaks, receptions, and luncheons. You will have the opportunity to talk shop with information security professionals and you will return to the office with new ideas and fresh contacts. -Obtain materials in 2 easy ways: -At the Training you will receive bound volumes of the conference materials -After the Training: download the materials you want from the web with a special access code and burn on your CDs WHO SHOULD ATTEND Information Security Officers, Directors and Managers; Information Technology Auditors, Managers and Staff Network Security Managers and Administrators; Local Area Network Administrators Technical Support Staff; System Administrators; Others charged with mobile and wireless security responsibilities COST – Kshs 45,000 inclusive of Transport, Lunch and Teas TRANSPORT - JKUAT e-Government Academy will avail transport from KICC at 7.20am and from the JKUAT e-Government Academy at 5.20pm. HOW TO REGISTER - Please register by 2nd February 2007. Application forms can be obtained from the contacts provided below. Joel Kimilu Training Manager JKUAT e-Government Academy Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology P. O. Box 62000-00200, Nairobi Tel: 067-52420 /0736 524200/ 0724 256 696 Email. jkuates(a)jkuates.jkuat.ac.ke Edith Mbaya Circuits & Packets Communications Ltd P. O. Box 20311-00200, Nairobi Tel: 20-2728332 Email. info(a)circuitspackets.co.ke

1 0