From the proposal one can deduce that we now intend to turn around Net Neutrality on its head and give ISPs/Telcos a legal standing to charge content providers and application service providers for the privilege of
Listers As a followup to my posting on *Africa (and Kenya's?) Position to WCIT, Dubai, *I thought I would pen some thoughts on Net Neutrality as a way to get our minds thinking ahead of tomorrow morning's Stakeholders Meeting on WCIT-12 at the Grand Regency. According to Wikipedia:- *Network neutrality* (also *net neutrality*, *Internet neutrality*) is a principle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle> that advocates government regulation of Internet service providers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider> ,[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-Information_Week-1> preventing ISPs from restricting consumers' access to networks that participate in the Internet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication. Network owners can't interfere with content, applications, services, and devices of users' choice and remains open to all users and uses. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile> infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even block out competitors. (The term "net neutrality" didn't come into popular use until several years later, however.) The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States. Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_service> model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity>, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. [5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-no-tolls-5> Vinton Cerf <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinton_Cerf>, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee>, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality. Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[8]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-books.google.com-8> Despite this claim, there has been a single case where an Internet service provider, Comcast, intentionally slowed peer-to-peer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer> (P2P) communications.[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-9> Still other companies have begun to use deep packet inspection<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellphone_overage_charges>, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-10> Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_discrimination> of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service>, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kahn>, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-kahn-vid-11> Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.[12]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#cite_note-podhoretz-post-12> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality So what does the Africa Position on ITRs (International Telecommunications Regulations) mean to us? their customers to access any website. What would be the effect of this? As I said in my earlier posting the principle around this is flawed. Why? Because this opens up the opportunity for discrimination and anti-competitive tendencies. We are aware now that some Telcos and ISPs are moving into Content Provision through the Triple Play Mantra (TV, Phone and Internet). What is to stop discrimination in the guise of competition? We must be careful that we do not put a regulator's stamp in a competitiveness environment in favor of one player /industry against another. Nation, Standard, Citizen, Iqra, Google, CIO East Africa, Ma3Racer, Pesapal, Facebook, Twitter etc will all then be bundled together and the prerogative of the ISP/Telco will be what rules and NOT Market Conditions. I have argued before about the ISP/Telco space and whether the current scenario calls for a re-thinking of the business as usual model. There seems to be a tacit agreement that something is amiss where some players (the majority it seems) seem to be bleeding red ink. I cannot presume to be an expert in this space but could the logical step be one of sharing infrastructure to reduce Capex as opposed to everyone running around digging up the whole country in an 'arms race'? Is this an area where the regulator can assist? There is a legend around how Dr.Ndemo (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information & Communication) managed to get the first undersea cable landed in Nairobi despite industry not pulling in the same direction (I don't know how true or false this is but the fact that it is being bandied around is in itself a red flag). I suggested possibly that the industry may want to embrace the Principles of 'Frenemy'? Let's ensure we maintain the current status quo that has enabled innovation and entreprenuership in the ICT Sector to blossom. The current discourse about whether 'Silicon Savannah' needs to grow up and move towards creating viable and sustainable businesses is what we should discuss NOT seek to change the very environment that made this possible. My two cents (with a bull-dog mentality) :-) Ali Hussein PS. It would be interesting to know the position of KICT Board, KITOS, iHub, Nailab (and other hubs), TESPOK etc. On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:27 PM, "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> wrote: Ali**** ** ** Thanks for submitting substantive comments on the African Common Proposals on the ITRs. **** ** ** I wish to invite you to the Stakeholders Meeting on WCIT-12 scheduled for Tuesday 13th November 2012 at the Laico Regency Hotel starting from 9.00a.m. Your input together with others that have been raised to date shall be addressed during the said stakeholders meeting. **** ** ** Listers wishing to participate in the meeting are requested to send their confirmations to Mary Kioko through kioko@cck.go.ke as soon as possible.**** ** ** Best regards,**** ** ** *Christopher Wambua* *Manager/Communications* *Consumer and Public Affairs Division * *Communications Commission of Kenya* *P.O. Box 14448, NAIROBI 00800* *KENYA* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* kictanet [ mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke<kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] *On Behalf Of *Ali Hussein *Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2012 9:28 AM *To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* [kictanet] Africa (and Kenya's?) Position to WCIT, Dubai**** ** ** Listers**** ** ** I have serious misgivings about the Africa Position to WCIT as presented by CCK. **** ** ** I will highlight the main & pertinent proposed changes. There are good clauses within the proposal that are pertinent and in line with current trends. For example:-**** ** ** *38A 4.3A Members States shall ensure transparency of end-user prices and the provision of clear information on how to access the services and the prices thereof, in particular to avoid unreasonable or surprising bills for international services (e.g. mobile roaming and data roaming), and shall ensure that Operating Agencies take the necessary measures to fulfill these requirements.***** *Reasons: This provision considers the users' right to have transparent information on the international charges, bearing in mind the current excessive data charges for roaming users.***** * * *My Comments***** *This deals with consumer protection and it is high time that it becomes an issue of international concern.* * * *54A 6.5A* *Member states shall ensure that each party in a negotiation or agreement related to or arising out of international connectivity matters, will have access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and will have recourse to the relevant regulatory or competition authorities of the other party's state.* * * *Reasons: To provide for alternative dispute resolution and other mechanisms, to preserve the interests of Member States and avoid abuse on their small market power operators.* * * *My Comments*** *Commendable as this sets clear guidelines on dispute resolution and possibly can guide against monopolistic behavior from dominant players.* * * *Environmental Issues* *Reasons: To address the importance of the issue of saving the environment. ADD AFCP/xyzA1/89* *57B 8A.1 Member States shall cooperate to encourage operating agencies and industry to adopt energy efficiency international standards and best practices, including disclosure and labeling schemes, so as to reduce energy consumption of communications facilities and installations.* *Reasons: To request Member States to cooperate to encourage taking measures to reduce energy consumption.* *57C 8A.2 Member States shall cooperate to encourage operating agencies and the industry to take-back schemes and recycling management facilities to reduce e-waste resulting from communications facilities and installations, [and to avoid causing harm to other Member States from such e-waste.] | [and to ensure that such practices does not cause harm to other Member States.]* *Reasons: To request Member States to cooperate to encourage operating agencies and the industry to consider avoid causing harm to other Member States as a result of e-waste and should address also not causing harm due to disposal of e-waste.* * * *My Comments*** *Commendable as these are in line with the current popular discourse on environmental issues.* * * *The next three clauses leave me cold as they:-* **** 1. Propose to redefine Telecommunication regulation to include content developers and providers**** **** 2. Redefine the rules of engagement in Commercial Negotiations and Contracts as this seems to allude that regulators can compel parties in the content development and distribution space to sign revenue share agreements with Service Providers in the Telco sector**** **** I would like CCK to please clarify these clauses below and to please clear the air if what I have said above and below is inaccurate. **** **** *ADD AFCP/xyzA1/63***** *41K 6.0.4 Member States shall take measures to ensure that fair compensation is received for carried traffic (e.g. interconnection or termination).* * * *Reasons: promotes to a more sustainable model for the international telecommunications ecosystem. Huge investments are needed to respond to the dramatic traffic growth, this should not be generated mainly and from the general user side, but from fair and innovative commercial agreements between infrastructure operators and telecommunications applications providers* * * *My Comments*** *This seems to allude to the issue of Telecommunications Applications Providers (TAPs). What I found interesting is that the definition of TAPs has not been defined in the document. Or did I miss it? So, if I'm to let my imagination go I would assume that TAPs here alludes to platform Providers, developers and owners (read: Facebook, Google, The different Ad Networks, Media Houses, gaming developers like Ma3Racer, ihub, ilab mlab developers and my nephew who is just about to launch the next Facebook etc). * * * *Who is to define this 'fair compensation'? is it the purview of the regulator to purport to define this? This I believe goes beyond the issue of Telecommunications Regulation and starts to touch on the issue of how free markets operate. We are treading on very thin ice here..* * * *41L 6.0.5 Member States shall ensure that their regulatory frameworks drive the Operating Agencies to establish mutual commercial agreements with providers of international communication applications and services in alignment with principles of fair competition, innovation, adequate quality of service and security.* *Reasons: To foster increase in the customer base and enhancement in the quality of experience (QoE), by offering more choices and more confidence in those offerings.* * * *My Comments*** *.....drive the Operating Agencies (defined in the document as **Any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service.) **to establish mutual commercial agreements with providers of international communication applications and services in alignment with principles of fair competition, innovation, adequate quality of service and security.* * * *What does this really mean really? Is the state now going to purport to 'coerce' or compel commercial enterprises to enter into commercial agreements? My earlier comments also apply.* * * *41M 6.0.6 The Member States shall take measures to ensure that Operating Agencies have the right to charge providers of international communication applications and services appropriate access charges based on the agreed quality of service.* *Reasons: To balance the revenues across the ecosystem, thus avail revenues for operating agencies to invest in high bandwidth international infrastructures, which will benefit the end users and provide them with innovative services, while lowering ultimately their connectivity charges.* * * *My Comments*** *Is the state now abrogating to itself the right to tell content providers to pay (to Telcos) for people to access their platforms and websites? I'm well aware this is primarily targeted to the big boys - Facebook, Google, the big global media houses etc. however, who is to stop the telco or ISP in Mongolia or Thailand where Ma3Racer (a Kenyan popular gaming platform that has most of its users in Asia) from blocking it and asking it for access fees? *** * * *Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't these content providers already paying for hosting anyway? What really is going on here? *** * * *Contrary to what this Africa Proposal purports to do 'benefit the end users and provide them with innovative services, while lowering ultimately their connectivity charges' my humble opinion is that it will have the long term effect of killing innovation and the openness of the Internet which has basically been responsible for a lot of the innovations that we are currently seeing in this space.*** * * *Overall I believe that these proposals are misinformed and look suspiciously similar to the ETNO Proposals:-*** * * http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.19/wcit-etno-proposals-not-so-bad** ** *Dear all, I propose that we agree on a high level principle on how we propose this country to move where the ITRs are involved (the lawyers can then draft it in legalese). We in Kenya are at the forefront of ICT innovation in Africa and indeed in the world. It would be a shame to be seen by the rest of the world as traitors to the principals that made this possible. And I believe that the Africa Position is exactly that..*** * * *I know that this posting may make a number of constituents unhappy but I urge all of us to put the country first.. *** ** ** Ali Hussein**** CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd**** Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd**** ** ** +254 773/713 601113**** ** ** Sent from my iPad****