Eric, Good observations thats why vigilance is required. The url did not work for me after several attempts. Please cross check and resend. Cheers, FE --- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
Dear Brian and all,
The link to downloading Eme Essien's presentation is http://www.ictpark.com= /Presentations/_Eme%20Essien%20-%20EASSy.pps
Am concerned that Eme's EA fiber backhaul picture on slide 9 in the ppt is = different from the NEPAD rationalised network which is "africa_eassy.png" a= ttached. The engineering argument is that "africa_eassy.png" is a better bu= ild, on the original "eassy_basic_route_config.jpg" attached due to the int= ervention of the E-Africa Commission of NEPAD at a meeting in June 2004.
Question: why are we now seeing a different backhaul from IFC/WBG and if so= how are they going to finance EASSy seperately from the EA backhaul on sli= de 9?
Eric here
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jim Forster <forster@cisco.com> Reply-To: Discuss@afrispa.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:36:40 -0800
Brian,
Great info, thanks for sending...
I will forward to some others...
-- Jim
From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric@afrispa.org> Cc: Subject: [Kictanet] Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference Reply-To: Kenya ICT Policy - kictanet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> To: Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Brian,
The EASSy consortium as a matter of necessity must adhere to the principles= of Open Access as enshrined below so that KENET and the UbuntuNet alliance= who have money to invest in the project should NOT be asked to present an = international gateway license in order to be allowed. It is like i have mon= ey to invest in a good business and you say i need a license to invest; i d= ont know if this is a new rule in the VC world?
Primarily, the rules for owership and investment in the cable should be as = open to all as the rules of access to the use of the cable for provision of= service by all the players along the value chain.
If the argument is to do country specific arrangements then the investors f= rom those countries must have an equal say in how the landing station is st= ructured and managed without any favours towards incumbency. In which case = it is the interest of public policy that they give equal time and opportuni= ty to the non-incumbent operators and services projects to get on baord.
Eric here
NB: Send the ppt but more so i would like to know what the EASSy guys say t= o this?
There is an urgent need for new approaches to financing and building out in= formation and communication infrastructure to address this large unmet dema= nd for information and communication services. Technological innovation hel= ps make these new approaches possible and more flexible approaches to finan= cing, service delivery and regulation will make them effective and sustaina= ble. One approach (or set of approaches) gaining increased visibility and c= redibility is increasingly referred to as the =93Open Access Model=94.
The urgency, and the viability, of these new models are driven in part by t= he growing (and inevitable) move toward Internet Protocol (IP)-based commun= ication networks. This in turn implies the move toward a =93layered=94 mod= el of these networks, where there is a logical distinction between: =95 The physical layer (the actual physical infrastructure); =95 The logical layer (managing the connection between the physical infrast= ructure and higher layers); =95 The applications layer (which includes things such as the Web browser),= and =95 The content layer (voice, data or images conveyed by the network.)
Each layer has a set of functional rules that allow it to interface with th= e other layer and for information to flow over the network. Any player, in= cluding new players, can use different elements of the network, or the enti= re network, to provide services. The IP-based architecture of the network = makes it possible for services to be provided, and innovation to occur, at = any point on the network, including, notably, the edges, where the network = can be further =93grown=94 as well.
Different segments of the market =96 and different layers of the network --= will naturally have different structures, and will attract players with di= fferent business models. For example, in most countries and regions, it wi= ll not be feasible or logical to have more than one or two providers of bac= kbone infrastructure. The key issue in an Open Access model is to assure t= hat no player in one of the layers can block access to another layer or to = the rest of the network through having dominant market power in one or anot= her layer.
Key Principles This suggests a number of key principles of Open Access networks.
1. Anyone can play Particularly because of the potential for locally-provided services and net= work growth =93at the edges=94 made possible by flexible technology and ope= n network models, Open Access models should assure that any provider willin= g to play by the rules can =93plug and play=94 in the network.
2. Technological neutrality Regulation should be technology-neutral, taking into account the cost and p= hysical properties of the technologies themselves. No one should be stopped= from using a particular technology and indeed a progressive regulator woul= d encourage cost reduction through technology innovation.
One needs to recognize that in future a wide range of applications will req= uire higher bandwidth. But there may be no significant (order of magnitude)= improvements in the performance of fibre, particularly its installation. H= owever with wireless there will be significant improvements in performance = and cost/capacity ratio and therefore wireless solutions will become more a= ttractive in local distribution applications.
3. Fair and non-discriminatory competition at all layers Competition should be fair and non-discriminatory. There should be no preda= tory pricing, cross-subsidisation or aggressive cross-ownership. Regulators= will need to be capable of dealing with a range of competition issues to e= nsure a genuine level playing field, and to prevent market strength in one = layer from creating unfair competitive advantage at another layer. For all = services at a given layer, there ought to be at least two providers and whe= never there are not 4-5 providers of a particular service, issues of compet= itive position would need to be examined.
What is true for countries at a national level holds true at a regional and= international level. Ideally any country should have a choice of at least = two providers to connect to neighbours and the rest of the world. The EU co= mpetition policy formulation of =93significant market power=94 provides a u= seful benchmark against which competitive position might be examined.
4. Transparency to ensure fair trading within and between layers Competitive markets thrive on transparent information about market prices a= nd service. Internal accounting processes in companies need to be sufficien= tly transparent to enforce fair trading. If there is tradable bandwidth = =96 particularly at an international level =96 it will allow clear comparis= ons to be made between different providers. There needs to be greater level= s of consumer information to allow comparisons between =93offers=94, includ= ing offers at the interface between layers.
The different roles of players need to be transparent. In order to create t= rust in the market, infrastructure providers need to be clear that they wil= l not enter service markets to compete with their customers. The regulator = exists to encourage competition rather than restrict it but to do so in a w= ay that genuinely encourages increased investment and lower access costs to= communications technology. Where appropriate, regulation becomes =93light-= touch=94 rather than prohibitive or restrictive. Government exists to creat= e the legal framework through which competition issues can be mediated.
5. Everyone can connect to everyone else at the layer interface. In order for a competitive market to function, everyone must be able to con= nect to everyone else. Service providers would be able to get access to inf= rastructure from the local to the international level, whether they were sm= all or large entities.
There will be inevitable interconnection rate issues where the interests of= the infrastructure provider in keeping re-investing in the network need to= be weighed against the opportunities that can be created for greater level= s of new business.
6. Devolved rather than centralised solutions It is important to ensure that the =93intelligence=94 in the network is to = be found at the edges of the infrastructure rather than at its centre. In o= ther words, the infrastructure provider should not be allowed to reserve fo= r itself all of the functions that create value in the market.
In practical terms, it should be possible to create a local entity that can= operate on the small or medium-scale and can =93plug into=94 the network w= ithout needing to cede control over its activities to the infrastructure pr= ovider. Local operators need to be able to own and control a significant le= vel of =93intelligence=94 in the system (eg billing, features, etc) to enco= urage open access.
NB: This note draws from a study prepared for the WorldBank through InfoDev= on =93Leveraging New Technologies and Open Access Models: Options for Impr= oving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a focus on sub-Saharan = Africa=94, by a team consisting of Anders Comstedt, Russell Southwood and E= ric Osiakwan, under the auspices of the consulting firm Spintrack
On Feb 28, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Brian Longwe wrote:
Hi all,
Here are my notes from a presentation that has
Eme Essien of the World Bank/IFC
i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get hold of it...
-----------------------------------------
EASSY Presentation from World Bank
Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank
Shared Objectives: - provide more affordaclbe ICT access - meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region - spur followon ICT investment in region - provide cheaper alternative to satellite - encourage greater connectivity and integration within region - ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO GLOBAL NETWORK
10 Landing points - Sudan - Djibouti - Somalia - Kenya - Tanzania - Mdagascar - Mozambique - South Africa
Eastern Loop Northern Loop Southern Loop
World Bank Group Role - assist parties deliver on shared objectives - facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase private sector participation - Conditionalities - liberalisation of international segment - Open Access - non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all operators - identify funding gaps - build capacity in relevant regional organisation
Conditions for Success OPEN ACCES - maximises project's development impact - clised club deal SAT3 structures have had
just been given by limited impact on
traffic, pricing, development - capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line operators etc....
Challenges - 30-ish members - Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents - countries with differing progress on reform agenda - differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT needs etc - no single champion to establish common interests
-- 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://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/feanywhere%40yahoo.co.uk
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com