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@SPINTRACK.COM < http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf > /Alex John Walubengo <jwalu@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.
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare 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
LK there 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@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@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 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
wrote:
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html _______________________________________________ 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/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.