Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
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 just been given by 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 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" --
I must point out that Eme very clearly said that the diagram in her presentation was a "rough sketch". I however don't have any more information besides the fact that phases of the East African Loop are at various stages of completion with Mombasa-Kampala almost complete. (Probably related to the KDN Mombasa-Nairobi backhaul that is being launched this Friday). Neverhteless - I think that we should make every effort to be in close contact with the bank as these projects are implemented and more importantly that they should come for the workshop in Mombasa. I have sent Eme some details but haven't had a response yet. Maybe someone, (Alice?) should put a call through? Regards, Brian On 1 Mar 2006, at 12:59, Eric Osiakwan 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 just been given by 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 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" --
<africa_eassy.png> <eassy_basic_route_conf.jpg> _______________________________________________ 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/brian%40pure-id.com
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
participants (3)
-
Brian Longwe -
Eric Osiakwan -
Florence Etta