Telkom Kenya cries foul over social media’s free ride on its - Corporate News
Listers This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure. http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya-cries-foul-ov... What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks? What would be next? A small fee for every website? #NetNeutrality Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi Sent from my iPad
Don't forget, the customer is charged for data both sent and received - so where's the 'free ride'? Tony On 14/09/2016, awatila--- via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
a customer buys data to access internet based services.
the telko has already been paid by the customer so Google et al do not have to pay an additional fee
On 14 Sep 2016 07:16, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya-cries-foul-ov...
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
-- Tony White
Good morning The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa. Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back. *The net neutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and the bellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content and application providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) states that the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve a problem that the “Netheads” have proved themselves unable or unwilling to tackle, that of high quality video over IP.* *Given that US government is keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1] <#_ftn1>. It can be argued that the aggressive fiber rollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value making it difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies, after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits not necessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysing the market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephone companies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for rural service. Access charges are designed to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities and the compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claiming more in the depreciation and the value of their assets. * *Regulators may therefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover network cost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implement politically on the basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to pay access since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of their perceived competitive advantage. * *Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. However following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key government priority. Consequently, open access to the Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject to legality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCC is thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] <#_ftn2> to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.* *On Wednesday, 28th June 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunications bill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators from blocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of the amendment could herald the return of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along the whole value chain. Despite the fact that the access network has been considered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably construct and provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms (Spulber, 2002)[3] <#_ftn3>, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutrality legislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006). * *The higher costs of a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services[4] <#_ftn4>. Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination.* *The potential return of the two tiered Internet may further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internet organizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure either through Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal access funds. This argument is based on the fact that these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus there is a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments to guarantee national security, and I concur.* ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> FCC defines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction. [2] <#_ftnref2> On February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service would be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiring VoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to its customers. *Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html>* [3] <#_ftnref3> This theory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economies of scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost and not precluding competition [4] <#_ftnref4> Scott (2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their free services through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates, resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their rates to account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download content sites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T and Verizon. Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/539550-3379938-9liqm4/
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
*Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Interesting paper Mwende, What would the internet be without OTT and content? Back to basics. Regards On 9/14/16, Mwende Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Good morning
The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa.
Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back.
*The net neutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and the bellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content and application providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) states that the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve a problem that the “Netheads” have proved themselves unable or unwilling to tackle, that of high quality video over IP.*
*Given that US government is keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1] <#_ftn1>. It can be argued that the aggressive fiber rollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value making it difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies, after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits not necessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysing the market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephone companies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for rural service. Access charges are designed to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities and the compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claiming more in the depreciation and the value of their assets. *
*Regulators may therefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover network cost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implement politically on the basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to pay access since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of their perceived competitive advantage. *
*Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. However following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key government priority. Consequently, open access to the Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject to legality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCC is thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] <#_ftn2> to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.*
*On Wednesday, 28th June 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunications bill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators from blocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of the amendment could herald the return of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along the whole value chain. Despite the fact that the access network has been considered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably construct and provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms (Spulber, 2002)[3] <#_ftn3>, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutrality legislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006). *
*The higher costs of a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services[4] <#_ftn4>. Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination.*
*The potential return of the two tiered Internet may further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internet organizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure either through Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal access funds. This argument is based on the fact that these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus there is a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments to guarantee national security, and I concur.*
------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> FCC defines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction.
[2] <#_ftnref2> On February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service would be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiring VoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to its customers. *Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html>*
[3] <#_ftnref3> This theory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economies of scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost and not precluding competition
[4] <#_ftnref4> Scott (2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their free services through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates, resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their rates to account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download content sites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T and Verizon.
Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/539550-3379938-9liqm4/
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
*Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
I am just wondering what would happen to their data revenue if Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter and Netflix users stop using the network for those services. Is there business not selling data regardless of the use of the data? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 14 September 2016 at 11:44, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Interesting paper Mwende,
What would the internet be without OTT and content? Back to basics.
Regards
Good morning
The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa.
Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back.
*The net neutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and the bellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content and application providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) states that the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve a problem that the “Netheads” have
themselves unable or unwilling to tackle, that of high quality video over IP.*
*Given that US government is keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1] <#_ftn1>. It can be argued that the aggressive fiber rollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value making it difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies, after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits not necessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysing the market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephone companies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for rural service. Access charges are designed to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities and the compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claiming more in the depreciation and the value of their assets. *
*Regulators may therefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover network cost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implement politically on
basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to pay access since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of their perceived competitive advantage. *
*Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. However following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key government priority. Consequently, open access to the Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject to legality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCC is thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] <#_ftn2> to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.*
*On Wednesday, 28th June 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunications bill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators from blocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of
amendment could herald the return of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along the whole value chain. Despite the fact
On 9/14/16, Mwende Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: proved the the that
the access network has been considered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably construct and provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms (Spulber, 2002)[3] <#_ftn3>, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutrality legislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006). *
*The higher costs of a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services[4] <#_ftn4>. Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination.*
*The potential return of the two tiered Internet may further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internet organizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure either through Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal access funds. This argument is based on the fact that these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus there is a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments to guarantee national security, and I concur.*
------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> FCC defines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction.
[2] <#_ftnref2> On February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service would be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiring VoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to its customers. *Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html>*
[3] <#_ftnref3> This theory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economies of scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost and not precluding competition
[4] <#_ftnref4> Scott (2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their free services through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates, resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their rates to account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download content sites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T and Verizon.
Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/539550-3379938-9liqm4/
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
*Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldafrica.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Thats an interesting question Mwendwa, especially taking into light these players are setting up Internet facilities. The way the future goes is that if Internet is a penetrating force like it is today the traditional "Telco" model will be a redundant feature to have in our smart phone models. I wrote abit on this earlier (The Telecommunications Revolution is here): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/telecommunication- revolution-here-ahmed-mohamed-maawy?trk=prof-post On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
I am just wondering what would happen to their data revenue if Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter and Netflix users stop using the network for those services. Is there business not selling data regardless of the use of the data?
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh
On 14 September 2016 at 11:44, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Interesting paper Mwende,
What would the internet be without OTT and content? Back to basics.
Regards
Good morning
The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa.
Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back.
*The net neutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and the bellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content and application providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) states that the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve a problem that the “Netheads” have
themselves unable or unwilling to tackle, that of high quality video over IP.*
*Given that US government is keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1] <#_ftn1>. It can be argued that the aggressive fiber rollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value making it difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies, after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits not necessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysing the market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephone companies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for rural service. Access charges are designed to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities and the compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claiming more in the depreciation and the value of their assets. *
*Regulators may therefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover network cost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implement politically on
basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to pay access since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of their perceived competitive advantage. *
*Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. However following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key government priority. Consequently, open access to the Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject to legality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCC is thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] <#_ftn2> to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.*
*On Wednesday, 28th June 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunications bill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators from blocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of
amendment could herald the return of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along the whole value chain. Despite the fact
On 9/14/16, Mwende Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: proved the the that
the access network has been considered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably construct and provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms (Spulber, 2002)[3] <#_ftn3>, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutrality legislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006). *
*The higher costs of a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services[4] <#_ftn4>. Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination.*
*The potential return of the two tiered Internet may further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internet organizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure either through Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal access funds. This argument is based on the fact that these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus there is a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments to guarantee national security, and I concur.*
------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> FCC defines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction.
[2] <#_ftnref2> On February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service would be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiring VoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to its customers. *Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html>*
[3] <#_ftnref3> This theory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economies of scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost and not precluding competition
[4] <#_ftnref4> Scott (2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their free services through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates, resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their rates to account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download content sites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T and Verizon.
Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/539550-3379938-9liqm4/
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
*Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldafrica.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/ultimateprogramer%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- *Ahmed Maawy* Executive Director - SwahiliBox / M-Power (CBO) Curator - Global Shapers Mombasa Hub Ambassador - Open Knowledge Director - Startup Grind Mombasa Software Developer - AJ+ / EveryLayer (KE) +254 714 960 627 Skype: ultimateprogramer swahilibox.co.ke globalshapers.org www.okfn.org <http://okfn.org/> startupgrind.com ajplus.net www.everylayer.com
@Mwende, Ali et al, If up to some academic reading with policy implications, here is some research data on this Zero rating (free ride) issue. Research covered the case for Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya & SA.
A fresh, public-interested assessment of the zero-rating of certain applications (apps) and platforms in the African mobile prepaid environment is overdue. This policy paper examines the issue of zero-rating within the contexts of the range of discounted and dynamically-priced African mobile network operator (MNO) products, and the priority public policy issues facing the continent in relation to the Internet. The research is based on a four country assessment-Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.
More @ Research ICT Africa
| | | Research ICT Africa By Creative Storm | | | orhttp://researchictafrica.net/home.php?h=190 walu. From: Mwende Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: Mwende Njiraini <mwende.njiraini@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Telkom Kenya cries foul over social media’s free ride on its - Corporate News Good morning The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa. Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back. The netneutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and thebellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content andapplication providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) statesthat the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve aproblem that the “Netheads” have proved themselves unable or unwilling totackle, that of high quality video over IP. Given that US governmentis keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1]. It can be argued that the aggressive fiberrollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value makingit difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies,after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits notnecessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysingthe market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephonecompanies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidiesfor rural service. Access charges aredesigned to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities andthe compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claimingmore in the depreciation and the value of their assets. Regulators maytherefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover networkcost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implementpolitically on the basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to payaccess since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of theirperceived competitive advantage. Historically,the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. Howeverfollowing the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key governmentpriority. Consequently, open access tothe Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject tolegality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCCis thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] toimplement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcementaccess, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate toInternet-enabled services. On Wednesday, 28thJune 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunicationsbill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators fromblocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of the amendment could herald thereturn of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along thewhole value chain. Despite the fact that the access network has beenconsidered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably constructand provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms(Spulber, 2002)[3], SirTim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutralitylegislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access supplierswere allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006). The higher costsof a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on toconsumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network,and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher accesscharges and higher prices for online goods and services[4].Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of thecable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits andleaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination. The potential return of the two tiered Internet mayfurther widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internetorganizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure eitherthrough Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal accessfunds. This argument is based on the factthat these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus thereis a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments toguarantee national security, and I concur. [1] FCCdefines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction.[2] OnFebruary 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP servicewould be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiringVoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to itscustomers. Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html[3] Thistheory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economiesof scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost andnot precluding competition[4] Scott(2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their freeservices through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates,resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their ratesto account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download contentsites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T andVerizon. Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Listers This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure. http://www. businessdailyafrica.com/ Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/ 539550-3379938-9liqm4/ What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks? What would be next? A small fee for every website? #NetNeutrality Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi Sent from my iPad ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Walu This is useful and requires some weekend reading. However my first glimpse of the executive summary tells me that the authors of this report AVE dine some good research and are saying that Net Neutrality need to be looked at from an African context. Something that we have advocated in this list for sometime. More after I have read the full report. Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi Sent from my iPad
On 6 Oct 2016, at 6:57 PM, Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
@Mwende, Ali et al,
If up to some academic reading with policy implications, here is some research data on this Zero rating (free ride) issue. Research covered the case for Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya & SA.
A fresh, public-interested assessment of the zero-rating of certain applications (apps) and platforms in the African mobile prepaid environment is overdue. This policy paper examines the issue of zero-rating within the contexts of the range of discounted and dynamically-priced African mobile network operator (MNO) products, and the priority public policy issues facing the continent in relation to the Internet. The research is based on a four country assessment-Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.
More @ Research ICT Africa
Research ICT Africa By Creative Storm
or http://researchictafrica.net/home.php?h=190
walu.
From: Mwende Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: Mwende Njiraini <mwende.njiraini@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Telkom Kenya cries foul over social media’s free ride on its - Corporate News
Good morning
The network neutrality debate has landed on the shores of Africa.
Here is an excerpt of an academic paper i had written some time back.
The net neutrality debate can be viewed as the next battle between the netheads and the bellheads; providers of broadband access on one side and Internet content and application providers on the other side. Frieden (cited Orlowski 2006) states that the Bellheads are investing heavily in fiber capability which will solve a problem that the “Netheads” have proved themselves unable or unwilling to tackle, that of high quality video over IP.
Given that US government is keen to facilitate the rollout of universal and affordable broadband[1]. It can be argued that the aggressive fiber rollouts could suffer if network operator shares continue to lose value making it difficult to blame the companies if they did slow down roll out. The companies, after all, have a duty to shareholders to pursue maximum profits not necessarily to fulfill the goals of Internet advocates (Drucker, 2006). However one has to be careful in analysing the market as forces in telecommunications can be misleading. Telephone companies, for example, get billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies for rural service. Access charges are designed to compensate network providers for the use of their facilities and the compensation scheme is in part funds universal service. Additionally, these companies may be claiming more in the depreciation and the value of their assets.
Regulators may therefore seek to eliminate access charges by allowing rates to rise to cover network cost if not service providers should pay access charges. This is however difficult to implement politically on the basis of public interest. Additionally, it is equally difficult to expect new entrants to pay access since the avoidance of access is, at least in part, the source of their perceived competitive advantage.
Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. However following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, security is a key government priority. Consequently, open access to the Internet articulated in the FCC “Four Network Freedoms”, is subject to legality of content and needs of law enforcement (Frieden, 2006) The FCC is thus constantly reviewing mechanisms[2] to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, law enforcement access, consumer protection and disability access, as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.
On Wednesday, 28th June 2006 the Senate commerce panel voted against amending the telecommunications bill by attaching the net neutrality provisions that would prevent operators from blocking, degrading or prioritising service on their networks (Orlowski, 2006). The defeat of the amendment could herald the return of the vertically integrated incumbent firm providing services along the whole value chain. Despite the fact that the access network has been considered a natural monopoly area as a single firm could presumably construct and provide local services at a lower average cost than two or more firms (Spulber, 2002)[3], Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web, views the defeat of the net neutrality legislation as the entering a “dark period” for the Internet, if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise (BBC, 2006).
The higher costs of a “tiered Internet” levied content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. As there is no “free ride” on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services[4]. Moreover, a “tiered Internet” will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination.
The potential return of the two tiered Internet may further widen the digital divide between developed and developing countries. It may be argued that successful internet organizations should contribute to the cost of internet infrastructure either through Internet settlement agreements or contribution to universal access funds. This argument is based on the fact that these companies are providing functional equivalent services, thus there is a need for operators to maintain network integrity and for governments to guarantee national security, and I concur.
[1] FCC defines "high speed" as 200 kilobits in at least one direction. [2] On February 12, 2004, the FCC ruled that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service would be an unregulated information service in USA. However the FCC released an order requiring VoIP providers to deliver enhanced 911 emergency services to its customers. Source: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencies.html [3] This theory is based on the assumption that firms will seek to leverage on economies of scale to achieve production efficiencies, pricing services above cost and not precluding competition [4] Scott (2006) predicts that companies like Google and Yahoo that support their free services through advertising revenue will raise their advertising rates, resulting in higher consumer prices on all the goods that advertise on these sites. While Amazon and eBay will raise their rates to account for the extra charges and I-Tunes and other pay-per-download content sites will charge higher rates as well, to cover access charges by AT&T and Verizon.
Disclaimer: Views expressed except those referenced are the author's own. The full paper is available on request.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Listers
This is getting abit tiring..Telcos complaining social media platforms are getting a free ride on their infrastructure.
http://www. businessdailyafrica.com/ Corporate-News/Telkom-Kenya- cries-foul-over-social-media/ 539550-3379938-9liqm4/
What are your thoughts? Should Telcos charge companies like Google and Facebook for access to their networks?
What would be next? A small fee for every website?
#NetNeutrality
Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (8)
-
Ahmed Mohamed Maawy -
Ali Hussein -
awatila＠yahoo.co.uk -
Barrack Otieno -
Mwende Njiraini -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Tony White -
Walubengo J