Fwd: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What isthe best model for providing the F
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio... walu.
O.K.... Even though Badru has jumped ahead into Day 5 theme (i.e Best Model) I wish to confirm if we are agreed that there seems to be only the three models for Providing OFC, namely, a) Purely Private Sector (Practiced in Developed Economies) b) Consortium Model (Practiced in SAT3 example) c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies) could there be a 4th model out there? Maybe there is a middle ground model where all stakeholders are happy. Plse voice your opinion today before tomorrow - where we shall start a new Theme on 'appropriate Regulatory models for managing OFC'. walu. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) --- John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke> wrote:
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio...
walu.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:16:22 +0300 From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org> CC: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum <aisi-l@lyris.bellanet.org>, DigAfrica@yahoogroups.com, John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke>, KIPlist <kiplist-cl@lyris.idrc.ca>, Africa ICT Policy Forum <africtic@dgroups.org> Subject: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What is the best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess who is suffering.
If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the fiber.
I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and eventually the price will come down. If government wants to intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc.
Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time to develop naturaly.
Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is a business decision.
Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY.
Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural communities Encourage the production of local content Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to bring the prices down.
my 2 cents
Hi All The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for their international traffic when they pass through satellite due to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through the submarine cable. We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to promote trade between the countries and I suggest that
also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the countries they are serving. A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. The western africa and central africa can do the same for the western cable link. The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for
The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as a neutral body for the development of Africa. Eng. Njorohio */alice@apc.org/* wrote:
(Apologies for Cross positing)
Attn: Telco Operators, Regulators, Academia, Media, Civil Society, Consumers
The Last Frontier: The East African Coast remains
gathuri njorohio wrote: they should the new cables. the last region
in the world that is yet to connect to the cheaper and
more reliable Global
Submarine Optical Fiber Network. EASSy, TEAMS and
others promise
to change that by providing this crucial link.
EASSy, TEAMS, etc,: What is the best model for
providing the Fiber
Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
Join the Online Discussion: Starting Monday Jan
22nd Sat Feb 3rd
2007 and make your views be known regarding this historic
development.
to subscribe:
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please send your details to
jkimiti@email.kictanet.or.ke
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
I dont understand what you mean by c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies), not that i have any problem with who proposed it but i think the premise is what does it mean as a model? Open Access primarily underscores the need to consider other elements other than private interest so Open Access is actually the multistakeholder model that tries to unify or bring under one umbrella the various interest. Be it private, public, academia, CS etc. NB: There is also a Hybrid model but sorry am not in a position to dig on it right now On 25 Jan 2007, at 10:44, John Walubengo wrote:
O.K....
Even though Badru has jumped ahead into Day 5 theme (i.e Best Model) I wish to confirm if we are agreed that there seems to be only the three models for Providing OFC, namely, a) Purely Private Sector (Practiced in Developed Economies) b) Consortium Model (Practiced in SAT3 example) c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies)
could there be a 4th model out there? Maybe there is a middle ground model where all stakeholders are happy. Plse voice your opinion today before tomorrow - where we shall start a new Theme on 'appropriate Regulatory models for managing OFC'.
walu. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
--- John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke> wrote:
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio...
walu.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:16:22 +0300 From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org> CC: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum <aisi-l@lyris.bellanet.org>, DigAfrica@yahoogroups.com, John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke>, KIPlist <kiplist-cl@lyris.idrc.ca>, Africa ICT Policy Forum <africtic@dgroups.org> Subject: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What is the best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess who is suffering.
If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the fiber.
I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and eventually the price will come down. If government wants to intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc.
Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time to develop naturaly.
Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is a business decision.
Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY.
Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural communities Encourage the production of local content Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to bring the prices down.
my 2 cents
Hi All The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for their international traffic when they pass through satellite due to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through the submarine cable. We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to promote trade between the countries and I suggest that
also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the countries they are serving. A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. The western africa and central africa can do the same for the western cable link. The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for
The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as a neutral body for the development of Africa. Eng. Njorohio */alice@apc.org/* wrote:
(Apologies for Cross positing)
Attn: Telco Operators, Regulators, Academia, Media, Civil Society, Consumers
The Last Frontier: The East African Coast remains
gathuri njorohio wrote: they should the new cables. the last region
in the world that is yet to connect to the cheaper and
more reliable Global
Submarine Optical Fiber Network. EASSy, TEAMS and
others promise
to change that by providing this crucial link.
EASSy, TEAMS, etc,: What is the best model for
providing the Fiber
Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
Join the Online Discussion: Starting Monday Jan
22nd – Sat Feb 3rd
2007 and make your views be known regarding this historic
development.
to subscribe:
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please send your details to
jkimiti@email.kictanet.or.ke
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/services? promote=mail>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
_______________________________________________ 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/eric%40afrispa.org
Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"
Thanx Eric, three models are more than enough headache for now... On another thought, am thinking EASsy wants to go the 'Consortium' way, Flag by KDN would go the 'Private' way...but does any one know which model TEAMs is adopting? Private, Consortium or OpenAccess? Check out the story...http://allafrica.com/stories/200701230830.html walu. --- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
I dont understand what you mean by c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies), not that i have any problem with who proposed it but i think the premise is what does it mean as a model?
Open Access primarily underscores the need to consider other elements other than private interest so Open Access is actually the multistakeholder model that tries to unify or bring under one umbrella the various interest. Be it private, public, academia, CS etc.
NB: There is also a Hybrid model but sorry am not in a position to dig on it right now
On 25 Jan 2007, at 10:44, John Walubengo wrote:
O.K....
Even though Badru has jumped ahead into Day 5 theme (i.e Best Model) I wish to confirm if we are agreed that there seems to be only the three models for Providing OFC, namely, a) Purely Private Sector (Practiced in Developed Economies) b) Consortium Model (Practiced in SAT3 example) c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies)
could there be a 4th model out there? Maybe there is a middle ground model where all stakeholders are happy. Plse voice your opinion today before tomorrow - where we shall start a new Theme on 'appropriate Regulatory models for managing OFC'.
walu. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
--- John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke> wrote:
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio...
walu.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:16:22 +0300 From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org> CC: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum <aisi-l@lyris.bellanet.org>, DigAfrica@yahoogroups.com, John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke>, KIPlist <kiplist-cl@lyris.idrc.ca>, Africa ICT Policy Forum <africtic@dgroups.org> Subject: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What is the best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess who is suffering.
If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the fiber.
I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and eventually the price will come down. If government wants to intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc.
Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time to develop naturaly.
Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is a business decision.
Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY.
Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural communities Encourage the production of local content Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to bring the prices down.
my 2 cents
Hi All The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for their international traffic when they pass through satellite due to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through
We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to promote trade between the countries and I suggest
also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the countries they are serving. A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. The western africa and central africa can do the same for the western cable link. The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for
gathuri njorohio wrote: the submarine cable. that they should the new cables.
The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as a neutral body for the development of Africa. Eng. Njorohio */alice@apc.org/* wrote:
(Apologies for Cross positing)
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Flag and KDN are fully open and the capacity purchasers can adopt ANY structure they want! SPV, Consortium, Private, Government .... I would even suppose we start a commodity trading section at NSE dealing with submarine capacity! Rgds Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Walubengo" <jwalu@yahoo.com> To: <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 3 of 10: What are the existing Business Modelsfor OFC provision?
Thanx Eric, three models are more than enough headache for now...
On another thought, am thinking EASsy wants to go the 'Consortium' way, Flag by KDN would go the 'Private' way...but does any one know which model TEAMs is adopting? Private, Consortium or OpenAccess?
Check out the story...http://allafrica.com/stories/200701230830.html
walu. --- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
I dont understand what you mean by c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies), not that i have any problem with who proposed it but i think the premise is what does it mean as a model?
Open Access primarily underscores the need to consider other elements other than private interest so Open Access is actually the multistakeholder model that tries to unify or bring under one umbrella the various interest. Be it private, public, academia, CS etc.
NB: There is also a Hybrid model but sorry am not in a position to dig on it right now
On 25 Jan 2007, at 10:44, John Walubengo wrote:
O.K....
Even though Badru has jumped ahead into Day 5 theme (i.e Best Model) I wish to confirm if we are agreed that there seems to be only the three models for Providing OFC, namely, a) Purely Private Sector (Practiced in Developed Economies) b) Consortium Model (Practiced in SAT3 example) c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies)
could there be a 4th model out there? Maybe there is a middle ground model where all stakeholders are happy. Plse voice your opinion today before tomorrow - where we shall start a new Theme on 'appropriate Regulatory models for managing OFC'.
walu. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
--- John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke> wrote:
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio...
walu.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:16:22 +0300 From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org> CC: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum <aisi-l@lyris.bellanet.org>, DigAfrica@yahoogroups.com, John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke>, KIPlist <kiplist-cl@lyris.idrc.ca>, Africa ICT Policy Forum <africtic@dgroups.org> Subject: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What is the best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess who is suffering.
If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the fiber.
I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and eventually the price will come down. If government wants to intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc.
Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time to develop naturaly.
Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is a business decision.
Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY.
Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural communities Encourage the production of local content Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to bring the prices down.
my 2 cents
Hi All The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for their international traffic when they pass through satellite due to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through
We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to promote trade between the countries and I suggest
also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the countries they are serving. A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. The western africa and central africa can do the same for the western cable link. The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for
gathuri njorohio wrote: the submarine cable. that they should the new cables.
The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as a neutral body for the development of Africa. Eng. Njorohio */alice@apc.org/* wrote:
(Apologies for Cross positing)
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
_______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is due (good job, Brian - keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?} HAHAHAHA! Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The people I was talking to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe..... ---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas pipelines in different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for. Taking all of the above into consideration - these projects are deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee) So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc... So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost - don't aim for profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go.... I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-) Brian On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Eric Osiakwan wrote:
I dont understand what you mean by c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies), not that i have any problem with who proposed it but i think the premise is what does it mean as a model?
Open Access primarily underscores the need to consider other elements other than private interest so Open Access is actually the multistakeholder model that tries to unify or bring under one umbrella the various interest. Be it private, public, academia, CS etc.
NB: There is also a Hybrid model but sorry am not in a position to dig on it right now
On 25 Jan 2007, at 10:44, John Walubengo wrote:
O.K....
Even though Badru has jumped ahead into Day 5 theme (i.e Best Model) I wish to confirm if we are agreed that there seems to be only the three models for Providing OFC, namely, a) Purely Private Sector (Practiced in Developed Economies) b) Consortium Model (Practiced in SAT3 example) c) Open Access Model (Proposed by Academia/Civil Societies)
could there be a 4th model out there? Maybe there is a middle ground model where all stakeholders are happy. Plse voice your opinion today before tomorrow - where we shall start a new Theme on 'appropriate Regulatory models for managing OFC'.
walu. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
--- John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke> wrote:
Some interesting insights from Badru and Njorohio...
walu.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:16:22 +0300 From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug> To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org> CC: African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum <aisi-l@lyris.bellanet.org>, DigAfrica@yahoogroups.com, John Walubengo <jwalubengo@kcct.ac.ke>, KIPlist <kiplist-cl@lyris.idrc.ca>, Africa ICT Policy Forum <africtic@dgroups.org> Subject: Re: [Fibre-for-africa] Join KICTAnet's online discuission: What is the best model for providing the Fiber Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
I think we all know "who shot EASSY". it was politics and egos which have never been good bed fellows. The guilty parties that pulled the trigger are kenya and South Africa though the jury is still out on this. Then along the way came some other characters who used the impasse to get some free publicity (we all know who they are ). when time to pay up came they all disappeared and guess who is suffering.
If government's and Nepad want to be in please consult the community, lay the law and rules of engagement and stay away. then next should be those who have the pockets to come in and build the fiber.
I mean at the end of the day business rules will kick in and eventually the price will come down. If government wants to intervene to bring costs down then give the businesses an incentive to offer good pricing, maybe tax waivers etc.
Lets forget the nice world in the clouds where everyone has access and buys at the same price etc. Some things need to be given time to develop naturaly.
Many things and services in all our walks of life are built by private entities some are closed clubs and others are open. that is a business decision.
Forget open access and all that baloony, all those consultants who were singing all this nice to the ears stuff are back sitting behind there 10mB links costing them a few dollars while we are sitting on our 16k 32k links moaning EASSY.
Bottom line allow the operators to build the cable Set operating criteria and acceptable pricing levels Government concentrates on facilitating internal networks to Rural communities Encourage the production of local content Put in measures that will create demand and thus market forces to bring the prices down.
my 2 cents
Hi All The EASSY cable implementation seems to be stalling due to disagreement on financing and the way to operate and manage it. The Eastern african countries will continue being overcharged for their international traffic when they pass through satellite due to lack of this cheap way of carrying traffic through the submarine cable. We are aware of the regional economic bodies that are mandated to promote trade between the countries and I suggest that
also invest in ICT .COMESA and SADC are the bodies catering for trade in south and eastern Africa.Why can't they take the opportunity to invest in this cable so that it can benefit the countries they are serving. A company can be formed answerable to these two bodies for the installation , maintenance and operation of this cable. The western africa and central africa can do the same for the western cable link. The existing cables can continue to give redundancy for
The e commission of the NEPAD could facilitate these intiatives as a neutral body for the development of Africa. Eng. Njorohio */alice@apc.org/* wrote:
(Apologies for Cross positing)
Attn: Telco Operators, Regulators, Academia, Media, Civil Society, Consumers
The Last Frontier: The East African Coast remains
gathuri njorohio wrote: they should the new cables. the last region
in the world that is yet to connect to the cheaper and
more reliable Global
Submarine Optical Fiber Network. EASSy, TEAMS and
others promise
to change that by providing this crucial link.
EASSy, TEAMS, etc,: What is the best model for
providing the Fiber
Optic Submarine Cable to East Africans?
Join the Online Discussion: Starting Monday Jan
22nd – Sat Feb 3rd
2007 and make your views be known regarding this historic
development.
to subscribe:
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please send your details to
jkimiti@email.kictanet.or.ke
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/ services?promote=mail>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
_____________________________________________________________________ _______________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
_______________________________________________ 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/eric%40afrispa.org
Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ 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/brian%40pure-id.com
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!! Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us. On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is due (good job, Brian - keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The people I was talking to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas pipelines in different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these projects are deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee)
So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc...
So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost - don't aim for profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go....
I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-)
Brian
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above. It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements. However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints. As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows: What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC. 2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something. walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is due
keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The
to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas
different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these
(good job, Brian - people I was talking pipelines in projects are
deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee)
So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc...
So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost - don't aim for profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go....
I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-)
Brian
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Dear Walu, Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe. On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run! Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so that the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services! Harry -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC? Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above. It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements. However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints. As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows: What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC. 2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something. walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is due
keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The
to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas
different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these
(good job, Brian - people I was talking pipelines in projects are
deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee)
So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc...
So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost - don't aim for profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go....
I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-)
Brian
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 _______________________________________________ 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/harry%40aitecafrica.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.11/652 - Release Date: 1/25/2007
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is there anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow. walu. --- Harry Hare <harry@aitecafrica.com> wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so that the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services!
Harry
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke]
On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC?
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above.
It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints.
As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows:
What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC.
2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.
walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
don't aim for
profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go....
I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-)
Brian
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is
keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The
to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas
different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these
due (good job, Brian - people I was talking pipelines in projects are
deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee)
So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc...
So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is there anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare <harry@aitecafrica.com> wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so that the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services!
Harry
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke]
On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC?
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above.
It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints.
As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows:
What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC.
2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.
walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
don't aim for
profit - facilitate growth elsewhere is the way to go....
I'll stop now because if I don't I may start writing some of the things I want to say to myself in a separate email ;-)
Brian
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is
keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The
to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas
different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these
due (good job, Brian - people I was talking pipelines in projects are
deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact it was hinted that some of them are designed to make a loss - pssst don't say anything to the banks - snicker, snicker, hee, hee)
So at the end of the day you have a consortium<ouch> or group of parties that come together to form an SPV <yay> which then raises the funds required and builds the damn thing - so that all the various "downstream" parties can make their money, needless to say this helps the circulation of currency, etc, etc, etc...
So, my take is that OpenAccess - SPV - build at cost
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too... walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something - members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-). --- Lucy Kimani <lkimani@comnews.co.ke> wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare <harry@aitecafrica.com> wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so
LK there that
the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services!
Harry
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke]
On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC?
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above.
It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints.
As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows:
What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC.
2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.
walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
For once I get to make my comment on the day it is
keep it up) ....... {I heard that when you start talking to yourself you should get worried..... how about when you start sending email to yourself?}
HAHAHAHA!
Anyway on a more serious note, some years ago I had a v. interesting dialog on this issue of submarine infrastructure. The
to (don't remember exactly who) {is loss of memory a sign of age, senility, insanity or all 3 together} hehehe.....
---as I was saying, the people I was talking to mentioned that the perfect model has existed for the longest time in the oil & gas
different parts of Europe. These cross multiple jurisdictions, are critical to the livelihoods and economies of all the stakeholders, support the existence and stability of a wide spectrum of sectors, and at the end of day provide something that an individual or family
due (good job, Brian - people I was talking pipelines in pays for.
Taking all of the above into consideration - these
projects are
deliberately designed not to make a profit. (In fact
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
Found an answer to my own question <<was it Brian who talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> - anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here.... ~~~~00-copied below--- East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred. The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo. When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project – bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution. In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country. After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006. Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others. Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877 walu. --- John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something - members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani <lkimani@comnews.co.ke> wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare <harry@aitecafrica.com> wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so
LK there that
the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services!
Harry
-----Original Message----- From:
kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke]
On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC?
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above.
It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints.
As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows:
What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC.
2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.
walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe <brian@pure-id.com> wrote:
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
Walu, I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page) Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM < http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf > /Alex John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> - anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here.... ~~~~00-copied below--- East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred. The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo. When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution. In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country. After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006. Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others. Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877 walu. --- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something - members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so
LK there that
the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and the government collects its taxes while we enjoy efficient and affordable the services!
Harry
-----Original Message----- From:
kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=aitecafrica.com@kictanet.or.ke]
On Behalf Of John Walubengo Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 AM To: harry@aitecafrica.com Subject: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested legal andregulatory framework for OFC?
Thanx Brain, Kai, et al for your contributions on the previous themes, I now wish to introduce today's theme as shown above.
It looks like on the Regulatory theme, there is very little option. The choice is simply between having or NOT having Regulatory environments for the submarine cable. The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts. These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
However, in the Case of a Consortium model, where Public Funds have been committed to build the infrastructure, some argue that Regulation is required to ensure that the Public interest (social benefits) are balanced against the Private (profit) interests. The Consortium operators however find this recommendation not encouraging since they feel that Regulation would tend to frustrate an otherwise enterprising venture that would excel without Regulatory constraints.
As for the proposed Open Access Model, the Regulatory frameworks suggested seem to range from None, Some, Delayed to Full Regulation. I still don't know how these different variants would apply but would be glad to hear more from the participants. So lets explore the Pros and Cons of these options but approaching it in a practical way as follows:
What benefits/disadvantages has Non-Regulation brought to submarine OFC within the the context of the three models a) Purely Private Provisioning of OFC b) Consortium Provisioning of OFC c) Open Access Provisionig of OFC.
2Days discussion - the eFloor is open to all however. Operators, Lawyers, Regulators, Policy Makers, CSO & Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.
walu. --- Bill Kagai wrote:
Brian... Signs of a good Cabaret Sauvignon over lunch today!!!
Anyway, We are all converted capitalists hosting the World Social Forum..so I say..a good model is the one that makes good money for all of us.
On 1/25/07, Brian Longwe
wrote:
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion. Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity. 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Pending> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) <Pending> So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well. walu. --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> - anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
anyone out there still logged on to give us their views b/w now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of "Regulate" and got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English" words cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity. However, these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the concept of constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a simple lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to regulate in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing for the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate and not constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not sustainable in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so
LK there that
the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return on their investment; and
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Alan, I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable. In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access... Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers. For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model... walu. --- Alan Finlay <alan@openresearch.co.za> wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric@afrispa.org> To: <alan@openresearch.co.za> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Pending>
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending>
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) <Pending>
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project – bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Let me add something: Open Access does not mean regulated. A system like Flag will have invested money to build a fiber around the globe and will make money with it. Pricing on the cable is determined by open market and not open access. Open Access needs to be provided to the Landing Station and with this to any other system that might be available. TEAMS will go to one Monopoly Operator who will connect the TEAMS capacity to other systems, what is the price for this service, who knows the price of those systems? Unless we build our own Internet or at least a cable that is jointly owned and peered at an international Internet Exchange (and even there are commercial charges) we will never escape the need for some commercial dealings. What is important for a region is that not one Operator/Service Provider has access to cheaper capacity than the others (see TSA!). Like TEAMS, I hope that we can have all equal charges from MSA to the rest of the world. On Flag, this is guaranteed by the contract KDN has signed! Rgds Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Walubengo" <jwalu@yahoo.com> To: <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 19:37 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay <alan@openresearch.co.za> wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric@afrispa.org> To: <alan@openresearch.co.za> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Pending>
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending>
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) <Pending>
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project – bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi. The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status. Regards Ndemo ---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
I agree with both [Ndemo and Kai] Esq.. albeit in part. Open Access can be re-defined at a new (higher) level if both Govt (TEAMS) and Private (FLAG) float shares to the public in these ventures before the projects commence. We (Mwananchi) thus becomes consumers in ownership earning dividend...and everybody goes home happy. Maybe our primary recommendation should be that a venture which entails public consumables like this cable should first be floated to the public so that we ALL gain. Bill On 1/29/07, bitange@jambo.co.ke <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote:
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi.
The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status.
Regards
Ndemo
Hello, FLAG is planning it's IPO as a company very soon. As for the capacity on any system I was proposing a commodity exchange for submarine and Sat capacity. To ensure fair play, KDN as an infrastructure provider will not go into capacity retail. Once again, for KDN and the country, the cheaper the capacity gets the better. KDN will support any initiative that will aim at lower prices. Rgds Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Kagai To: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 22:01 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Modelforprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) I agree with both [Ndemo and Kai] Esq.. albeit in part. Open Access can be re-defined at a new (higher) level if both Govt (TEAMS) and Private (FLAG) float shares to the public in these ventures before the projects commence. We (Mwananchi) thus becomes consumers in ownership earning dividend...and everybody goes home happy. Maybe our primary recommendation should be that a venture which entails public consumables like this cable should first be floated to the public so that we ALL gain. Bill On 1/29/07, bitange@jambo.co.ke <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote: Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi. The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status. Regards Ndemo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
Hi Everyone, Sorry for entering the discussion so late. I have been keenly following the various comments; My proposal: ---------------- Completely separate ownership of the fiber from management. (for example the Government owns majority of Safaricom but does not have management control). Let a completely independent competent management team run the fiber taking into account the various needs of the consumers, who in this case will be the Telecommunications companies and service providers, who eventually serve the mwananchi. The management must equitably and fairly provide access to all operators and service providers but must ensure no single operators consumes more than 40% of their services because this leads to control. (suggestions please on how they can do this and still be fair, equitable and profitable). The management must run the business for a PROFIT and further more must not get preferential treatment from CCK. Other private operators must continue to get the same rights and access to resources and government support. In terms of investment/ownership there should be a fair structure that will allow for as wide ownership as will allow for the cheapest money but with a MAJOR bias to Kenyan ownership. This is why! --------------- 1) The consumer is King ( both local and International consumers). The consumer wants sustainable quality services at an affordable price. This creates DEMAND. (By the way, Trust me on this, being an owner of a business des not guarantee you quality and affordable services. So listing the business is not a magic answer. Ask the government!) 2) The investor on the other hand wants a sustained return on their investment, they see the demand in the market and they create SUPPLY. This is highly dependent on the risk factors, competition and so on. Look at KDN, they have invested so much in fiber based on the "existing market structure" and now are not sure what the new competition model is going to look like now that the government is coming to the party (in what form? Yet to be defined. Investors hate uncertainty) Am sure all the various discussions are not making it easy for KDN's capital raising. KDN of course is not alone, and sorry to single them out. I know other players including Safaricom will be waiting to see what the new structure will be, before they decide on their investment strategy (Uncertainty again). 3) The Government is there to ensure both the Consumer and the Investor are protected to ensure they both have sustained benefits. They therefore create a market structure that ensure the sustained growth. This could range from a monopoly or duopoly situation to a fully open market. They do this for a "small" fee - TAX! & Various Licences fees. Today Kenya is not competitive at all in the communications sector, compared to our primary African competitors (South Africa and Egypt) not only are our power bills 8 times higher that both countries, we also don't have connectivity to international fiber and the Government is certainly doing it's job in getting into TEAMS and the National Fiber projects. We of course are also in a position where the government is the largest supplier of communications services in the country, through Telkom, Safaricom, Posta amongst others. Suppliers by definition do not like competition and put up all sorts of barriers to competition and this will range from capital raising, access to markets and so on. In the same breath Government is also by default the largest consumer of services and has a desire to obtain better quality and affordable services. I could go on and on here to indicate the various forces affecting various decision. The primary being "to invest or not to invest" Today I have a lot of faith in the current leadership at the Ministry of Information and Communications and their desire to see a vibrant expanded communications sector. The challenge for them and us is to have a working model that will allow investment in the sector and in the backdrop of the various issues I raised above, it is not been easy to get real competition in Kenya, look at the 3rd GSM and now the SNO saga. Our problems are both historic and current and are made worse when CCK is not able to for instance address competition issues without change in regulations (the Communications ACT) Sorry people this is a long email. I have of course not been exhaustive, only covered some areas I think we should debate. -- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:01:42 +0300 To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
I agree with both [Ndemo and Kai] Esq.. albeit in part.
Open Access can be re-defined at a new (higher) level if both Govt (TEAMS) and Private (FLAG) float shares to the public in these ventures before the projects commence. We (Mwananchi) thus becomes consumers in ownership earning dividend...and everybody goes home happy.
Maybe our primary recommendation should be that a venture which entails public consumables like this cable should first be floated to the public so that we ALL gain.
Bill On 1/29/07, bitange@jambo.co.ke <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote:
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi.
The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status.
Regards
Ndemo
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
I think it is necessary to discuss how this will all be funded. Submarine cables systems are expensive to install and maintain, and I have yet to see or hear of any firm proposals of how this will all be funded. I have heard talk of SPV's with Government putting up the initial capital, IPO's etc. but nothing in writing. As one of the potential main users of an international submarine cable and probably one that might be asked to participate in the funding, it would be useful to start this dialog quite early. Regards, Michael CEO Safaricom Limited ________________________________ From: kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Bill Kagai Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:02 PM To: Michael Joseph Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Modelforprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) I agree with both [Ndemo and Kai] Esq.. albeit in part. Open Access can be re-defined at a new (higher) level if both Govt (TEAMS) and Private (FLAG) float shares to the public in these ventures before the projects commence. We (Mwananchi) thus becomes consumers in ownership earning dividend...and everybody goes home happy. Maybe our primary recommendation should be that a venture which entails public consumables like this cable should first be floated to the public so that we ALL gain. Bill On 1/29/07, bitange@jambo.co.ke <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote: Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi. The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status. Regards Ndemo The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.
A commercially orientated platform is needed, probably with government soft loans which would then justify future regulatory control for the good of the mwanchi's. However government should not be directly involved. Open Access has always been around some call it universal service access and is practiced under different flavors. I think private entities should be encouraged to lay the fiber. All this will do is give more choice for access and the market will take over. So Micheal i think you and a number of other like minded people should go ahead and build the pipe. What we should be doing is then lobying the powers that be to give you all the necessary breaks to make it happen. You have all been in business long enough to know how to make it work so i really get bothered when civil servants who have never run a business are tasked with laying the rules. Yes some rules to protect the users are needed but again if the Pipe were the only link then yes. We all seem to under estimate the powers the market place. In business you ignore this power at your peril Michael Joseph wrote:
I think it is necessary to discuss how this will all be funded. Submarine cables systems are expensive to install and maintain, and I have yet to see or hear of any firm proposals of how this will all be funded. I have heard talk of SPV’s with Government putting up the initial capital, IPO’s etc. but nothing in writing. As one of the potential main users of an international submarine cable and probably one that might be asked to participate in the funding, it would be useful to start this dialog quite early.
Regards,
Michael
/CEO/
/Safaricom Limited/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kagai *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2007 10:02 PM *To:* Michael Joseph *Subject:* Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Modelforprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
I agree with both [Ndemo and Kai] Esq.. albeit in part.
Open Access can be re-defined at a new (higher) level if both Govt (TEAMS) and Private (FLAG) float shares to the public in these ventures before the projects commence. We (Mwananchi) thus becomes consumers in ownership earning dividend...and everybody goes home happy.
Maybe our primary recommendation should be that a venture which entails public consumables like this cable should first be floated to the public so that we ALL gain.
Bill
On 1/29/07, *bitange@jambo.co.ke <mailto:bitange@jambo.co.ke>* <bitange@jambo.co.ke <mailto:bitange@jambo.co.ke>> wrote:
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi.
The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status.
Regards
Ndemo
------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee.
Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated.
The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient’s information technology systems.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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/ntegeb%40one2net.co.ug
Michael, Thank you for raising this issue. We were waiting for the Deatailed Feasibility Study before we engage the stakeholders. We now have the report. We are getting the financial arranger in place in a week's time then a series of stakeholder meetings to decide on the model that would be more applicable. In the Meantime, tomorrow Wednesday January 31, 2007, we sign the Marine Survey Contract with Tyco Telecommunications and announce the schedule for the project. End of February we receive the Detailed Technical Study and award the supply contract. As stated in various fora the Government is only facilitating here and the owners of the cables would be the private sector. The function tomorrow is public and will be held at our conference room on the 9th Floor stating at 2pm. Bitange Ndemo. ---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Bwana PS, I fully agree with you Walu is doing a great job. Also thank you for your assurance on the monopoly bit. When are we likely to see the design of the project? Are we going to get an opportunity to provide input to the process? Or is this discussion forum that opportunity? It will be really important that we get a forum to add some views. I know I have just written a long email with my views but this was certainly not exhaustive. -- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:29:45 +0300 (EAT) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi.
The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status.
Regards
Ndemo
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
thanx all, must acknowledge the compliments...and also the deep insights that have come in over the last 12hrs. Am still digesting some of them but wish to hear more on the best Regulatory and Business models for OFC accross E.Africa. Feel free to add your views, enhance previous views or craft new hybrid models arising from the proposed ones...we have the whole of today on this one before we move onto the possible impacts your recommended models would have on existing players/stakeholders. walu. --- Joseph Mucheru <mucheru@wananchi.com> wrote:
Bwana PS,
I fully agree with you Walu is doing a great job.
Also thank you for your assurance on the monopoly bit. When are we likely to see the design of the project? Are we going to get an opportunity to provide input to the process? Or is this discussion forum that opportunity? It will be really important that we get a forum to add some views. I know I have just written a long email with my views but this was certainly not exhaustive.
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:29:45 +0300 (EAT) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Dear All, It is appropriate to thank Walubengo for the excellent job he is doing in moderating this discussion. I am suprised that some of you are making outrageous statements like "TEAMs is to go to a monopoly". This is not true because I am sure that the TEAMs design has not been made public. Secondly, it in the Government interest that these projects benefit mwananchi.
The Government would continue to encourage competition to ensure the costs are at the lowest. The only reason one would feel hurt about competitor progress is when that person wants the monopoly status.
Regards
Ndemo
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly. We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity. The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting.... Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways. /Alex John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan, I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable. In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access... Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers. For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model... walu. --- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Dear Alex, at cost can be very expensive if not driven by a classical private sector aim of efficiency! The money in a market is limited, capacity on a cable unlimited. The amount you sell is therefore a function of the cost you are operating and only secondary a function of the sales price. We as KDN have invested TOP Dollar in infrastructure and do of for sure intend to make a profit! The only way for us to make a profit is to grow the market by forcing down the cost of operation. Profits we make are reinvested in more infrastructure to reach more Kenyans, the more Kenyans are reached, the lower the prices get ...... If a cable is socialistic, where are the profits to be reinvested? A private company pays taxes back to the Government, not a bad principle. I don't want to go into political discussions but the socialistic model was not too successful lately? 2-3 more years and KDN goes public, then every Kenyan can own a piece of KDN. As for the submarine capacity, as mentioned, I don't think an infrastructure company should own capacity, neither should a service company own infrastructure ... = no monopoly blocks! Rgds Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Gakuru To: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 20:53 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly. We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity. The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting.... Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways. /Alex John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan, I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable. In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access... Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers. For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model... walu. --- Alan Finlay wrote: > Hi Eric > > Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward > that access to the > fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the > service end only. > > Your version says that access to the cable can be > competitive - or that > entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must > be allowed to make a > profit out of the cable. > > Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the > differences between these > two 'open access' positions as you understand them? > > Thanks > Alan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Osiakwan" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM > Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the > Existing/Sugested > > > > Dear All, > > > > The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions > which the > regulatory policy > > environment must capture and enforce; > > 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services > so that > infrastructure providers are > > NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. > > > > 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should > not guarantee any > form of fair or unfair > > access to capacity for the provision of service (in > layer 2). > > > > 2. that there is no discrimination within and between > both camps so that > infrastructure > > providers are able to establish clear and transparent > trading > relationships with all service > > providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or > service layer there > should be no > > restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. > > > > This creates an ecosystem of various operators > interconnecting seemlessly > and ensuring > > there is interoperability. > > > > Eric here > > > > > > NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" > infrastructure entity to be > owned in a multi- > > stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are > employed may also > impose some > > regulations from the financial market that can only be > detailed on a case > by case basis. --- John Walubengo wrote: > Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to > recollect and review how far we have gone in this online > discussion. > > Themes Reminder > 1) Why OFC (1day) > *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more > reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity. > > 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) > *Privately provisioned > *Consortium provisioned > *Open Access provisioned > > 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) > *No-Regulation > *Some Regulation > *Full Regulation > > 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans > (2days) > > > 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) > > > 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) > > > So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views > on > what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model > for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African > Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well. > > walu. > --- Alex Gakuru wrote: > > > Walu, > > > > I dug this interesting read off google search a while > > back (78 page) > > > > Open Access Models > > Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing > > Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) > > Final Draft > > August 2005 > > An infoDev Technical Report > > prepared by > > S P I N T R A C K A B > > DROTTNINGGATAN 99, > > 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN > > PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 > > WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM > > > > < > > > http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf > > > > > > > /Alex > > > > John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer > > to my own question < > > talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> > - > > anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy > > (which > > purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be > > covered here.... > > > > ~~~~00-copied below--- > > > > East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved > > Thursday, 22 June 2006 > > All countries participating in the development of the > > East > > African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed > > to > > implement the project on an 'open access basis,' > > overcoming > > a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the > > project. > > The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa > > Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South > African > > government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the > > countries that were objecting to the change in the > > project > > to realise the limitations of the consortium model > which > > they had preferred. > > > > The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic > cable > > from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations > > along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link > with > > the countries' national networks at the landing > stations. > > Others would subsequently be interconnected through the > > networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, > > Burundi and D.R Congo. > > > > When the project was first conceived, it was to be > > primarily a private sector project. The core investors > in > > the cable infrastructure would determine the retail > > prices > > of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated > by > > a > > group of companies that would generate financing; an > > arrangement known as the consortium model. The South > > African government and Nepad have recently argued that > > the > > consortium model would not achieve the objective of the > > project - bringing down the costs of communication in > > the region. They suggested that the model be altered to > > "open access", where any operator or institution in the > > participating countries would be allowed to acquire > > equity > > if it can afford the agreed contribution. > > > > In the open access model, the cable would be owned and > > operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a > company > > created to manage the network and establish the price > of > > bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be > formed > > to > > regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. > > Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as > > recognition of their commitment to the development and > > promotion of ICTs in the country. > > > > After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad > > e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a > > protocol that would form the legal framework of the > EASSy > > project. The Commission has already prepared a project > > plan, which it has sent to the member governments to > > review > > and comment, a process that take until August, when the > > protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is > expected > > to commence by the end of 2006. > > > > Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding > > from equity acquisition payments by companies from the > > region and then raise the remainder from African > > financial > > institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA > > Bank, > > East African Development Bank and others. > > > > Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News > > > http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877 > > > > walu. > > > > --- John Walubengo wrote: > > > > > What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric > > > plse > > > on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three > > paragraphs. > > > And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation > > > with > > > regard to a Private sector submarine OFC > > > provisioning....oh > > > yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point > too... > > > > > > > > > walu. > > > nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say > something > > - > > > members are informed to treat their comments as their > > > personal and not official postions ;-). > > > > > > --- Lucy Kimani wrote: > > > > > > > Regulation is definately required as even the big > > boys > > > of > > > > the west are > > > > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read > > > > cat-throat) self-regulation > > > > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. > > > > > > > > LK > > > > > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even > > > online. > > > > Very > > > > > little activity. Heard from only Harry and > > Alex...is > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
Alex, You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer. Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of. Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-) -- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ===
______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
Bw. Micheru: This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed. LK
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very > little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/
Hmm ... we had only 2 years of free market ... All infrastructure must be put in place and somehow it needs to be paid for. I know some ISPs are selling Butterfly unlimited for 3000 KSH a month! ADSL2+ is around the corner (saw offers for 5000 inclusive of TV .. ). For sure speeds are not what they could be with submarine cable .. now we are back to DAY1. Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucy Kimani" <lkimani@comnews.co.ke> To: <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:43 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) Bw. Micheru: This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed. LK
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project - bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very > little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
All: We have been fooled for very long by these companies. Take the last known CCK internet users data 1.5 million, if they actually supplied clean bandwidth at the internationally accepatable parallel sharing ration if 1:100. That is for every 1 MB a maximum of 100 share it, they calculate how much band width the telcos should be purchasing internatioanally, but they don't. Result, Hundreds of thousands of users are made to share very narrow bandwidths--> all connnected "parallel", and they are told there you have it 32/32, 64/64, 128/128 etc among others. Mobile ones purchase time-based bandwidth ( as opposed to volume or kilobytes traffic) Then they decide they should bill consumers by the packet, Quite lucrative making money out of air dont you think? Internationally recommended contention ratios are not followed locally and I have had very serious opposition to educating consumers to demand what ratio their ISP follows. Of course CCK should have offered leadership here.... Expecting them to disclose this is like asking voluntary elimination of super profits. Would you not like to have below speeds (e.g. a true 128 up and down link at 19,000?) Well, again you cannot have because CCK wont allow you, because of the market licensing, because investors would complain, because fibre is coming, because international VOIP would adversly affect other "dorminant" players, becuase...... consumers should not enjoy low prices? Below are the prices available from satellites out there , and all the while we keep blaming "high satellite costs". It is not true and in any case fibre will not reach every Wanjiku in every next year in a snap. We need ISPs to purchase bandwidth from any carrier. We want competition not closed (to) competition markets. <http://www.satsig.net/ivsat-africa.htm> Outbound speed from 128 kbps to 2048 kbps. Inbound speed from 36 kbps to 153 kbps > Service price starting at 147 /month for 128 kbps > Special new subscription of 100 per 1 GB with 2 Mbit/s, to be spent in 3 months > Many different subscription choices (25) including shared unlimited, shared quota and leased line. Very high quality service and QoS management Kai: There is a trick some infrastructure companies are using to fool consumers to sign up to bad agreements. See below:- IPTV And Home Television Offerings Are Telcos Best Stealth Solution To Bypass Any Net Neutrality Resistance: Wake Up by: Robin Good http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/29/iptv_and_home_television_offer... In this article I report about the very negative experience of installing the newest Internet high-speed offering cum IPTV solution in my home as to avoid others not only the same frustrations and the waste of time and money, but also to share the fact that what many may still perceive as an upgrade offer to their Internet connectivity, is nothing else but your own very unconscious capitulation to net neutrality, as well as your official consent to install a proprietary IPTV system at your premises. <snip> A telecom company, who is also a large Internet provider, needs only a little marketing campaign to convince its users and potential clients that with about $50 a month they can get the most unique offer to come around in recent times: super-high- speed Internet access, (the customer representative who called me to explain this offer and clarify any doubts said specifically 20 Mbps), home television channels with free and pay-per-view content including movies and live sports, and even a video-phone! <snip> IPTV is nothing else but the ability of your provider to have you buy into a mix of Internet access and private DRMed content for which it installs dedicated reception/decoding equipment at your end. By doing this you basically give up into a partnership into which your Internet provider is basically serving itself a reserved channel and abundant bandwidth to have you see and pay for this premium content. Further, the telco locks you into having to use its own equipment (as mentioned my old standard ADSL modem does not work anymore - as mentioned, I have basically upgraded myself into a "proprietary network" without realizing it - and the telco has created a "de facto" proprietary dedicated IPTV infrastructure and delivery channel to my home/office). The moment you realize this, you should also realize how you yourself have now sold your line to the very enemy of net neutrality. You have sold and paid for a telco that will devote the greatest and better part of the bandwidth you have supposedly leased, to serve to you its own very content. (A little slower internet surfing will not be noticeable when most of you have already been long spoiled by bad and inconsistent service from these very companies.) The telco can therefore boast the delivery of a bandwidth it is in fact reserving for the greatest part for its commercial interests while serving you with just the same bandwidth (or less) you were getting before. In this scenario, you and I become the very unconscious allies to these companies while providing them with the very means to install and deploy their own private IPTV delivery infrastructure into our homes. Mucheru, The cost of internet would drop this afternoon, if CCK wanted that to happen. I have a very serious problem with licensing layers upon layers of local bandwidth resellers and I wonder what "processing" they actually do. Because we are competing with India wrt outsourcing, consider their below case. I hope after reading it you will all understand why there is an very big need to ensure the cable benefits in this order 1. Consumer 2. Entrepreneurs (especially local after the Institute of Economic Affairs study that sought to find out if liberalising Kenya's telecoms benefitted locals. (my guess is that CKK auctions consumers to highest bidder) INDIA: The ISP services were a monopoly of the earstwhile government owned International carrier, VSNL from 1995 onwards. These services were opened up for private sector competition in November 1998. In the 3 years, that the Internet services were a monopoly, there were only 250,000 subscribers in India. The licenses that were introduced in Nov 1998 (internet telephony was disallowed at that time), were kept free of any license fee obligations. Bank Guarantees were only required to be submitted, to ensure Licensees started services within 18-24 months. From 2003, the license fee was to be a nominal amount of Rupee 1.0 only (just about 2 cents). VSNL had a state guaranteed monopoly on international connectivity till 2004 (was however done away with in 2002 and coincided with opening up of restricted Internet Telephony through an amended ITSP license). A virtual Zero license fee, along with provisions allowing ISPs to set up their own last mile links, setting up of International Satellite Gateways and later Submarine Cable links, thus allowing ISPs to connect through any carrier of his choice, resulted in more than 750 licenses that were granted between 1998 and 2005. About 350 ISP licenses still exist today. Intense competition was thus introduced and coupled with a fall in Domestic and Internatinonal bandwith prices gradually, saw the Internet Subscriber base rise up phenomenally from 250,000 only to 8.6 million subscriber base (as of Sept 2006). In addition to growth and penetration of Internet increasing, subscribers gained through massive price reductions, introduction of various valued services and currently India has some ambitious targets for Internet/Broadband going further. Kai Wulff <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> wrote: Hmm ... we had only 2 years of free market ... All infrastructure must be put in place and somehow it needs to be paid for. I know some ISPs are selling Butterfly unlimited for 3000 KSH a month! ADSL2+ is around the corner (saw offers for 5000 inclusive of TV .. ). For sure speeds are not what they could be with submarine cable .. now we are back to DAY1. Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucy Kimani" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:43 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) Bw. Micheru: This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed. LK
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project - bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK > OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. Very > little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
Well Alex, KDN is not an ISP and is not an IPTV company. We lay the fiber and on that the bandwidth is not shared. Same happens on our Gateway: We sell 1:1 to the ISPs. I think if we have an infrastructure that can (but must not) be used for multiple purposes, the cost of every single service will go down. Last time I counted we hav about 40 active ISP licenses in the country, multiplied by 40 (that is the factor India has a higher population), this is equivalent to India having 1600 ISPs. I don't think the number of ISPs is the limiter. India produced vast amounts of local content, this is content that does NOT have to be purchased from outside! Even in India you have a dominance of certain players and exectly those were the ones driving down prices since they could use the economics of scale! I strongly believe the consumer has the power to decide, as long as there is no regulated monopoly! Rgds Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Gakuru To: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 14:36 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Modelforprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) All: We have been fooled for very long by these companies. Take the last known CCK internet users data 1.5 million, if they actually supplied clean bandwidth at the internationally accepatable parallel sharing ration if 1:100. That is for every 1 MB a maximum of 100 share it, they calculate how much band width the telcos should be purchasing internatioanally, but they don't. Result, Hundreds of thousands of users are made to share very narrow bandwidths--> all connnected "parallel", and they are told there you have it 32/32, 64/64, 128/128 etc among others. Mobile ones purchase time-based bandwidth ( as opposed to volume or kilobytes traffic) Then they decide they should bill consumers by the packet, Quite lucrative making money out of air dont you think? Internationally recommended contention ratios are not followed locally and I have had very serious opposition to educating consumers to demand what ratio their ISP follows. Of course CCK should have offered leadership here.... Expecting them to disclose this is like asking voluntary elimination of super profits. Would you not like to have below speeds (e.g. a true 128 up and down link at 19,000?) Well, again you cannot have because CCK wont allow you, because of the market licensing, because investors would complain, because fibre is coming, because international VOIP would adversly affect other "dorminant" players, becuase...... consumers should not enjoy low prices? Below are the prices available from satellites out there , and all the while we keep blaming "high satellite costs". It is not true and in any case fibre will not reach every Wanjiku in every next year in a snap. We need ISPs to purchase bandwidth from any carrier. We want competition not closed (to) competition markets. <http://www.satsig.net/ivsat-africa.htm> Outbound speed from 128 kbps to 2048 kbps. Inbound speed from 36 kbps to 153 kbps
Service price starting at 147 ?/month for 128 kbps Special new subscription of 100 ? per 1 GB with 2 Mbit/s, to be spent in 3 months Many different subscription choices (25) including shared unlimited, shared quota and leased line. Very high quality service and QoS management Kai:
There is a trick some infrastructure companies are using to fool consumers to sign up to bad agreements. See below:- IPTV And Home Television Offerings Are Telcos Best Stealth Solution To Bypass Any Net Neutrality Resistance: Wake Up by: Robin Good http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/29/iptv_and_home_television_offer... In this article I report about the very negative experience of installing the newest Internet high-speed offering cum IPTV solution in my home as to avoid others not only the same frustrations and the waste of time and money, but also to share the fact that what many may still perceive as an upgrade offer to their Internet connectivity, is nothing else but your own very unconscious capitulation to net neutrality, as well as your official consent to install a proprietary IPTV system at your premises. <snip> A telecom company, who is also a large Internet provider, needs only a little marketing campaign to convince its users and potential clients that with about $50 a month they can get the most unique offer to come around in recent times: super-high- speed Internet access, (the customer representative who called me to explain this offer and clarify any doubts said specifically 20 Mbps), home television channels with free and pay-per-view content including movies and live sports, and even a video-phone! <snip> IPTV is nothing else but the ability of your provider to have you buy into a mix of Internet access and private DRMed content for which it installs dedicated reception/decoding equipment at your end. By doing this you basically give up into a partnership into which your Internet provider is basically serving itself a reserved channel and abundant bandwidth to have you see and pay for this premium content. Further, the telco locks you into having to use its own equipment (as mentioned my old standard ADSL modem does not work anymore - as mentioned, I have basically upgraded myself into a "proprietary network" without realizing it - and the telco has created a "de facto" proprietary dedicated IPTV infrastructure and delivery channel to my home/office). The moment you realize this, you should also realize how you yourself have now sold your line to the very enemy of net neutrality. You have sold and paid for a telco that will devote the greatest and better part of the bandwidth you have supposedly leased, to serve to you its own very content. (A little slower internet surfing will not be noticeable when most of you have already been long spoiled by bad and inconsistent service from these very companies.) The telco can therefore boast the delivery of a bandwidth it is in fact reserving for the greatest part for its commercial interests while serving you with just the same bandwidth (or less) you were getting before. In this scenario, you and I become the very unconscious allies to these companies while providing them with the very means to install and deploy their own private IPTV delivery infrastructure into our homes. Mucheru, The cost of internet would drop this afternoon, if CCK wanted that to happen. I have a very serious problem with licensing layers upon layers of local bandwidth resellers and I wonder what "processing" they actually do. Because we are competing with India wrt outsourcing, consider their below case. I hope after reading it you will all understand why there is an very big need to ensure the cable benefits in this order 1. Consumer 2. Entrepreneurs (especially local after the Institute of Economic Affairs study that sought to find out if liberalising Kenya's telecoms benefitted locals. (my guess is that CKK auctions consumers to highest bidder) INDIA: The ISP services were a monopoly of the earstwhile government owned International carrier, VSNL from 1995 onwards. These services were opened up for private sector competition in November 1998. In the 3 years, that the Internet services were a monopoly, there were only 250,000 subscribers in India. The licenses that were introduced in Nov 1998 (internet telephony was disallowed at that time), were kept free of any license fee obligations. Bank Guarantees were only required to be submitted, to ensure Licensees started services within 18-24 months. From 2003, the license fee was to be a nominal amount of Rupee 1.0 only (just about 2 cents). VSNL had a state guaranteed monopoly on international connectivity till 2004 (was however done away with in 2002 and coincided with opening up of restricted Internet Telephony through an amended ITSP license). A virtual Zero license fee, along with provisions allowing ISPs to set up their own last mile links, setting up of International Satellite Gateways and later Submarine Cable links, thus allowing ISPs to connect through any carrier of his choice, resulted in more than 750 licenses that were granted between 1998 and 2005. About 350 ISP licenses still exist today. Intense competition was thus introduced and coupled with a fall in Domestic and Internatinonal bandwith prices gradually, saw the Internet Subscriber base rise up phenomenally from 250,000 only to 8.6 million subscriber base (as of Sept 2006). In addition to growth and penetration of Internet increasing, subscribers gained through massive price reductions, introduction of various valued services and currently India has some ambitious targets for Internet/Broadband going further. Kai Wulff <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> wrote: Hmm ... we had only 2 years of free market ... All infrastructure must be put in place and somehow it needs to be paid for. I know some ISPs are selling Butterfly unlimited for 3000 KSH a month! ADSL2+ is around the corner (saw offers for 5000 inclusive of TV .. ). For sure speeds are not what they could be with submarine cable .. now we are back to DAY1. Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucy Kimani" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:43 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) Bw. Micheru: This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed. LK > Alex, > > You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the > people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting > TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they > hired? > Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor > brought > in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and > some > highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is > in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. > You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. > As > a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when > you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer. > > Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 > per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the > consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a > pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I > am better of. > > Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is > being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are > all of us. > >> >> The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to >> their >> national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting.... >> > > Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national > backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with > Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a > cable. > This would be against all things one can be against :-) > > -- > Joseph Mucheru > Executive Director > mucheru@wananchi.com > > >> From: Alex Gakuru >> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet >> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) >> To: >> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model >> for >> provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc) >> >> Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and >> operate >> on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have >> long >> let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree >> 100% >> Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly. >> >> We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the >> "open >> and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, >> telecos, >> "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity. >> >> The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to >> their >> national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting.... >> >> Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because >> nobody is >> stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways. >> >> /Alex >> >> John Walubengo wrote: Alan, >> >> I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber >> cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would >> still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework >> should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as >> competing submarine fiber cable. >> >> In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running >> accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates >> their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION >> providers equal access... >> >> Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute >> because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco >> market strutures. The current regulatory and business >> structures in most of the regional countries allow and >> probably encourage Operators to own the backbone >> (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all >> the service layers. >> >> For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone >> infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is >> licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through >> its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc. >> >> Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also >> joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning >> the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete >> accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors. >> >> And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations >> seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of >> accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the >> question would be, why try and change all that? Why should >> the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the >> comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market >> structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an >> otherwise good Open Access model... >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> --- Alan Finlay wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric >>> >>> Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward >>> that access to the >>> fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the >>> service end only. >>> >>> Your version says that access to the cable can be >>> competitive - or that >>> entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must >>> be allowed to make a >>> profit out of the cable. >>> >>> Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the >>> differences between these >>> two 'open access' positions as you understand them? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eric Osiakwan" >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the >>> Existing/Sugested >>> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions >>> which the >>> regulatory policy >>>> environment must capture and enforce; >>>> 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services >>> so that >>> infrastructure providers are >>>> NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa. >>>> >>>> 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should >>> not guarantee any >>> form of fair or unfair >>>> access to capacity for the provision of service (in >>> layer 2). >>>> >>>> 2. that there is no discrimination within and between >>> both camps so that >>> infrastructure >>>> providers are able to establish clear and transparent >>> trading >>> relationships with all service >>>> providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or >>> service layer there >>> should be no >>>> restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY. >>>> >>>> This creates an ecosystem of various operators >>> interconnecting seemlessly >>> and ensuring >>>> there is interoperability. >>>> >>>> Eric here >>>> >>>> >>>> NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" >>> infrastructure entity to be >>> owned in a multi- >>>> stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are >>> employed may also >>> impose some >>>> regulations from the financial market that can only be >>> detailed on a case >>> by case basis. >> >> --- John Walubengo wrote: >> >>> Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to >>> recollect and review how far we have gone in this online >>> discussion. >>> >>> Themes Reminder >>> 1) Why OFC (1day) >>> *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more >>> reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity. >>> >>> 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) >>> *Privately provisioned >>> *Consortium provisioned >>> *Open Access provisioned >>> >>> 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) >>> *No-Regulation >>> *Some Regulation >>> *Full Regulation >>> >>> 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans >>> (2days) >>> >> >>> >>> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) >>> >> >>> >>> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) >>> >> >>> >>> So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views >>> on >>> what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model >>> for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African >>> Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well. >>> >>> walu. >>> --- Alex Gakuru wrote: >>> >>>> Walu, >>>> >>>> I dug this interesting read off google search a while >>>> back (78 page) >>>> >>>> Open Access Models >>>> Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing >>>> Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) >>>> Final Draft >>>> August 2005 >>>> An infoDev Technical Report >>>> prepared by >>>> S P I N T R A C K A B >>>> DROTTNINGGATAN 99, >>>> 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN >>>> PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 >>>> WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>> >> http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> /Alex >>>> >>>> John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer >>>> to my own question < >>>> talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> >>> - >>>> anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy >>>> (which >>>> purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be >>>> covered here.... >>>> >>>> ~~~~00-copied below--- >>>> >>>> East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved >>>> Thursday, 22 June 2006 >>>> All countries participating in the development of the >>>> East >>>> African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed >>>> to >>>> implement the project on an 'open access basis,' >>>> overcoming >>>> a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the >>>> project. >>>> The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa >>>> Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South >>> African >>>> government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the >>>> countries that were objecting to the change in the >>>> project >>>> to realise the limitations of the consortium model >>> which >>>> they had preferred. >>>> >>>> The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic >>> cable >>>> from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations >>>> along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link >>> with >>>> the countries' national networks at the landing >>> stations. >>>> Others would subsequently be interconnected through the >>>> networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, >>>> Burundi and D.R Congo. >>>> >>>> When the project was first conceived, it was to be >>>> primarily a private sector project. The core investors >>> in >>>> the cable infrastructure would determine the retail >>>> prices >>>> of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated >>> by >>>> a >>>> group of companies that would generate financing; an >>>> arrangement known as the consortium model. The South >>>> African government and Nepad have recently argued that >>>> the >>>> consortium model would not achieve the objective of the >>>> project - bringing down the costs of >> communication in >>>> the region. They suggested that the model be altered to >>>> "open access", where any operator or institution in the >>>> participating countries would be allowed to acquire >>>> equity >>>> if it can afford the agreed contribution. >>>> >>>> In the open access model, the cable would be owned and >>>> operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a >>> company >>>> created to manage the network and establish the price >>> of >>>> bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be >>> formed >>>> to >>>> regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. >>>> Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as >>>> recognition of their commitment to the development and >>>> promotion of ICTs in the country. >>>> >>>> After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad >>>> e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a >>>> protocol that would form the legal framework of the >>> EASSy >>>> project. The Commission has already prepared a project >>>> plan, which it has sent to the member governments to >>>> review >>>> and comment, a process that take until August, when the >>>> protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is >>> expected >>>> to commence by the end of 2006. >>>> >>>> Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding >>>> from equity acquisition payments by companies from the >>>> region and then raise the remainder from African >>>> financial >>>> institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA >>>> Bank, >>>> East African Development Bank and others. >>>> >>>> Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News >>>> >>> >> http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid >> =32&relaItemid=877 >>>> >>>> walu. >>>> >>>> --- John Walubengo wrote: >>>> >>>>> What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric >>>>> plse >>>>> on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three >>>> paragraphs. >>>>> And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation >>>>> with >>>>> regard to a Private sector submarine OFC >>>>> provisioning....oh >>>>> yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point >>> too... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> walu. >>>>> nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say >>> something >>>> - >>>>> members are informed to treat their comments as their >>>>> personal and not official postions ;-). >>>>> >>>>> --- Lucy Kimani wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Regulation is definately required as even the big >>>> boys >>>>> of >>>>>> the west are >>>>>> regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read >>>>>> cat-throat) self-regulation >>>>>> has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. >>>>>> >>>>>> LK >>>>>>> OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even >>>>> online. >>>>>> Very >>>>>>> little activity. Heard from only Harry and >>>> Alex...is >>> >> === message truncated ==> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________________ >> ______ >> Don't pick lemons. >> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. >> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet@kictanet.or.ke >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Get your own web address. >> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke > ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
Bw. Mucheru:
This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed.
LK
Lucy, I would love to give you a price of $19 a month CIR for DSL. There are many factors affecting this, least of which would be the cost of Satellite capacity. The figures given by Alex are contended figures. Hence the need for TEAMS and EASSy. On the local loop front there is Great progress being made at the moment. You are aware you can get GPRS/Edge services in the market for as low as $35 per month. How does that compare to the rest of the world? The providers are working hard to meet the customer needs and bring the costs down but without the fiber connection it will not work. We need to come up with a working model for the cables to land
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Item id =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
> Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of > the west are > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read > cat-throat) self-regulation > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. > > LK >> OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. > Very >> little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
____________________________________________________________________________ __ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
Its even less than that of you pay by the Megabyte - Ksh10/megabyte. However, speeds are dependent on many things, amongst others - how many users on the system at the same time, your modem, your computer, and of course the backbone which is what we are talking about. Providing a fiber cable should lower the cost but in this case not increase the speed. Michael CEO Safaricom Limited -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Joseph Mucheru Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:58 PM To: Michael Joseph Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC (EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Bw. Mucheru:
This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be.
Paying
$19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed.
LK
Lucy, I would love to give you a price of $19 a month CIR for DSL. There are many factors affecting this, least of which would be the cost of Satellite capacity. The figures given by Alex are contended figures. Hence the need for TEAMS and EASSy. On the local loop front there is Great progress being made at the moment. You are aware you can get GPRS/Edge services in the market for as low as $35 per month. How does that compare to the rest of the world? The providers are working hard to meet the customer needs and bring the costs down but without the fiber connection it will not work. We need to come up with a working model for the cables to land
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for
people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to
consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are
waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from
"open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in
the the the perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are
waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project - bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780& Item
id =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
> Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of > the west are > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read > cat-throat) self-regulation > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. > > LK >> OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. > Very >> little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
____
__ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/mjoseph%40safaricom.co.ke The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.
Actually even less is possible once we create sufficient local content! A European country does not even import 1% of it's IP traffic, we import 99% .. Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Mucheru" <mucheru@wananchi.com> To: <kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 15:58 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC (EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Bw. Mucheru:
This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be. Paying $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I think the answer lies somewhere in between.. Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother" watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed.
LK
Lucy, I would love to give you a price of $19 a month CIR for DSL. There are many factors affecting this, least of which would be the cost of Satellite capacity. The figures given by Alex are contended figures. Hence the need for TEAMS and EASSy. On the local loop front there is Great progress being made at the moment. You are aware you can get GPRS/Edge services in the market for as low as $35 per month. How does that compare to the rest of the world? The providers are working hard to meet the customer needs and bring the costs down but without the fiber connection it will not work. We need to come up with a working model for the cables to land
Alex,
You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they hired? Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor brought in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and some highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel. You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before. As a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000 per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I am better of.
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are all of us.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a cable. This would be against all things one can be against :-)
-- Joseph Mucheru Executive Director mucheru@wananchi.com
From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) To: <mucheru@wananchi.com> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan,
I think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber cable infrastructure would be operated at cost - it would still be open to competition i.e. the Regulatory framework should allow for multiple, complimentary as well as competing submarine fiber cable.
In other words, lets have the EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running accross E.Africa, as long as each one of them Operates their cable at cost and allowing other SERVICE/APPLICATION providers equal access...
Unfortunately, this model is not quite easy to execute because it demands a total overhaul of the existing Telco market strutures. The current regulatory and business structures in most of the regional countries allow and probably encourage Operators to own the backbone (essential) infrastructure and still operate accross all the service layers.
For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide Backbone infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and is licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through its ISP subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.
Safaricom, Celltel (the 2 mobile operators) have also joined into the fray along the same-principles i.e. owning the Backbone infrastructures and continuing to compete accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.
And the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations seem to have served quite well if seen in terms of accelerated growth it has brought to the Industry. So the question would be, why try and change all that? Why should the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the comfortable status quo within the national telecoms market structures? I see this as the biggest obstacle towards an otherwise good Open Access model...
walu.
--- Alan Finlay wrote:
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to the fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the service end only.
Your version says that access to the cable can be competitive - or that entities that invest in the cable's infrastructure must be allowed to make a profit out of the cable.
Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit on the differences between these two 'open access' positions as you understand them?
Thanks Alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Dear All,
The Open Access Model makes two important distinctions which the regulatory policy environment must capture and enforce; 1. the distinction between infrastructure and services so that infrastructure providers are NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice versa.
2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer 1) should not guarantee any form of fair or unfair access to capacity for the provision of service (in layer 2).
2. that there is no discrimination within and between both camps so that infrastructure providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer there should be no restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE DELIVERY.
This creates an ecosystem of various operators interconnecting seemlessly and ensuring there is interoperability.
Eric here
NB: Becuase my preference is for the "first" infrastructure entity to be owned in a multi- stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that are employed may also impose some regulations from the financial market that can only be detailed on a case by case basis.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days)
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>>
anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project - bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Item id =32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three paragraphs. And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point
too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say
something -
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
> Regulation is definately required as even the big boys of > the west are > regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read > cat-throat) self-regulation > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster. > > LK >> OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even online. > Very >> little activity. Heard from only Harry and Alex...is
=== message truncated ==>
____________________________________________________________________________ __ ______ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
----------------------------------------- This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. " " http://www.accesskenya.com/
_______________________________________________ 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/mucheru%40wananchi.com
_______________________________________________ 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/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
May it be know by all men and women 30/01/2007 To Celtel, Thank you for the media story today. I note your persistent pro-consumer initiatives lauded in editorials and from the feedback from consumers. I am obliged to state facts The ICT consumer Association of Kenya ( reg. cert still pending since Nov. 2005 Lord knows why?) would like to explore collaboration on our independent consumer protection activities. Our collaboration would be testimony of consumer friendly providers working together with consumers but obviously where you go wrong we shall be quick to point it out as well while skeptics formulate their conspiracy theories. Regards, Alex --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Contribution to theme 4: Regulatory In our review of the ICT Bill we (Kenya ICT Federation) miss a competitive framework. In our Position Paper of last June we had proposed an insert in the Preliminary Section: 3. Competition Framework (a) Restrictions will not be placed on competition. (b) All scarce resources including but not limited to radio frequencies, rights of way for telecommunications infrastructure, and the top level domain name registry will be allocated in the public interest and utilized to the fullest. (c) Kenya will implement the decisions of bilateral and multilateral agreements to which Kenya ascribes to such as ITU and WTO. (d) The industry regulator shall implement 3 a, b, and c, (above) with regard to the following themes, on rates, terms and conditions that are not discriminatory and that are reasonable and just i. Interconnection of all service providers ii. Access to rights of way to existing physical infrastructure and new physical infrastructure. iii. Use of radio frequencies. iv. The provision of nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis (e) The ICT Sector shall not be subject to higher taxation than other sectors, mechanisms to fund universal access notwithstanding. (f) License fees shall be used strictly for expansion of the ICT sector More on www.kif.or.ke. We are currently further improving our ICT Bill position. Comments welcome. Cheers, Marcel Werner John Walubengo wrote:
Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe appropriate to recollect and review how far we have gone in this online discussion.
Themes Reminder 1) Why OFC (1day) *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster, more reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth capacity.
2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) *Privately provisioned *Consortium provisioned *Open Access provisioned
3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) *No-Regulation *Some Regulation *Full Regulation
4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Pending>
5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending>
6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days) <Pending>
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views on what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model for provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African Coast. Feel free to comment on a previous theme as well.
walu. --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walu,
I dug this interesting read off google search a while back (78 page)
Open Access Models Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa) Final Draft August 2005 An infoDev Technical Report prepared by S P I N T R A C K A B DROTTNINGGATAN 99, 113 60 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315 WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM
<
http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
/Alex
John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Found an answer to my own question < talked about emailing instead of talking to oneself?>> - anyway...The proposed regulatory framework for EASsy (which purportedly is going the Open Access way) seems to be covered here....
~~~~00-copied below---
East Africa: EASSy Project Model Approved Thursday, 22 June 2006 All countries participating in the development of the East African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now agreed to implement the project on an 'open access basis,' overcoming a hurdle that had initially threatened to derail the project. The Policy and Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa Commission, Dr Edmund Katiti said that the South African government and Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the countries that were objecting to the change in the project to realise the limitations of the consortium model which they had preferred.
The EASSy project involves laying of a fibre optic cable from Mtunzini north of Durban, through landing stations along East Africa to Port Sudan. The cable will link with the countries' national networks at the landing stations. Others would subsequently be interconnected through the networks of landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and D.R Congo.
When the project was first conceived, it was to be primarily a private sector project. The core investors in the cable infrastructure would determine the retail prices of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and operated by a group of companies that would generate financing; an arrangement known as the consortium model. The South African government and Nepad have recently argued that the consortium model would not achieve the objective of the project – bringing down the costs of communication in the region. They suggested that the model be altered to "open access", where any operator or institution in the participating countries would be allowed to acquire equity if it can afford the agreed contribution.
In the open access model, the cable would be owned and operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a company created to manage the network and establish the price of bandwidth. An Intergovernmental Assembly is to be formed to regulate the costs that the SPV would charge operators. Rwanda will host the headquarters of the SPV in part as recognition of their commitment to the development and promotion of ICTs in the country.
After the agreement reached earlier in June, the Nepad e-Africa Commission is working towards the signing of a protocol that would form the legal framework of the EASSy project. The Commission has already prepared a project plan, which it has sent to the member governments to review and comment, a process that take until August, when the protocol signing is anticipated. Construction is expected to commence by the end of 2006.
Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the funding from equity acquisition payments by companies from the region and then raise the remainder from African financial institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's PTA Bank, East African Development Bank and others.
Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon Regulatory News
http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877
walu.
--- John Walubengo wrote:
What form/level of regulation would be required? Eric plse on Open Access, plse elaborate maybe in three
paragraphs.
And maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation with regard to a Private sector submarine OFC provisioning....oh yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may have a point too...
walu. nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to say something
-
members are informed to treat their comments as their personal and not official postions ;-).
--- Lucy Kimani wrote:
Regulation is definately required as even the big
boys
of
the west are regulated, in a capitalistic environment (read cat-throat) self-regulation has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.
LK
OK. Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even
online.
Very
little activity. Heard from only Harry and
Alex...is
there
anyone out there still logged on to give us their
views
b/w
now and 2morrow.
walu. --- Harry Hare wrote:
Dear Walu,
Just checked the dictionary definition of
"Regulate"
and
got these synonyms - rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange,
dispose,
conduct, systematize. Al these sound and are good "English"
words
cos they give you the sense of stability, odder and continuity.
However,
these may not be so good "legal" words because law introduces the
concept
of
constrain. Then these words become a burden that regulation is (especially to the private sector) and that regulatory frameworks prescribe.
On the same breath, I would argue that its not a
simple
lets have or no, lets not regulate the OFCs. I think we need to
regulate
in the sense of providing continuity by systematizing and managing
for
the benefit of all, so regulation should only be used to facilitate
and
not
constrain. Non-regulation to me sounds chaotic and not
sustainable
in the long run!
Lets have a "facilitative regulatory framework" so
that
the private sector can do what they do best...invest and get a return
on
their investment; and
=== message truncated ===>
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/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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/mwerner%40archway-productions...
Hi all, I am on this list now especially because of the line "Consumers are particularly encouraged to say something.." and that Bw. PS sent my message to this list a last week. This a bit of a changa moto so hold on to your seat belt and let us think "out of the box " for a while John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
there is very little option.
Yes and No. There is of course the third option where we could seek customer-consumer owned fibre, we lay it and lease management to ISPs at our own terms. This is out of concerns the 1999 started liberalisation, have only resulted in increased and sustained high consumer price, For example, we used to call for 1 bob a minute on landlines, but today 7 bob per minute??? Therefore, even when fibre cables come, internet costs will rise? Incidentally fibre costs US$1 (one dollar) per meter, and is available locally. Going by what happened when government water systems collapsed decades ago, communities got together started self-help water projects that are very successful today. We have been seeking government support on this initiative though none has been forthcoming, this far. Canadians and Americans started a "fibre to the people" campaign in 2000, after they got fed up of waiting for big investors to take fibre rural. There was no "business case", they argued. Today, rural Canada homes are enjoing 1 gig to the home. Infrastructure challenges are recognised by the ICT Policy an the government states it commitment to facilitate the deployment.
The current practice is simply NO Regulation by virtue of the fact that most >OFC is laid out by Private sector with commercially agreed private contracts.
Study the Malta case, The British government wanted to regulate their satellite internet access and what happened...? Users installed concealed sat dishes on at secret locations which tired of dismantling, the regulator finally yieled and allowed anyone to access satellite internet so long as they just registered. Today, Malta has about 68-70+ internet penetration.
These are kept confidential until or unless a dispute arises in which case it is >resolved through existing Company Laws or Competition Laws. None-Regulation > has therefore served well in managing Private sector investements.
Question: Does the private sector do Kenya a favour to invest or do they follows the "business case" before burying their money? Q: Have policy makers been over protective of investors against every thing else, even the consumers who were supposed to enjoy lower prices and better quality services? Q: That secrecy... haiya yaya yaheee, weee!
Open Access Regulatory frameworks
A government-driven investment cable guaranteeing anyone to connect to the it a at pre-agreed rates. This way, communities and customers can connect their own networks to the backbone at the most competitive prices. This would of course require the current market licensing structure to be scrapped and replaced with a consumer friendly one. May be some more later? Alex Gakuru --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
participants (15)
-
Alex Gakuru -
Badru Ntege -
Bill Kagai -
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Brian Longwe -
Eric Osiakwan -
Harry Hare -
John Walubengo -
John Walubengo -
Joseph Mucheru -
Kai U. Wulff -
Kai Wulff
-
Lucy Kimani -
Marcel Werner -
Michael Joseph