Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested
Alan, The specific context here was "regulation" and am sorry you read my explanation to mean money on the cable. That is not the case, however the cable needs to make enough money to keept itself running otherwise we dont have a cable. Ultimately, the objective is to get cheaper prices than the exhaubitant options we cannot curently afford so the end result of my point from the regulatory side joins into John's point. When there is competition on the infrastructure side, because the first cable is cheap, others would have to be cheaper and more reliable so the proposition is to assume a certain structure and regulatory as well as financial mechanism that makes the first cable as cheap as possible. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Alan Finlay" <alan@openresearch.co.za> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:17:17 +0200
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.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:33:00 -0800 (PST)
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 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
=== 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
_______________________________________________ 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 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/alan%40openresearch.co.za
_______________________________________________ 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 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" --
Alan,
The specific context here was "regulation" and am sorry you read my explanation to mean money on the cable. That is not the case, however the cable needs to make enough money to keept itself running otherwise we dont have a cable.
Ultimately, the objective is to get cheaper prices than the exhaubitant
curently afford so the end result of my point from the regulatory side joins into John's point.
When there is competition on the infrastructure side, because the first cable is cheap, others would have to be cheaper and more reliable so the proposition is to assume a certain structure and regulatory as well as financial mechanism that makes the first cable as cheap as possible.
Eric here
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Alan Finlay" <alan@openresearch.co.za> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:17:17 +0200
Hi Eric
Earlier John said that the Open Access model put forward that access to
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
infrastructure
providers are able to establish clear and transparent trading relationships with all service providers and vice versa. Within the infrastructure or service layer
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarifications Eric, John. Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric@afrispa.org> To: <alan@openresearch.co.za> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 4 of 10: What are the Existing/Sugested options we cannot the that 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.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:33:00 -0800 (PST)
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 > 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
=== 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
_______________________________________________ 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 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/alan%40openresearch.co.za
_______________________________________________ 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 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/alan%40openresearch.co.za
participants (2)
-
Alan Finlay -
Eric Osiakwan