Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model for
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
John, you are like the Baptist, well said concerning the explaining. However i beg to differ on the last paragraph. The current situation has made communication in Africa, the poorest continent more EXPENSIVE than the rest of the world and this is due to a lot of factors most of which are triggered by your DOMESTIC CAPACITY. Please check how many people have telephones, internet, computer etc against population The question should rather be that if the prevailing situation has not made that much impact over such a longtime, why should we not CHANGE it. Please when you read the Open Access study @ http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.10.html we made clear some of these. Let me add that Open Access is adaptable to the local conditions in terms of "strategic implementation" however the principles are essentially the same. Also it is important to know that Open Access may not work in certain situations and therefore we do not claim "the ONLY ANSWER" to the problem. Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet@kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:37:23 -0800 (PST) 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/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" --
participants (1)
-
Eric Osiakwan