Begin forwarded message:

From: "Wairagala Wakabi" <wakabi@cipesa.org> Date: 15 November 2007 12:17:57 GMT+03:00 To: fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org Subject: [Fibre-for-africa] Fwd: [APC-IGF] Notes on Access Plenary Reply-To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants <fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org>

--------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [APC-IGF] Notes on Access Plenary From: "Abi Jagun" <abi@apc.org> Date: Wed, November 14, 2007 9:46 pm To: "Private work space for APC members, staff and partners participating in the IGF" <apc-igf@lists.apc.org> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

The panel was chaired by Helio Costa [Minister of Communications, Brazil] and Markus Kummer [Executive Coordinator, IGF]; and was moderated by Richard Sambrook [Director of the BBC's Global News division].

Panellists were: Mike Jensen [Independent consultant/APC], Roque Gagliano [ANTEL/NAPLA/ALAC], Valerie D'Costa [InfoDev], Sylvia Cadena [WILAC.net], Mouhamet Diop [Next.sn], Anita Gurumurthy [ITforChange], and Jacquelynn Ruff [Verizon].

Discussants were: Maui Sanford, Rajesh Bansal, Hökmark Gunnar, Sam Paltridge, and Radhika Lal [UNDP].

The moderator asked that the discussions of the panel be framed in light of the following two considerations: (i) the characteristics of the next billion people to be connected to the Internet - "How do they differ from those who are already connected … Who are they and what is needed in order to bring them online?; and (ii) issue emanating from the demand side as well as from the traditional supply side. Issues arising from the supply perspective include - regulation, law, policy, competition, capacity building etc. Whilst demand side considerations include issues of cost, ease of use, relevance of content, access for the elderly and those with disabilities, questions of language, and the crucial link between access and development.

Key issues and/or suggestions that emerged from the Access Panel are as follows:

1. There was recognition that availability of Internet infrastructure must be considered hand-in-hand with the affordability of the infrastructure.

2. There was recognition that more concrete efforts at building demand for the Internet are required and an important aspect of this is the availability of content and affordability of access. To facilitate this, it was suggested that local content and traffic should be "kept" (in terms of hosting and transmission) at the local level. This is because "Internet transit cost[a] is one of the main problems for developing countries" (Gagliano) and are usually borne (100%) by service providers/operators in the developing countries. With this in mind, it was suggested that greater support (in terms of regulation and backbone infrastructure) be given to the establishment and sustainability of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) at both national and regional levels.

3. With respect to high transit costs, the need for developing countries/regions to take advantage of the "savings" that can be made by adopting a regional policy of interconnected IXPs and thereby "break through the transit model and … [usher in a] … peering model" (Diop).

4. It was also recognised that for affordable and universal access to be achieved, the competitive environment in developing nations needs to be developed. This requires that regulatory and policy regimes be improved – in particular the "long-term monopolies, duopolies or cosy cartels" (Jensen) that exist in the key areas of international gateways, backhaul/terrestrial networks and mobile sector need to be addressed. Other regulatory and policy areas that need to be looked into are interconnection, number portability, and the expansion and/or increase in diversity of organisations that are able to deliver/provide telecom services – these include community operators, municipal authorities, cooperatives etc.

5. There was recognition that improvements in international and national fibre optic network require new models for deployment. It was suggested that backhaul networks be viewed as a public good (in much the same way as roads are) and that in this respect their deployment be coordinated with other infrastructure projects – such as new road, rail, electricity, gas pipelines etc. The position can also be taken that "…development finance for these types of infrastructure projects should be conditional on including fibre in their deployment." (Jensen)

6. In considering the suggested need for greater coordination in the deployment of fibre in new infrastructure projects; it was highlighted that priority should be given to energy infrastructure and in particular electrification projects.

7. Reviewing regulatory and policy regimes, and achieving greater coordination in the deployment of infrastructure (amongst others) requires that the capacity of regulators be built up significantly ...

8. In order to improve and achieve more informed policy- and decision-making, the need to rethink indicators used for measuring progress/performance was highlighted. Those that are currently collated and used are often characterised by a significant time lag (sometimes of up to two to three years) which negatively impacts on the reliability and realism of decisions on which they are based. It was therefore suggested that more up-to-date Internet metrics - such as autonomous system numbers, domain names, Internet protocol addresses etc. – be incorporated into the repertoire of (global) telecom/Internet metrics.

9. There was recognition of the tremendous strides that have been made by mobile and wireless technologies in enabling developing country populations to gain access communication services. It was recognised that the mobile phone has been instrumental in this success and suggested that this technology, and the many initiatives that have adapted its use at the local/"grass root" level be considered for inclusion in future connectivity/access plans. This would suggest that such "community-based" initiatives be considered at par with telco-led roll-out plans – especially with reference to rural areas and marginalised/under-served communities; and where funding provision exists for universal service.

10. It was recognised that adopting a more "demand side" perspective to the access problem/issue calls for a better understanding of the needs of users – and in particular the needs of "the next billion" to be connected. It was felt that an understanding and articulation of "what the critical Internet use issues[b] are in underserved communities" (D'Costa) will help to better identify the relevance of telecoms and ICT to development, and in initiating access solutions that better serve these communities.

11. Recognising the needs of users – especially those in rural communities, highlights the importance of translating and promoting local languages and local customs as this facilitates the use of communications networks by these communities. An appreciation of the culture and incorporation of local languages also helps to promote and develop the skills of the members of the community in using the networks and in adapting them to their needs. This can significantly improve the sustainability and continuity of the network (Cadena).

12. In developing countries; rural areas can no longer be treated as the exception: "when in truth [in cited specific instance] more than 70% of the population lives in rural areas" (Cadena). It was therefore recognised that some reform/modification of regulation and policy is required to facilitate the implementation of access solutions in these areas. Specific areas highlighted include the removal of charges and/or duties applied to new technologies that are particularly suited to such areas.

13. Also with respect to rural and remote areas, it was suggested that certain services - such as communication during emergencies and disasters, should be provided as a public good (and considered more important than any economic interest).

14. There was the recognition that access is more than connectivity and that the tools used in connecting to the Internet – in particular their adaptation and adequacy of use –are also important. The need for capacity building around technological development and adaptation that would ensure that connectivity tools are "fit for use".

15. It was highlighted that when it comes to providing access to poor communities: "the most meaningful ICT models … are not just about creating demand loops for individual users to pay, but models that address systemic and institutional change through ICTs" (Gurumurthy). It was suggested that Telecoms/ICTs can and should therefore be embedded within social development initiatives and in these circumstances be delivered as a public good. It was emphasised that a "public goods approach to ICT" does not negate the need and relevance of market-orientated approaches to Internet access; rather each approach has its own area of application.

16. It was noted that access, from the perspective of the deployment of infrastructure, is capital intensive and that capital available for investments in infrastructure is international in nature. This emphasises the capacity developing countries must have in attracting investment/capital. Areas that facilitate attractiveness for investment were identified as including transparent and stable regulatory environment; respect for the rule of law; openness to foreign investment; a commitment to encouraging competition; good licensing and spectrum allocation procedures, a flexibility for innovative services etc.

[a] This relates to the cost of accessing Internet ports that are generally located outside developing countries and also the cost of transmission to and from these ports all of which are borne (100%) by the service provider in the developing country.

[b] Examples of these include how such use substitutes for a two or three day journey to the nearest town. How it can help a citizen better engage more effectively with a local or their municipal authority. How it can help a small business to expand its market reach, or its distribution network. How it can help new entertainment and information possibilities open up to those citizens. (D'Costa) _______________________________________________ Apc-igf mailing list Apc-igf@lists.apc.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/apc-igf

_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa

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"