Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation
Dear colleagues Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation. Yours, Rigia BY WARIGIA BOWMAN warigia@aucegypt.edu Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme. Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank. Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity. Access to portals According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning. This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months. What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa. The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres. Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business. In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague. The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions. Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements. Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training. Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May. Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss. However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions. First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year. Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board. Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year. Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators. In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals. Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke. Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village. There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity. Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
Well done. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN
warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank.
Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals
According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa.
The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres.
Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague.
The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions.
Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions.
First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village.
There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/crystal%40voicesofafric...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Crystal "Naliaka" Watley Kigoni Executive Director Voices of Africa for Sustainable Development crystal@voicesofafrica.org http://www.voicesofafrica.org/ Twitter: VOA4SD Skype: crystal.naliaka Facebook group: Voices of Africa<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_103722386364001&ap=1#%21/group.php?gid=139035902779599> Facebook cause: Voices of Africa<http://www.causes.com/causes/102634-voices-of-africa-for-sustainable-development?recruiter_id=16731206> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/CrystalKigoni LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=20585778&trk=tab_pro> "You must be the change you wish to see" - Gandhi
Dear colleagues Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on digital villages. The PDF is available free online here. This is what digital villages COULD BE. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience ------------------------------ The Authors Warigia Bowman, *Harvard University, USA* Arifa Khandwalla, *University of Massachusetts, USA* Abstract This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued investment in CTCs is warranted. Article Type: Literature review Keyword(s): Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government. Journal: Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Volume: 1 Number: 2 Year: 2003 pp: 87-98 Copyright © MCB UP Ltd ISSN: 1477-996X On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN
warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank.
Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals
According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa.
The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres.
Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague.
The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions.
Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions.
First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village.
There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
You can get the PDF here http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=abstract You do not need university access Yours, Rigia On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on digital villages. The PDF is available free online here.
This is what digital villages COULD BE.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html
The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience ------------------------------ The Authors Warigia Bowman, *Harvard University, USA* Arifa Khandwalla, *University of Massachusetts, USA* Abstract
This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued investment in CTCs is warranted. Article Type:
Literature review Keyword(s):
Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government. Journal:
Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Volume:
1 Number:
2 Year:
2003 pp:
87-98 Copyright ©
MCB UP Ltd ISSN: 1477-996X
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN
warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank.
Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals
According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa.
The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres.
Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague.
The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions.
Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions.
First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village.
There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
Hi Listers, Apart from e-health and e-learning, e-government was a critical part of the whole digital village idea. Bringing government services closer to the people by using technology to remove the barriers of geography and hopefully reducing the barriers of bureaucracy. One thing we did notice though is that government services such as KRA PIN applications cost upwards of KSh150 with similar costs for filing returns and KNEC applications. One of the challenges that needs to be tackled is how to innovatively reduce the financial barrier to access whilst still making it worth the business owner's while to keep this services available. I'm certain those insights lie with us. Kind regards, *Muchiri* Nyaggah Principal Partner @muchiri +254 722 506400 Semacraft.com On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu> wrote:
You can get the PDF here
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=abstract
You do not need university access
Yours, Rigia
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on digital villages. The PDF is available free online here.
This is what digital villages COULD BE.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html
The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience ------------------------------ The Authors Warigia Bowman, *Harvard University, USA* Arifa Khandwalla, *University of Massachusetts, USA* Abstract
This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued investment in CTCs is warranted. Article Type:
Literature review Keyword(s):
Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government. Journal:
Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Volume:
1 Number:
2 Year:
2003 pp:
87-98 Copyright ©
MCB UP Ltd ISSN: 1477-996X
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN
warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank.
Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals
According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa.
The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres.
Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague.
The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions.
Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions.
First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village.
There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
Hi Listers, Congratulations Dr Bowman and your team for the study tour. Having been the one with my collegaues in JKUAT who developed the digital training curriculum I am quite excite to get your feedback. The thing is, we developed the cuuriculum following a rigourous process which entailed a public presentation of dry run at KICC and then later via a pilot which we did for a sample of 200 people in all districts including lokichogio. We later conducted at TOT and ICT board then contracted those acredited trainers to train 7,500 potential Digital Village operators who we even certified. At the time we did the training, the understanding was that only those who had undergone the training will qualify for the funding. So it later turned out that even those who we didn't train got the funding, so I am not surprised of your findings. Next time, please compare the performance of those who we trained and those who are not trained then perhaps we can know whether the training had any impact. You can get the curriculum from ICT board web site and comment on it also Regards, Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI GENERAL MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk,cnduati@gmail.com,bm@jkuates.jkuat.ac.ke www.jkuat.ac.ke ________________________________ From: Muchiri Nyaggah <muchiri@semacraft.com> To: charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk Cc: Patrick Mule Mbithuka <PMbithuka@safaricom.co.ke>; Wachira Kang’aru <wkangaru@ke.nationmedia.com>; KK <kavorek@gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Thu, 1 September, 2011 14:11:29 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation Hi Listers, Apart from e-health and e-learning, e-government was a critical part of the whole digital village idea. Bringing government services closer to the people by using technology to remove the barriers of geography and hopefully reducing the barriers of bureaucracy. One thing we did notice though is that government services such as KRA PIN applications cost upwards of KSh150 with similar costs for filing returns and KNEC applications. One of the challenges that needs to be tackled is how to innovatively reduce the financial barrier to access whilst still making it worth the business owner's while to keep this services available. I'm certain those insights lie with us. Kind regards, Muchiri Nyaggah Principal Partner @muchiri +254 722 506400 Semacraft.com On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu> wrote: You can get the PDF here
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=abstract
You do not need university access
Yours, Rigia
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on digital villages. The PDF is available free online here.
This is what digital villages COULD BE.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html
The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience
________________________________
The Authors Warigia Bowman, Harvard University, USA
Arifa Khandwalla, University of Massachusetts, USA Abstract This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued investment in CTCs is warranted. Article Type: Literature review
Keyword(s): Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government.
Journal: Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society
Volume: 1
Number: 2
Year: 2003
pp: 87-98
Copyright © MCB UP Ltd
ISSN: 1477-996X
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank. Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa. The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres. Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague. The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions. Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions. First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village. There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
Hi Charles That is a good idea. I agree that comparing the performance of those who trained and those who did not would be interesting for pashas. Yours, Rigia On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM, charles nduati < charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Listers,
Congratulations Dr Bowman and your team for the study tour. Having been the one with my collegaues in JKUAT who developed the digital training curriculum I am quite excite to get your feedback.
The thing is, we developed the cuuriculum following a rigourous process which entailed a public presentation of dry run at KICC and then later via a pilot which we did for a sample of 200 people in all districts including lokichogio. We later conducted at TOT and ICT board then contracted those acredited trainers to train 7,500 potential Digital Village operators who we even certified. At the time we did the training, the understanding was that only those who had undergone the training will qualify for the funding. So it later turned out that even those who we didn't train got the funding, so I am not surprised of your findings. Next time, please compare the performance of those who we trained and those who are not trained then perhaps we can know whether the training had any impact. You can get the curriculum from ICT board web site and comment on it also
Regards,
Charles
CHARLES N. NDUATI GENERAL MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk,cnduati@gmail.com, bm@jkuates.jkuat.ac.ke www.jkuat.ac.ke
------------------------------ *From:* Muchiri Nyaggah <muchiri@semacraft.com> *To:* charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk *Cc:* Patrick Mule Mbithuka <PMbithuka@safaricom.co.ke>; Wachira Kang’aru <wkangaru@ke.nationmedia.com>; KK <kavorek@gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Thu, 1 September, 2011 14:11:29
*Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation
Hi Listers,
Apart from e-health and e-learning, e-government was a critical part of the whole digital village idea. Bringing government services closer to the people by using technology to remove the barriers of geography and hopefully reducing the barriers of bureaucracy. One thing we did notice though is that government services such as KRA PIN applications cost upwards of KSh150 with similar costs for filing returns and KNEC applications.
One of the challenges that needs to be tackled is how to innovatively reduce the financial barrier to access whilst still making it worth the business owner's while to keep this services available. I'm certain those insights lie with us.
Kind regards,
*Muchiri* Nyaggah
Principal Partner
@muchiri
+254 722 506400
Semacraft.com
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
You can get the PDF here
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=abstract
You do not need university access
Yours, Rigia
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on digital villages. The PDF is available free online here.
This is what digital villages COULD BE.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html
The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience ------------------------------ The Authors Warigia Bowman, *Harvard University, USA* Arifa Khandwalla, *University of Massachusetts, USA* Abstract
This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued investment in CTCs is warranted. Article Type:
Literature review Keyword(s):
Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government. Journal:
Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Volume:
1 Number:
2 Year:
2003 pp:
87-98 Copyright ©
MCB UP Ltd ISSN: 1477-996X
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia@aucegypt.edu>wrote:
Dear colleagues
Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation.
Yours, Rigia
BY WARIGIA BOWMAN
warigia@aucegypt.edu
Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme.
Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank.
Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity.
Access to portals
According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning.
This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months.
What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa.
The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres.
Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business.
In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague.
The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions.
Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements.
Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training.
Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May.
Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss.
However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions.
First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year.
Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board.
Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year.
Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators.
In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals.
Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke.
Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village.
There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity.
Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/warigia%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (4)
-
charles nduati -
Crystal Watley Kigoni -
Muchiri Nyaggah -
warigia bowman