Day 7-10:-Available eCommunication Strategies for Regulators
Dear All, Extremely sorry to barge in this later stage, but I had no other option because the past few days were exceptionally busy. Let me share some of the useful findings from the study Benchmarking National Telecom Regulatory Authority websites of Asia-Pacific Region For those who are not familiar, This study systematically benchmarked National Telecom Regulator websites in the Asia-Pacific region, evaluating their usefulness to telecom operators, investors, consumers, researchers and even the general public. Each website is awarded marks for the availability of information and features that are useful to the regulator's stakeholders. A total of 27 websites are evaluated from a region that includes 62 economies. (More details: http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/completed-projects/regulatory-web-survey) 1. For the study I have considered 62 independent Asia Pacific economies (Hong Kong could have been the only exception, but that needs to be taken into account because of its independent regulatory environment, which cannot be put in the same category as China.) The definition used for 'Asia' was the broadest that can be thought of because it included Middle East and Central Asia as well. Out of that 62, only 33 NRAs had web sites. (This was in 2004, the situation is a bit better now) Anyway the bottom line is only 60-70% of the NRAs have some sort of websites. This raises the question how far the NRAs have thought about communications. 2. If my memory serves me right I could not benchmark NRA sites (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Yemen) because then they did not have English versions. So the number has to be limited to 27. (I do not say ever NRA should have an English version, but this was a practical difficulty that we could not avoid) Even out of that 27, there were many NRAs that had not given any information relevant to end consumers. The limited information gives perhaps the mandate and the top officers at NRA. One NRA website even had a page for foreign tourists. 3. Then there were sites that provided consumer information to levels varying from basic minimum to very good. There was one site that reproduced every customer complaint and monitored the progress. I am not sure whether we expect NRAs to do to that level. There were also some sites (eg. Singapore, Malaysia) that provided a gamut of information including technical details many consumers might not even follow. Anyway, I do not think this is a bad practice. We do not need everybody's grandmother to understand this information, but the fact that they are in public domain implies that all consumers (including grandmothers!) receive a better service. 4. Not many NRAs were worried about presenting the information in a language understandable to the end consumers. (The six countries I have mentioned in No. 2 were exceptions) So even if the information is available it is not sure whether the consumers can take any use of it. We also have to take into account that some of these countries have extremely low Internet penetration levels. So we come to the same problems again. The content is there, but can the consumers realistically access that? These observations raise the important question how far NRAs can use websites as a tool to interact with the end consumers. I do not try to provide an answer right now. May be I can give a better answer at GK3. Then the question how NRAs can improve their communications using e-tools. I have some good new here. After publishing the survey results some NRAs have taken serious efforts to improve their websites. India and Bangladesh are two examples. I know both these countries have benefitted from the survey results at best. I do not see any reason why others could not. Think this is adequate for the moment. I hope I have brought in the Asian dimension to the discussion. Best Rgds, Chanuka Wattegama LIRNEasia www.lirneasia.net
Hi Chanuka, In our local Ksiwahili dialect 'Chanuka' means the 'bright-one'! So am sure you will have some answers based on your Asian Study which is quite welcome and timely. 1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian Regulators sharing? 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and the Regulators? 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there an attempt to provide same information through other means? walu. --- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama@lirne.net> wrote:
Dear All,
Extremely sorry to barge in this later stage, but I had no other option because the past few days were exceptionally busy.
Let me share some of the useful findings from the study Benchmarking National Telecom Regulatory Authority websites of Asia-Pacific Region For those who are not familiar, This study systematically benchmarked National Telecom Regulator websites in the Asia-Pacific region, evaluating their usefulness to telecom operators, investors, consumers, researchers and even the general public. Each website is awarded marks for the availability of information and features that are useful to the regulator's stakeholders. A total of 27 websites are evaluated from a region that includes 62 economies. (More details:
http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/completed-projects/regulatory-web-survey)
1. For the study I have considered 62 independent Asia Pacific economies (Hong Kong could have been the only exception, but that needs to be taken into account because of its independent regulatory environment, which cannot be put in the same category as China.) The definition used for 'Asia' was the broadest that can be thought of because it included Middle East and Central Asia as well. Out of that 62, only 33 NRAs had web sites. (This was in 2004, the situation is a bit better now) Anyway the bottom line is only 60-70% of the NRAs have some sort of websites. This raises the question how far the NRAs have thought about communications.
2. If my memory serves me right I could not benchmark NRA sites (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Yemen) because then they did not have English versions. So the number has to be limited to 27. (I do not say ever NRA should have an English version, but this was a practical difficulty that we could not avoid) Even out of that 27, there were many NRAs that had not given any information relevant to end consumers. The limited information gives perhaps the mandate and the top officers at NRA. One NRA website even had a page for foreign tourists.
3. Then there were sites that provided consumer information to levels varying from basic minimum to very good. There was one site that reproduced every customer complaint and monitored the progress. I am not sure whether we expect NRAs to do to that level. There were also some sites (eg. Singapore, Malaysia) that provided a gamut of information including technical details many consumers might not even follow. Anyway, I do not think this is a bad practice. We do not need everybody's grandmother to understand this information, but the fact that they are in public domain implies that all consumers (including grandmothers!) receive a better service.
4. Not many NRAs were worried about presenting the information in a language understandable to the end consumers. (The six countries I have mentioned in No. 2 were exceptions) So even if the information is available it is not sure whether the consumers can take any use of it. We also have to take into account that some of these countries have extremely low Internet penetration levels. So we come to the same problems again. The content is there, but can the consumers realistically access that?
These observations raise the important question how far NRAs can use websites as a tool to interact with the end consumers. I do not try to provide an answer right now. May be I can give a better answer at GK3.
Then the question how NRAs can improve their communications using e-tools. I have some good new here. After publishing the survey results some NRAs have taken serious efforts to improve their websites. India and Bangladesh are two examples. I know both these countries have benefitted from the survey results at best. I do not see any reason why others could not.
Think this is adequate for the moment. I hope I have brought in the Asian dimension to the discussion.
Best Rgds,
Chanuka Wattegama
LIRNEasia
www.lirneasia.net
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi John, Thanks for the compliment and let me try to respond as far as I can. 1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian Regulators sharing? Ideally these were the categories of information an NRA is expected to share with all of its stakeholders. (not just consumers - I think you might be more interested in the category No. 2) 1. Factual Information: This includes telecommunications Acts, statistical indicators, etc. 2. Consumer and Citizen Information: Information of interest to end-users or prospective end-users, about universal service, consumer rights (including reporting abuses) and tariffs. In addition to actual legislation and formal guidelines, FAQs, or frequently asked questions which are very important to consumers must be present and easily digestible to an ordinary citizen, 3. Business Information: This relates to information required by current and prospective operators and investors such as licensing procedures, technical requirements, interconnection agreements, online forms for certification, authorization etc. Here it is necessary to look for information which explains and describes the procedures and requirements, rather than mere provision of access to formal documentation and legislation. 4. Telecom regulatory news and other features to further disseminate information: This final category ensures accessibility of information, regulatory news and developments to researchers and journalists who can further disseminate regulatory information nationally and internationally. Often these features contextualize the site information and make it more intelligible. There were six NRA sites (Pakistan, Jordan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore) that shared information of ALL categories above fairly well. Then there were four countries (Sri Lanka, India, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) in the second tire. Others have shared information at various degrees. You will also see there is no strict pattern here. Pakistan a developing nation scored well about more developed nations. That proves the level of development has little to do with the intention to share information with public. 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and the Regulators? Yes, This was available in several sites. (I cannot remember exactly which ones) Many sites gave the email addresses of the relevant officials to be contacted depending upon the type of the issue. However how efficient this system was not practically tested in the study. It is possible that the site give email addresses but then be silent about the queries. 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there an attempt to provide same information through other means? Sorry, this was beyond the scope of the study, and I have no knowledge on the other means. Anyway, I could not see a direct co-relation between the countries that have low Internet penetration levels and have poorly done web sites. Some countries with low penetration levels have done fairly good web sites. (eg Bangladesh) It looks like the fair presentation of the site has more to do with the poor regulatory environment rather than the low Internet penetration. (Just my opinion, not proven.) My guess is if an NRA has information it always puts that on the web, before using other means. Do you think an NRA might not present relevant information on the site just because the Internet penetration is poor? This is a good point for future discussion. Hope I have answers your questions. Best Rgds, Cw -----Original Message----- From: John Walubengo [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 7:38 PM To: Chanuka Wattegama Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 7-10:-Available eCommunication Strategies for Regulators Hi Chanuka, In our local Ksiwahili dialect 'Chanuka' means the 'bright-one'! So am sure you will have some answers based on your Asian Study which is quite welcome and timely. 1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian Regulators sharing? 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and the Regulators? 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there an attempt to provide same information through other means? walu. --- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama@lirne.net> wrote:
Dear All,
Extremely sorry to barge in this later stage, but I had no other option because the past few days were exceptionally busy.
Let me share some of the useful findings from the study Benchmarking National Telecom Regulatory Authority websites of Asia-Pacific Region For those who are not familiar, This study systematically benchmarked National Telecom Regulator websites in the Asia-Pacific region, evaluating their usefulness to telecom operators, investors, consumers, researchers and even the general public. Each website is awarded marks for the availability of information and features that are useful to the regulator's stakeholders. A total of 27 websites are evaluated from a region that includes 62 economies. (More details:
http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/completed-projects/regulatory-web-survey)
1. For the study I have considered 62 independent Asia Pacific economies (Hong Kong could have been the only exception, but that needs to be taken into account because of its independent regulatory environment, which cannot be put in the same category as China.) The definition used for 'Asia' was the broadest that can be thought of because it included Middle East and Central Asia as well. Out of that 62, only 33 NRAs had web sites. (This was in 2004, the situation is a bit better now) Anyway the bottom line is only 60-70% of the NRAs have some sort of websites. This raises the question how far the NRAs have thought about communications.
2. If my memory serves me right I could not benchmark NRA sites (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Yemen) because then they did not have English versions. So the number has to be limited to 27. (I do not say ever NRA should have an English version, but this was a practical difficulty that we could not avoid) Even out of that 27, there were many NRAs that had not given any information relevant to end consumers. The limited information gives perhaps the mandate and the top officers at NRA. One NRA website even had a page for foreign tourists.
3. Then there were sites that provided consumer information to levels varying from basic minimum to very good. There was one site that reproduced every customer complaint and monitored the progress. I am not sure whether we expect NRAs to do to that level. There were also some sites (eg. Singapore, Malaysia) that provided a gamut of information including technical details many consumers might not even follow. Anyway, I do not think this is a bad practice. We do not need everybody's grandmother to understand this information, but the fact that they are in public domain implies that all consumers (including grandmothers!) receive a better service.
4. Not many NRAs were worried about presenting the information in a language understandable to the end consumers. (The six countries I have mentioned in No. 2 were exceptions) So even if the information is available it is not sure whether the consumers can take any use of it. We also have to take into account that some of these countries have extremely low Internet penetration levels. So we come to the same problems again. The content is there, but can the consumers realistically access that?
These observations raise the important question how far NRAs can use websites as a tool to interact with the end consumers. I do not try to provide an answer right now. May be I can give a better answer at GK3.
Then the question how NRAs can improve their communications using e-tools. I have some good new here. After publishing the survey results some NRAs have taken serious efforts to improve their websites. India and Bangladesh are two examples. I know both these countries have benefitted from the survey results at best. I do not see any reason why others could not.
Think this is adequate for the moment. I hope I have brought in the Asian dimension to the discussion.
Best Rgds,
Chanuka Wattegama
LIRNEasia
www.lirneasia.net
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanx Chanuka, I think we shall take your valuable reactions as well as Badru's as the last comments for this discussion. I must say we got more contributions from outside Kenya than within. <<Maybe the political temperature's are reaching boiling levels. Maybe KICTAnet should make another attempt to convene the Kenyan Presidential aspirants to talk about their ICT Agenda?>> As for the way forward, we shall compile the contributions for publishing within 1week from and with that, I have the pleasure of officially declaring this discussion officially closed. walu. --- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama@lirne.net> wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for the compliment and let me try to respond as far as I can.
1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian Regulators sharing?
Ideally these were the categories of information an NRA is expected to share with all of its stakeholders. (not just consumers - I think you might be more interested in the category No. 2)
1. Factual Information: This includes telecommunications Acts, statistical indicators, etc.
2. Consumer and Citizen Information: Information of interest to end-users or prospective end-users, about universal service, consumer rights (including reporting abuses) and tariffs. In addition to actual legislation and formal guidelines, FAQs, or frequently asked questions which are very important to consumers must be present and easily digestible to an ordinary citizen,
3. Business Information: This relates to information required by current and prospective operators and investors such as licensing procedures, technical requirements, interconnection agreements, online forms for certification, authorization etc. Here it is necessary to look for information which explains and describes the procedures and requirements, rather than mere provision of access to formal documentation and legislation.
4. Telecom regulatory news and other features to further disseminate information: This final category ensures accessibility of information, regulatory news and developments to researchers and journalists who can further disseminate regulatory information nationally and internationally. Often these features contextualize the site information and make it more intelligible.
There were six NRA sites (Pakistan, Jordan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore) that shared information of ALL categories above fairly well. Then there were four countries (Sri Lanka, India, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) in the second tire. Others have shared information at various degrees. You will also see there is no strict pattern here. Pakistan a developing nation scored well about more developed nations. That proves the level of development has little to do with the intention to share information with public.
2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and the Regulators?
Yes, This was available in several sites. (I cannot remember exactly which ones) Many sites gave the email addresses of the relevant officials to be contacted depending upon the type of the issue. However how efficient this system was not practically tested in the study. It is possible that the site give email addresses but then be silent about the queries.
3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there an attempt to provide same information through other means?
Sorry, this was beyond the scope of the study, and I have no knowledge on the other means.
Anyway, I could not see a direct co-relation between the countries that have low Internet penetration levels and have poorly done web sites. Some countries with low penetration levels have done fairly good web sites. (eg Bangladesh) It looks like the fair presentation of the site has more to do with the poor regulatory environment rather than the low Internet penetration. (Just my opinion, not proven.) My guess is if an NRA has information it always puts that on the web, before using other means. Do you think an NRA might not present relevant information on the site just because the Internet penetration is poor?
This is a good point for future discussion.
Hope I have answers your questions.
Best Rgds, Cw
-----Original Message----- From: John Walubengo [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 7:38 PM To: Chanuka Wattegama Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 7-10:-Available eCommunication Strategies for Regulators
Hi Chanuka,
In our local Ksiwahili dialect 'Chanuka' means the 'bright-one'! So am sure you will have some answers based on your Asian Study which is quite welcome and timely.
1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian Regulators sharing? 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and the Regulators? 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there an attempt to provide same information through other means?
walu.
--- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama@lirne.net> wrote:
Dear All,
Extremely sorry to barge in this later stage, but I had no other option because the past few days were exceptionally busy.
Let me share some of the useful findings from the study Benchmarking National Telecom Regulatory Authority websites of Asia-Pacific Region For those who are not familiar, This study systematically benchmarked National Telecom Regulator websites in the Asia-Pacific region, evaluating their usefulness to telecom operators, investors, consumers, researchers and even the general public. Each website is awarded marks for the availability of information and features that are useful to the regulator's stakeholders. A total of 27 websites are evaluated from a region that includes 62 economies. (More details:
http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/completed-projects/regulatory-web-survey)
1. For the study I have considered 62 independent Asia Pacific economies (Hong Kong could have been the only
exception,
but that needs to be taken into account because of its independent regulatory environment, which cannot be put in the same category as China.) The definition used for 'Asia' was the broadest that can be thought of because it included Middle East and Central Asia as well. Out of that 62, only 33 NRAs had web sites. (This was in 2004, the situation is a bit better now) Anyway the bottom line is only 60-70% of the NRAs have some sort of websites.
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
Chanuka Wattegama -
John Walubengo