[Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)

Tue Jan 30 11:43:15 EAT 2007

Bw. Micheru:

This consumer says we are nowhere near where we should and can be.  Paying
 $19 a month for DSL is what I was used to a couple of months ago and now
I am paying x300 for lower speeds!  I think the answer lies somewhere in
between..  Yes competition works, but there needs to be a "big brother"
watching & willing to enforce whatever regulations are passed.

LK

> Alex,
>
> You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC? It was run for the
> people by the people. The legacy issues from those days are still haunting
> TKL today. When you say cost based, remember how many employees they
> hired?
> Remember Safaricom before it was privatised and a strategic investor
> brought
> in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA and
> some
> highly political locates on their 071 analogue service. Today Safaricom is
> in places we did not even know existed, thanks to competition from Celtel.
> You can now get phone for 3,000/- shillings compared to 250,000/- before.
> As
> a consumer of the mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when
> you speak for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.
>
> Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators $8,000
> per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than $200 to the
> consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the GSM network on a
> pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on. Surely Alex as a consumer I
> am better of.
>
> Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that is
> being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The beneficiaries are
> all of us.
>
>>
>> The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to
>> their
>> national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
>>
>
> Finally is there any information you have that CCK will own the national
> backbone. Please let me know, I would need to have a major discussion with
> Eng Waweru (DG) I am certain the regulator is not going to operate a
> cable.
> This would be against all things one can be against :-)
>
> --
> Joseph Mucheru
> Executive Director
> mucheru at wananchi.com
>
>
>> From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet at kictanet.or.ke>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:53:53 -0800 (PST)
>> To: <mucheru at wananchi.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory Model
>> for
>> provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)
>>
>> Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own infrastructure and
>> operate
>> on  cost recovery basis. Both of you private sector and government have
>> long
>> let us down and in any case when government and private sector agree
>> 100%
>> Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and consumers suffer endlessly.
>>
>> We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and monks to transition from the
>> "open
>> and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf wars (govt,
>> telecos,
>> "experts " et al) protecting hitherto imagined markets in perpetuity.
>>
>> The only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to
>> their
>> national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA) are waiting....
>>
>> Those with lots of cash can build their own parallel cables because
>> nobody is
>> stopping them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.
>>
>> /Alex
>>
>> John Walubengo <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote: 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  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"
>>> To:
>>> 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  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)
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days)
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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  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 at SPINTRACK.COM
>>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Alex
>>>>
>>>> John Walubengo  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
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?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 at kictanet.or.ke
>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> Please unsubscribe or change your options at
>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>  Get your own web address.
>>  Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> Please unsubscribe or change your options at
>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mucheru%40wananchi.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Please unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke
>

-----------------------------------------
This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail.
   " "
http://www.accesskenya.com/