[Kictanet] Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference

Eric Osiakwan eric at afrispa.org
Wed Mar 1 12:59:03 EAT 2006 


Dear Brian and all,

The link to downloading Eme Essien's presentation is http://www.ictpark.com=
/Presentations/_Eme%20Essien%20-%20EASSy.pps

Am concerned that Eme's EA fiber backhaul picture on slide 9 in the ppt is =
different from the NEPAD rationalised network which is "africa_eassy.png" a=
ttached. The engineering argument is that "africa_eassy.png" is a better bu=
ild, on the original "eassy_basic_route_config.jpg" attached due to the int=
ervention of the E-Africa Commission of NEPAD at a meeting in June 2004.

Question: why are we now seeing a different backhaul from IFC/WBG and if so=
 how are they going to finance EASSy seperately from the EA backhaul on sli=
de 9?

Eric here



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jim Forster <forster at cisco.com>
Reply-To: Discuss at afrispa.org
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:36:40 -0800

>Brian,
>
>Great info, thanks for sending...
>
>I will forward to some others...
>
>   -- Jim
>
From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric at afrispa.org>      
Cc: 
Subject: [Kictanet] Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
Reply-To: Kenya ICT Policy - kictanet <kictanet at kictanet.or.ke>
To: Eric Osiakwan <eric at afrispa.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
 
Brian, 

The EASSy consortium as a matter of necessity must adhere to the principles=
 of Open Access as enshrined below so that KENET and the UbuntuNet alliance=
 who have money to invest in the project should NOT be asked to present an =
international gateway license in order to be allowed. It is like i have mon=
ey to invest in a good business and you say i need a license to invest; i d=
ont know if this is a new rule in the VC world? 

Primarily, the rules for owership and investment in the cable should be as =
open to all as the rules of access to the use of the cable for provision of=
 service by all the players along the value chain. 

If the argument is to do country specific arrangements then the investors f=
rom those countries must have an equal say in how the landing station is st=
ructured and managed without any favours towards incumbency. In which case =
it is the interest of public policy that they give equal time and opportuni=
ty to the non-incumbent operators and services projects to get on baord. 

Eric here 

NB: Send the ppt but more so i would like to know what the EASSy guys say t=
o this? 


There is an urgent need for new approaches to financing and building out in=
formation and communication infrastructure to address this large unmet dema=
nd for information and communication services. Technological innovation hel=
ps make these new approaches possible and more flexible approaches to finan=
cing, service delivery and regulation will make them effective and sustaina=
ble. One approach (or set of approaches) gaining increased visibility and c=
redibility is increasingly referred to as the =93Open Access Model=94.   

The urgency, and the viability, of these new models are driven in part by t=
he growing (and inevitable) move toward Internet Protocol (IP)-based commun=
ication networks.  This in turn implies the move toward a =93layered=94 mod=
el of these networks, where there is a logical distinction between: 
=95 The physical layer (the actual physical infrastructure); 
=95 The logical layer (managing the connection between the physical infrast=
ructure and higher layers); 
=95 The applications layer (which includes things such as the Web browser),=
 and 
=95 The content layer (voice, data or images conveyed by the network.) 

Each layer has a set of functional rules that allow it to interface with th=
e other layer and for information to flow over the network.  Any player, in=
cluding new players, can use different elements of the network, or the enti=
re network, to provide services.  The IP-based architecture of the network =
makes it possible for services to be provided, and innovation to occur, at =
any point on the network, including, notably, the edges, where the network =
can be further =93grown=94 as well. 

Different segments of the market =96 and different layers of the network --=
 will naturally have different structures, and will attract players with di=
fferent business models.  For example, in most countries and regions, it wi=
ll not be feasible or logical to have more than one or two providers of bac=
kbone infrastructure.  The key issue in an Open Access model is to assure t=
hat no player in one of the layers can block access to another layer or to =
the rest of the network through having dominant market power in one or anot=
her layer.   

Key Principles 
This suggests a number of key principles of Open Access networks. 

1. Anyone can play 
Particularly because of the potential for locally-provided services and net=
work growth =93at the edges=94 made possible by flexible technology and ope=
n network models, Open Access models should assure that any provider willin=
g to play by the rules can =93plug and play=94 in the network. 

2. Technological neutrality 
Regulation should be technology-neutral, taking into account the cost and p=
hysical properties of the technologies themselves. No one should be stopped=
 from using a particular technology and indeed a progressive regulator woul=
d encourage cost reduction through technology innovation. 

One needs to recognize that in future a wide range of applications will req=
uire higher bandwidth. But there may be no significant (order of magnitude)=
 improvements in the performance of fibre, particularly its installation. H=
owever with wireless there will be significant improvements in performance =
and cost/capacity ratio and therefore wireless solutions will become more a=
ttractive in local distribution applications. 

3.  Fair and non-discriminatory competition at all layers 
Competition should be fair and non-discriminatory. There should be no preda=
tory pricing, cross-subsidisation or aggressive cross-ownership. Regulators=
 will need to be capable of dealing with a range of competition issues to e=
nsure a genuine level playing field, and to prevent market strength in one =
layer from creating unfair competitive advantage at another layer. For all =
services at a given layer, there ought to be at least two providers and whe=
never there are not 4-5 providers of a particular service, issues of compet=
itive position would need to be examined. 

What is true for countries at a national level holds true at a regional and=
 international level. Ideally any country should have a choice of at least =
two providers to connect to neighbours and the rest of the world. The EU co=
mpetition policy formulation of =93significant market power=94 provides a u=
seful benchmark against which competitive position might be examined. 

4. Transparency to ensure fair trading within and between layers 
Competitive markets thrive on transparent information about market prices a=
nd service. Internal accounting processes in companies need to be sufficien=
tly transparent to enforce fair trading. If there is tradable bandwidth =
=96 particularly at an international level =96 it will allow clear comparis=
ons to be made between different providers. There needs to be greater level=
s of consumer information to allow comparisons between =93offers=94, includ=
ing offers at the interface between layers. 

The different roles of players need to be transparent. In order to create t=
rust in the market, infrastructure providers need to be clear that they wil=
l not enter service markets to compete with their customers. The regulator =
exists to encourage competition rather than restrict it but to do so in a w=
ay that genuinely encourages increased investment and lower access costs to=
 communications technology. Where appropriate, regulation becomes =93light-=
touch=94 rather than prohibitive or restrictive. Government exists to creat=
e the legal framework through which competition issues can be mediated. 

5. Everyone can connect to everyone else at the layer interface. 
In order for a competitive market to function, everyone must be able to con=
nect to everyone else. Service providers would be able to get access to inf=
rastructure from the local to the international level, whether they were sm=
all or large entities. 

There will be inevitable interconnection rate issues where the interests of=
 the infrastructure provider in keeping re-investing in the network need to=
 be weighed against the opportunities that can be created for greater level=
s of new business. 

6. Devolved rather than centralised solutions 
It is important to ensure that the =93intelligence=94 in the network is to =
be found at the edges of the infrastructure rather than at its centre. In o=
ther words, the infrastructure provider should not be allowed to reserve fo=
r itself all of the functions that create value in the market. 

In practical terms, it should be possible to create a local entity that can=
 operate on the small or medium-scale and can =93plug into=94 the network w=
ithout needing to cede control over its activities to the infrastructure pr=
ovider. Local operators need to be able to own and control a significant le=
vel of =93intelligence=94 in the system (eg billing, features, etc) to enco=
urage open access. 

NB: This note draws from a study prepared for the WorldBank through InfoDev=
 on =93Leveraging New Technologies and Open Access Models: Options for Impr=
oving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a focus on sub-Saharan =
Africa=94, by a team consisting of Anders Comstedt, Russell Southwood and E=
ric Osiakwan, under the auspices of the consulting firm Spintrack 
 


>
>On Feb 28, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Brian Longwe wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here are my notes from a presentation that has just been given by  
>> Eme Essien of the World Bank/IFC
>>
>> i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get  
>> hold of it...
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> EASSY Presentation from World Bank
>>
>> Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank
>>
>> Shared Objectives:
>> - provide more affordaclbe ICT access
>> - meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region
>> - spur followon ICT investment in region
>> - provide cheaper alternative to satellite
>> - encourage greater connectivity and integration within region
>> - ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO  
>> GLOBAL NETWORK
>>
>> 10 Landing points
>> - Sudan
>> - Djibouti
>> - Somalia
>> - Kenya
>> - Tanzania
>> - Mdagascar
>> - Mozambique
>> - South Africa
>>
>> Eastern Loop
>> Northern Loop
>> Southern Loop
>>
>> World Bank Group Role
>> - assist parties deliver on shared objectives
>> - facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase  
>> private sector participation
>> - Conditionalities
>> - liberalisation of international segment - Open Access
>> - non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all  
>> operators
>> - identify funding gaps
>> - build capacity in relevant regional organisation
>>
>> Conditions for Success
>> OPEN ACCES
>> - maximises project's development impact
>> - clised club deal SAT3 structures have had limited impact on  
>> traffic, pricing, development
>> - capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line  
>> operators etc....
>>
>> Challenges
>> - 30-ish members
>> - Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents
>> - countries with differing progress on reform agenda
>> - differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT  
>> needs etc
>> - no single champion to establish common interests
>>
>>

--
Eric M.K Osiakwan
Executive Secretary
AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org)
Tel: + 233.21.258800
Fax: + 233.21.258811
Cell: + 233.244.386792
Handle: eosiakwan
Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North
Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North 
Blog: http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html
Slang: "Tomorrow Now"
--

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: africa_eassy.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 506192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20060301/bd758dd1/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eassy_basic_route_conf.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 63274 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20060301/bd758dd1/attachment-0001.obj>

More information about the KICTANet mailing list