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

[Brian Longwe]

I must point out that Eme very clearly said that the diagram in her  
presentation was a "rough sketch". I however don't have any more  
information besides the fact that phases of the East African Loop are  
at various stages of completion with Mombasa-Kampala almost complete.  
(Probably related to the KDN Mombasa-Nairobi backhaul that is being  
launched this Friday).

Neverhteless - I think that we should make every effort to be in  
close contact with the bank as these projects are implemented and  
more importantly that they should come for the workshop in Mombasa. I  
have sent Eme some details but haven't had a response yet. Maybe  
someone, (Alice?) should put a call through?

Regards,

Brian

On 1 Mar 2006, at 12:59, Eric Osiakwan wrote:

>
>
> 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"
> --
>
> <africa_eassy.png>
> <eassy_basic_route_conf.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/brian%40pure-id.com