[kictanet] FW: Day 3 of 10: Day 3 - Hierarchy of IGO & ISPs

Sat Apr 28 08:35:43 EAT 2007

Fiona,

Is this forwarded message stating Sammy's personal, or NairobiNet, TESPOK, or is it your own take? I am a little mixed up because Sammy could just as well have posted it himself, you could have signed it on behalf of TESPOK?

Find it unusual because one would have expected a top official at http://www.tespok.co.ke/bearers.html to sign it.  

Kindly clarify because I wish to respond and I want to be clear first. 

Alex

Fiona Asonga <tespok at tespok.co.ke> wrote:            st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                       

          Begin forwarded message:

    From: Sammy Buruchara <buruchara at mac.com>

    Date: April 27, 2007 5:18:27 PM GMT+03:00

    To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet at kictanet.or.ke>

    Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10: Day 3 - Hierarchy of IGO & ISPs

    Dear all,

    I find the conclusion of this report about the IGO and ISP quite ignorant of historical facts:

                - The government from the onset of the Internet Industry was reluctant to license ISPs because of TKL.

                At the time only TKL had International Gateway License.

    Even 5 years after giving them ISP license, ISPs were still not allowed to setup IG operations. CCK used to visit ISPs premises routinely to check if they have illegal VSAT. State security was usually the excuse.

    International bandwidth from TKL was then US$8000 per 64kbs half circuit. Naturally this was somehow passed on to the client.

                - ISPs got the license 5 years later (2000) JamboNet was set up but still ISPs (even GSM operators) had to go through TKL for all International bandwidth whether through JamboNet or dedicated circuit. Dedicated circuit was made prohibitively higher to force ISPs to use Jambonet.

                - It took Tespok campaigning and even harassment by CCK of Tespok leadership before CCK could concede to actually open up the Telecoms Market in 2004.

    Tespok went to the Tribunal and won a case with CCK forcing them to allow operators setup International gateways. ISPs paid for this court case which cost millions.

    Unfortunately the authorities had other ways of permanently preventing ISPs from ever getting an International Gateway facility: Licensing fees. To setup an International gateway license the license fees was and still is Ksh 16 million. Naturally most ISPs could not afford this. In Uganda, it is a paltry US$1000.

    The beneficiaries of the liberalization victories were therefore not ISP but other investors who previously were not anywhere near the industry play. So came up KDN, Jamii, and all other BOGs. In fact only UUNET recently joined the group after much lobbying.

    The market may judge what they may about the ISP, but it is good to know that from the beginning, the govt used unusually great energy to make sure they do not succeed because they happened to threaten their favorate baby, TKL.

    Now if the ISPs do not add value and only increase cost, the reason? Your guess is as good as mine.

    The rest is history.

    regards

    Sammy Buruchara

    CEO - NairobiNet Online

    On Apr 25, 2007, at 8:36 AM, John Walubengo wrote:

      Thanx Alex for your comments on Day 1, for a moment I was

    bracing myself for a 10 day Online monologue :-(! as

    opposed to the planned Online dialogue. Incidentally,

    belated Comments on previous days themes shall remain

    welcome - just click on the correct subject line and make

    your appropriate contributions...

    Anyway back to today's theme- The Question of Internet

    Gateway Operators (IGO, the Wholesalers of Internet

    Bandwidth) vs Internet Service Providers (ISPs, the

    Retailers of Internet Bandwidth).

    The report recommends that seperation b/w IGO and ISPs be

    dissolved.  This is because the current structure

    Internet-> IGO -> ISP -> Consumers is considered

    unnecessarily too long.  Apparently the ISP as we know them

    today are not adding significant value - instead they are

    adding cost to the service and probably degraging the

    quality of the Internet eventually delivered to the

    Customers.

    Cutting down the middle-man (ISPs) may offset the costs and

    while increasing the quality of the internet eventually

    delivered to the Consumer.  Is this assumption true? Does

    allowing IGO to directly deal with Consumer result in

    cheaper Internet Services while improving on the quality of

    the internet?

    1 day on this theme, at the least, I do hope to get some

    reactions at from any IGOs and ISPs.

    walu.

    __________________________________________________

    Do You Yahoo!?

    Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    http://mail.yahoo.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/sammy%40opensystems.co.ke

  No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

  No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

 _______________________________________________
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

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20070427/6a050734/attachment.htm>