[kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders

[John Walubengo]

Thanx Kihanya and all for your comments.  Apologies for
going off-air over the last 12hrs.  Indeed you all need to
go through your previous mails and ensure you are uptodate
with some belated postings from members...

I want to rule that we remain on the above discussion
today(we froze to day to Day 8) and then move on tomorrow
and part of Monday on our last portion of the discussion:
-Conclusions and Reconciling Stakeholder Interests.

walu.
nb: Kihanya's input maps well with What Roland (2006) had
featured @
http://www.ralden.com/C6/A%20Way%20Forward/default.aspx

It seems like Regulatory/Market Structure overhauling maybe
more crucial than just laying down or provisioning the
fiber - irrespective of the Model adopted.


--- Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku at yahoo.com> wrote:

> the question of regulation is tricky but as Kihanya
> points out, it is going to take a lot of consultations
> and concessions between government and other stakeholders
> if the OFC is to work and serve the intended purposes,
>    
>   True, other countries have deregulated but what do you
> do in a country like say, Kenya where the anti monopolies
> commissioner is not in the fore front of addressing
> issues, am sure many people on the streets may not know
> the existence of that office.
>    
>   In the article by Roland Alden that Walu has
> recommended, he argues that many African govts have been
> resistant to change and adds that what is needed is
> regulation liberalization. Maybe that’s what is needed.
>    
>   But how do we start talking of deregulation when we
> can’t agree about the Act that will govern some of these
> issues.
>    
>   I may not be well versed with the law but am sure with
> the technological development, there will arise disputes
> that were not envisaged in our current laws, how do we
> deal with that within the judicial system, we need an ACT
> 
>   Roland further contends that in some cases, regulators
> may have ordered a party to fulfill its part of the
> bargain, but when it failed, the judicial system "rarely
> provided any meaningful" compensation to the aggrieved
> party.
>    
>   Regulation, deregulation, appropriate law, and am sure
> all these issues must be discussed at one point....
>    
> r
> 
> joseph kihanya <kihanyajn at yahoo.com> wrote:  The
> regulatory framework I am afraid has to have its
> background against what is and has become current over
> the last 15 years or so globally.
> It can be viewed both at the national level and at the
> international arena.
> It is important to note that regulation in
> telecommunications is a public policy matter for any
> country. Governments must design and implement regulation
> based on the needs of a particular country and its
> peculiar historical or other circumstances, of course
> tending towards best practices.
> 
> Telecommunications regulation in the transition from a
> monopolistic and largely anti- market based approaches to
> supply of services, to a market based approach in a
> liberalized era, mandated most governments and hence
> societies to seek regulatory oversight. This was against
> an anticipated reduction of oversight given that market
> forces/ competition was to guide, in the long term, the
> development of this industry as in others. Consensus
> appears to be that in the short term-as a guide/
> facilitator to liberalization, regulatory bodies were and
> are required.
> It is indeed even anticipated that it is in this
> transitional stage that the regulators will be so busy
> – for the obvious reasons that the new players may gain
> dominance very quickly and attain the monopolistic
> tendencies of the historical operators.
> Why is regulation in telecommunications important?
> 1. It authorizes new operators.
> 2. It removes barriers to entry.
> 3. It mandates interconnection between players.
> 4. It oversees the penetration of services in areas that
> commercial imperatives would not allow or pursue.
> The objectives of transparent telecommunications
> regulation are mainly the following;
> Oversee competitive markets by;
>  Promoting efficient supply of services.
>  Ensuring good QOS
>  Promote advances services
>  Enable the maintenance of efficient pricing.
>  Prevent abuse of significant market powers.
>  Protect consumer rights/privacy rights.
>  Facilitate interconnection thereby efficient use of
> telecommunication services.
>  Oversee the optimal use of the finite radio frequency
> spectrum.
> >From the foregoing, it is clear that, in the short term
> at least, most countries, Kenya included have an interest
> to regulate telecommunications services provision.
> The question therefore only remains as to whether the OFC
> is within the ambit of what may be regulated in the
> industry.
> Deregulation is a theme that is in play in most
> jurisdictions that have achieved above optimal
> competitive markets. The case of the UK under the
> Communications Act 2003 and the role of OFCOM are in
> point.
> Given that there is no direct call for deregulation even
> under the National ICT policy 2006, it would appear that
> the strategies suggested at 3.3.1 in relation to
> information technology infrastructure would entail a fair
> amount of regulation. This is especially given the fact
> that despite encouragement of the laying of the
> infrastructure, only so few options will be available,
> Indeed, in the OFC case, perhaps 2 will be a lucky option
> for many for the next 5-10 years or more.
> Do we then need a regulatory framework?
> 
> My answer is yes and perhaps for tempering, a hesitant
> qualifier.
> 
> Competition laws are likely to be the most fundamental
> “regulatory framework” for the OFC as indeed for any
> other services.
> It is particular to note that even in the UK the Office
> of Fair Trading and OFCOM share equivalent powers in
> relation to fostering competition. The CCK will have to;
> in the very short to medium term translate from the
> “licenser”- facilitator of entry- primarily- to a
> serious competition oversight body with sound, quick and
> efficient determinations. If I am not wrong the only
> recorded competition determination relates to the
> cyber-café association- common pricing attempt- I stand
> to be corrected. Interconnection determinations have been
> one- Kencell vs TKL ?
> This will be countered and perhaps also enhanced by an
> independent competition body- the workings of the
> anti-monopolies commissioner under the Restrictive Trade
> Practices Act (Chapter 504 Laws of Kenya), are highly
> opaque. 
> Other countries, such as Australia have also undergone a
> transformation from maintaining industry specific
> competition principles and statutes for the
> telecommunication sector to an all inclusive co-
> competition oversight regime in the interim and a
> sustainable sole competition / regulatory framework for
> all industries.
> As such therefore, regulation for the OFC may be through
> the competition framework under the CA 1998 or the KICT
> BILL 2006.
> Complete lack of regulation may therefore not be an
> option at all. 
> Whatever business model is adopted, the Key question is
> whether as a country in acute need of the OFC, we would
> facilitate its provisioning of services within the
> country without any regard to any oversight of any sort
> for whatever purpose. 
> At the international level.
> The WTO and the ITU also anticipate regulatory oversight
> in telecommunications too and Kenya, being party to these
> organizations would be hard pressed to provision services
> without oversight (if that were possible), especially
> since the OFC will be extra-territorial.
> I would suggest that a reading of this Reference paper at
> the WTO would elaborate on this aspect. See
> www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm
> 
> 
> 
> The best regulatory models would for me therefore be
> within the competition framework.
> 
> It would be difficult to try and regulate any/the OFC,
> singularly, as it would also perhaps border on the
> unconstitutional, there being a bar againts
> discrimination under our Constitution.
> 
> Sector specific competition regulation under the CA1998
> may work in the meantime but in the long run a clear
> policy that has a generic definition of what significant
> market power is, would serve the industry best.
> 
> Kihanya
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Walubengo 
> To: kihanyajn at yahoo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact
> of OFC on the Stakeholders
> 
> 
> Cool! u r on e-record- we expect something Regulatory
> from
> you on or before Day 10.
> 
> thanx,
> walu. 
> --- joseph kihanya wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Walu for the discussion moderation.
> > 
> > I am doing something on the regulatory framework and
> will
> > post by day 10.
> > 
> > On operators I would expect that there woulda be a
> > reciprocation in price and QOS issues.
> > I would expect that there would be publicly accessible
> > interconnection agreements under the non-discriminatory
> 
> > technology-neutral Open Access principles .
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> 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/jwalu%40yahoo.com



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com