[kictanet] CHAKULA: Opening access to Africa: Interviews and analyses

[A. Wanjira Munyua]

CHAKULA Issue No. 16, February 2007: Opening access to
Africa:  Interviews and analyses

CONTENTS

1. EASSy: MAPPING THE PLAYERS
-        EASSy stakeholder analysis by Abiodun Jagun
-        Interview with Edmund Katiti, the policy and regulatory
advisor to NEPAD’s e-Africa Commission -        Interview with
Isidoro
Pedro da Silva, CRASA’s executive  secretary -        CIPESA
speaks to
Uganda Telecom’s Donald Nyakairu -        What’s in a name? The
controversy over the EASSy name change

2. ‘A CREDIBLE THREAT’: Kenya in the driver’s seat

-        Interview with Bitange Ndemo, Kenya’s Permanent Secretary
in
the Ministry of Information and Communication -        Wairagala
Wakabi asks if too much competition is a bad thing -        It’s like
waiting for a Matatu, says Russell Southwood -        KICTANeT
reports
back on its online discussion and workshop -        Rebecca
Wanjiku
spices up the debate

3. APC/UNDP WORKSHOP FOCUS
-        Interview with Ben Akoh, OSIWA’s ICT programmme officer
-        Interview with Polly Gaster, head of the Centre for
Information and Communication at the University Eduardo
Mondlane
(CIUEM) in Maputo, Mozambique -        Links to workshop reports
and
presentations

4. LATEST ANALYSES
-        Satellite failure shows Africa’s underbelly, argues Russell
Southwood -        CIPESA’s Vincent Bagiire questions whether
open
access will  bear much fruit if universal access does not begin to
create  effective demand -        Eric Osiakwan gets back to EASSy
basics -        Telkom SA under pressure from consumer activists

5. BACKGROUND READING
-        A selection of introductory content from
www.fibreforafrica.net to get you going

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

INTRODUCTION: THE FIBRE RUSH FOR AFRICA

If Kenya is anything to go by, the rush for cheap, effective
broadband in Africa is moving fast: everyone from multinationals,
to
governments, to individual investors, both local and foreign, are
involved, and they all seem to want a piece of the opportunity.

A centrepiece of all the action is the Eastern Africa Submarine
Cable
System (EASSy), a much-maligned and delayed attempt to link up
several coastal countries in Eastern and Southern Africa to other
global submarine cables systems in the North (See: http://
fibreforafrica.net). The US$300 million plus project, which will
result in about 9900km of fibre-optic cable being laid, is
struggling, and a number of countries, like Kenya, have decided to
go
it alone.

The project has the misfortune of raising several key issues about
the fibre rush for Africa. Such as: Who is going to own and run the
cable? Who is going to pay for it? And who will benefit and who will
lose out?

This issue of CHAKULA tries to offer some sense of direction. It
maps
out some of the players in the EASSy project, provides a taste of
some of the recent controversies, asks questions about open
access,
and offers links to analyses, as well as background reading for
beginners.

Two useful links for those who need to orientate themselves to the
discussions in this newsletter: In ‘Saturating the marketplace’
(See:
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057717), Wairagala Wakabi
from Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and
Southern
Africa (CIPESA) outlines some recent fibre-optic plans for the
continent, and asks: Is too much competition a bad thing? It is a
good place to get an overview of what’s happening and some of
the
political and economic challenges involved.

Some of these challenges are detailed, and technical in nature.
Recently the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANeT) held an
online
discussion to talk about the various regulatory and institutional
challenges to fibre-optic cables in Kenya. John Walubengo
produced an
excellent explanatory document on the ownership options to get
the
discussions going. (See:
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058919)

This issue of Chakula has been compiled by Abiodun Jagun, Ory
Okolloh
and Alan Finlay.

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

1. EASSy: MAPPING THE PLAYERS

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
This paper by the Association for Progressive Communication’s
(APC)
ICT policy researcher for the African region, Abiodun Jagun,
adopts a
stakeholder approach to analysing EASSy. It provides a graphical
illustration of the hierarchy of power and interest among the
different stakeholder groups engaged in the EASSy process. The
paper
highlights how different stakeholder groups are able - through
forming coalitions – to influence the proposed ownership structure
of
the fibre-optic cable. The paper provides a graphical illustration of
the current impasse within the EASSy project, which has been
described as a disconnect between the commercial and political
ends
of the cable. The analysis of this impasse shows two competing
groups; one the NEPAD Protocol coalition, and the other the
Submarine
Fibre Consortium. The analysis identifies that the powerful position
initially held by the consortium has been diluted, and that the
impasse has created high levels of uncertainty about the viability
of
the EASSy project.

Download the stakeholder analysis: http://fibreforafrica.net/
main.shtml?x=5057715

‘WE’RE NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO DO
’
Edmund Katiti is the policy and regulatory advisor to the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development’s (NEPAD’s) e-Africa
Commission.
The e-Africa Commission is charged with the coordinated
development
of NEPAD’s ICT policies, programmes and projects. A top priority
is
to ensure that all African countries will be connected to one
another
by broadband fibre-optic cable systems that will, in turn, link them
to global telecommunications networks through existing or planned
submarine cable systems. CHAKULA asked Katiti some easy, and
more
difficult questions


[Interview took place in January 2007]

*************************************

“The NEPAD process of conducting business does not permit any
country
to dominate the process or behave undemocratically.”

-- Edmund Katiti, policy and regulatory advisor to NEPAD’s e-
Africa
Commission

*************************************

CHAKULA: What exactly is NEPAD's role in the EASSy project?

EDMUND KATITI [EK]: On the 9th March, 2003, the NEPAD
Heads of State
and Government Implementation Committee adopted the
development of a
broadband ICT network linking all countries in Africa to one
another
and, in turn, to the rest of the world as a top priority NEPAD
project. As a result, the NEPAD e-Africa Commission has been
working
towards the development of two regional networks, and a
continent-
wide satellite network. The first network is what we call the NEPAD
ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network for Eastern and Southern
Africa.
This comprises a submarine (Eastern Africa Submarine Cable)
segment,
and a terrestrial segment. This network was agreed at a workshop
of
stakeholders (including telecom operators) held in Johannesburg
in
July 2004. The second regional network is the NEPAD ICT
Broadband
Infrastructure Network for Central, West and North Africa. Then
there’s the NEPAD e-Schools satellite network. As you can see
from
this, the submarine project is just part of a bigger ICT
infrastructure programme for the African continent, and it’s the
NEPAD e-Africa Commission’s mandate to coordinate the
structured
developed of the ICT sector on the continent.

CHAKULA: You’ve also being working on regulatory barriers?

EK: Yes. With a view to resolving policy and regulatory issues that
may impede or prevent the realization of the rationalised network,
the e-Africa Commission has worked with government ICT
experts, ICT
policy advisors, regulators, civil society, legal experts, executives
of telecom companies, and development funding institutes to
develop a
policy and regulatory framework within which the network could be
developed. The experts and policy advisors agreed that the
integrated
ICT broadband backbone should be based on several principles.
These
are: non-discriminatory open access; equitable joint ownership of
the
backbone infrastructure across the region; the separation of
ownership of the infrastructure from its use; the use of Special
Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to build, own and operate the broadband
ICT
network; and that the infrastructure should be viewed as a ‘public
good’ and operated on a cost-recovery basis.

CHAKULA: Do these principles apply to EASSy?

EK: The experts and policy advisors agreed that these principles
would cover the submarine cable as well as the terrestrial network.
In addition, they recommended that a Protocol should be signed
between the countries of the region in order to underpin their
collaboration in developing this network. A Protocol that
encapsulates these principles in a policy and regulatory
framework,
as well as the details of the SPVs that will own, operate and
maintain the NEPAD network, was developed and accepted by a
number of
governments in Eastern and Southern Africa. This Protocol has
been
signed under the auspices of the African Union, by 12 countries:
Botswana, DRC, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius,
Rwanda, South
Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe [As of January
2007].
The countries that have not yet signed the Protocol may accede to
it
in the future. The NEPAD e-Africa Commission is the
implementing
agency of the Protocol, and is also the Secretariat of the Inter-
Governmental Assembly (IGA).

CHAKULA: Of the countries that haven't signed, the sticking point
seems to be differences over the IGA. I understand the IGA to be
a
government-run structure for the ownership and management of
the
cable's inter-connection points between countries. How flexible is
this issue, if countries continue to refuse to sign the protocol
because of it? Could the requirements for an IGA be dropped from
the
protocol or changed?

EK: The IGA is not an issue with most of the countries that are yet
to sign the Protocol. Most countries were unable to sign because
of
the internal procedures for approving the signing of a regional
treaty. In some of the countries the Protocol has to be approved by
Parliament before the Minister responsible for the sector can sign
the Protocol, and this takes longer than the three months the
countries had from the date the Protocol was finalized to the
deadline for signing. The countries that did not sign the Protocol by
November 30, 2006, will be able to accede to the Protocol when it
comes into effect sometime in the first half of 2007, when it has
been ratified by seven signatory countries. The IGA is not “a
government-run structure for the ownership and management of
the
cable’s interconnection points between countries.” The IGA will
ensure that the policy and regulatory aspects of the Protocol are
upheld by the SPVs. The SPVs will have a Board of Directors and
a
Management Team and these are the structures that will be
responsible
“for the ownership and management” of the SPVs. There is
therefore no
need for the IGA to be dropped from the Protocol.

CHAKULA: Some role-players say that NEPAD is asserting
ownership of
the project. Is this true?

EK: As you can see from the above, NEPAD was created before
the
submarine project was started, and the NEPAD e-Africa
Commission has
been involved in the project right from the beginning.

CHAKULA: Kenya recently said South Africa was behaving
undemocratically. One can't help the feeling that some tensions
around NEPAD more generally (and South Africa's role on the
continent) are being reflected in this specific issue. Do you feel
this may be true?

EK: The inability of some countries to sign the Protocol within the
three months window was due to legislative procedures within
those
countries and not resistance to the Protocol. Only one country has
expressed reservations about a few aspects of the Protocol. The
NEPAD
process of conducting business does not permit any country to
dominate the process or behave undemocratically.

*************************************

‘WE ARE NOT GIVING UP ON NEPAD’
Kenya’s sudden exit from the EASSy project has set tongues
wagging –
and the controversy has not been helped by South Africa
apparently
unilaterally changing the project’s name to The Nepad Broadband
Infrastructure Network (NBIN). CIPESA recently spoke to Uganda
Telecom’s Donald Nyakairu. Katiti is also canvassed by CIPESA
for his
views. http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058257

WHAT’S IN A NAME?
The recent announcement by South Africa’s communications
minister
that the EASSy had been renamed the NEPAD Broadband
Infrastructure
Network (NBIN) was as astounding as her assertion, during the
same
function, that “the original model developed for the cable is not
what international financial institutions such as the World Bank
would have liked”, writes Anthony Mugeere.
http://www.cipesa.org/246
See also: NOTHING’S FIXED, SAYS NEPAD NEPAD’s e-Africa
Commission
issued a statement saying that the  project’s shareholders can
chose
any name they want at an up-coming  meeting in April/May.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058917

‘OPEN ACCESS IS NO LONGER JUST A CONCEPT’
The Communications Regulators’ Association of Southern Africa
(CRASA)
is a forum of communications regulators and other ICT services
stakeholders in  Southern Africa. CRASA’s objectives include
introducing effective  competition through liberalization, and
promoting an effective and  efficient regulatory environment.
CHAKULA
spoke to its executive  secretary, Isidoro Pedro da Silva.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058892

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

2. ‘A CREDIBLE THREAT’: Kenya in the driver’s seat


Kenya has become a vocal player in the drive for faster and
cheaper
connectivity in Africa, and the country is fast emerging as a
spirited leader on the issue. It recently announced that it is
pursuing no fewer than three major access initiatives in the
country:
The East African Marine System (TEAMS), a Kenya Data Network
(KDN)/
Flag Telecom initiative, and EASSy. The country’s spiritedness
has
caused some controversy, with a representative from the World
Bank
adding fuel to the fire by stating that the Kenyan plans are a
“credible threat” to the EASSy project. Indeed: it withdrew from
EASSy a few months later. But, backed up by an open and
inclusive
policy development process, that involves a range of stakeholders
and
sectors through the country’s multi-stakeholder network
KICTANeT, it
looks like the country’s ‘take no prisoners’ approach may yield
results. Bitange Ndemo is Kenya’s Permanent Secretary in the
Ministry
of Information and Communication – which means, effectively, that
he’s the person who gets things done. CHAKULA asked him about
TEAMS.

*************************************

  “Bottom line we have real opportunity to change our country
irreversibly.”

-- Bitange Ndemo, Kenya’s Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of
Information and Communication

*************************************

CHAKULA: The Kenyan government is stepping up efforts to
address the
high cost of internet access in the country. Why has infrastructure
become a priority for the government and your ministry, and what
impact do you see these efforts having on the average Kenyan
citizen?

BITANGE NDEMO [BN]: Our national ICT Policy objectives
include
lowering cost of access to emerging technologies, including
internet.  Besides, unemployment in this country has reached
chronic
levels.  To curb the problem the Government realized that we had
an
opportunity to utilize the highly educated youth in the Business
Processing Outsourcing (BPO) industry.  We had the first
conference
in February this year [2006] and by then there was only one 200-
seat
call centre.  We then started to market our country as a BPO
destination.  It became apparent that in spite of the human
resource
capacity that we have, bandwidth, with acceptable levels of latency
in the BPO sector, was the bottleneck.  Nevertheless, we now
have
4,000 Kenyans working in this new sector.  The cost of accessing
internet continues to hurt the growth of ICT in the country. Thus
the
frustration with the delays in the implementation of EASSy.

CHAKULA: The government recently announced the launch of
TEAMS. Can
you tell us a bit more about the project and how it will be financed?

BN: Kenya is a regional gateway and as such cannot wait to be
guided
on what to do in the region.  Although TEAMS is being driven by
the
Government of Kenya, the aim of the project is to fast track
connectivity to the East African region. The ultimate ownership of
TEAMS would not be entirely Government, but by willing investors
and
Governments in the region.  This project is like a road whose
objectives are to open up the region and on this road you can have
many buses competing.  Therefore on TEAMS shall be many
operators and
other investors from the region.  We consider TEAMS as a means
to an
end that would enable us compete with India and other parts of the
world.

CHAKULA: Will non-governmental actors have a role in the project
and
how will you ensure that access to the fibre will be truly open?

BN: The Government will have a minimum role; probably not
beyond
regulation.  The initial seed money will come from the Government
and
as more operators/users join, the Government would maintain
minimum
shareholding but leave the running of a special purpose vehicle to
the private sector that will be eventually be listed on the stock
exchange through an IPO.  The Government, as well as other
public
institutions (e.g. universities), would buy their capacity
requirement like all other users.  Our model is more like the
Swedish
one that is probably the Gold Standard of open access with
minimal
impact on the environment.  Whether you are Telkom Kenya
Limited
(TKL) or a newly registered operator, you will buy your capacity
requirement at the same price as TKL

CHAKULA: How do you see EASSy co-existing with efforts like
TEAMS?
BN: Africa’s problems emanate from monopolies (read National
Telecoms; and note the problems being experienced with SAT-3).
We
must avoid these problems by encouraging a competitive
environment in
all infrastructure projects.  Therefore EASSy or TEAMS have a
role in
maintaining low prices that would make the continent competitive.
Kenya also has another fibre project being undertaken by the
private
sector, and we as a government welcome all these developments
as they
truly become a means to economic and social development.
Fujairah,
for example, has four cables that are benefiting the region
enormously
 [Interview by Ory Okolloh]

*************************************

SATURATING THE MARKETPLACE
Marine cables could flood the east coast of Africa, but how viable
will the competing cables be? asks Wairagala Wakabi.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057717

THE FINAL FRONTIER
The East African coast remains the only seabed in Africa yet to be
covered by international submarine fibre-optic cable. An online
discussion and face-to-face workshop hosted by KICTANeT
charted the
best way forward. http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058762

IT’S LIKE WAITING FOR A MATATU

It’s like waiting for a matatu. You wait for ages and none come
along. But just when you’re about to give up hope, three come
along
at the same time, all trying to come to a screaming halt in front of
you. Balancing Act’s Russell Southwood discusses Kenya’s
options.
[Source: Balancing Act, www.balancingact-africa.com]
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5045073

SPICING UP THE DEBATE
When Kai Wulff, CEO of KDN and Bitange Ndemo are in one
room
discussing issues of internet connectivity, you can be assured of
fireworks. But the common denominator is that they are concerned
about reducing internet connectivity charges, writes Rebecca
Wanjiku.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058921

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

3. APC/UNDP WORKSHOP FOCUS

OPENING UP ACCESS FOR ALL
Open access, what it means, and how best to get communities
connected
came under the spotlight at a three-day workshop held in
Johannesburg
late last year. The workshop was billed a “dialogue and exchange
on
promising options and critical issues” and was organized by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and APC. It
aimed to
share project success stories and innovations, and explore ways
of
supporting policy and capacity development initiatives that
promote
open access on the continent. Participants include community ICT
practitioners, researchers, policy advocates, regulators,
academics
and donors from across Africa.
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=n30084e_1&x=504386
3

WORKSHOP REPORT AND PRESENTATIONS
For a run down of the workshop proceedings and links to
presentations
visit: http://www.propoor-ict.net/content/view/21/1/

‘WE CAN’T STOP AND WAIT FOR MEGA-PROJECTS LIKE
EASSy’
Polly Gaster  is the head of the Centre for Information and
Communication at the University Eduardo Mondlane (CIUEM) in
Maputo,
Mozambique. She has been involved in telecentre development in
Mozambique for many years, and attended the Johannesburg
workshop.
CHAKULA asked her what she expected from the EASSy project.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058916

GETTING POLITICAL
Ben Akoh is the ICT programmme officer at Open Society Initiative
for
West Africa (OSIWA). OSIWA supports the creation of open
societies in
West Africa: societies marked by a functioning democracy, good
governance, the rule of law, basic freedoms, and widespread civic
participation. OSIWA is based in Dakar, Senegal. CHAKULA
caught up
with Akoh at the Johannesburg workshop.

*************************************

“It’s about people talking to people for next to nothing, and it’s
about encouraging my African brothers and sisters living outside
the
continent to return home and contribute in the building of our
crumbled societies because there is cheap, affordable means of
communication.”

--- Ben Akoh, ICT programme officer, OSIWA

*************************************

CHAKULA: There were a number of definitions of open access put
forward at the workshop. Yours struck me as having a distinctly
political aspect to it, because it included the idea of media
freedoms. What is open access to you?

BEN AKOH [BA]: The concept of open access has been a tug-of-
war
within development circles. I have seen (or heard) definitions from
'open source' to 'open content' and then 'open access'. Pre-
pending
the word 'open' to any other word seems to automatically qualify
that
word to be included in what I will call the general 'open concept'
framework or parlance. It becomes difficult to then define, and in
turn accept as final, any one or the other definition of open access.
I will also not attempt to define it, though at the workshop I
managed to 'say' what it meant to me. And these are purely my
thoughts on open access until it is subjected to scientific and
social discuss, theorized and then proven - in scientific parlance.
Russell Southwood and Eric Osiakwan [see below], in their open
access
infoDev paper say (carefully choosing my words) that open access
is
the separation of services from infrastructure and that the base
infrastructure (which I will call the medium - and not to be
confused
with media) is the responsibility of those that have the means and
power to build this. So in telecommunications it is the copper
cable,
fibre; in broadcasting it is the airwaves (frequency allocation,
spectrum management and the associated speak - 'open
spectrum') and
the attendant last mile exchanges; in electricity it is the poles,
transformers, substations; in mobile technology, the base stations,
etc. And government usually has the means to build this type of
capital-intensive infrastructure and should stick to it; although in
recent years the private sector has entered into this space. The
second component of the open access framework is the services
which
run on these mediums. The definition of open access has
therefore
been firstly the separation of this spectrum and secondly the
advocacy for unrestricted access to any of the components of the
spectrum (re: infrastructure - or mediums - and the services that
run
on these mediums). I have added the broadcast sector to this
definition because of the sooner rather than later shift towards the
convergence of technologies. It will become 'difficult' to separate
what runs on the medium - difficult but not impossible to
distinguish
the type of traffic. And if convergence will 'force' all technologies
towards a converged media then the broadcast sector should be
included in the ‘open' speak. Broadcast can be further subdivided
into various little components - the content, the broadcaster, the
human resource within the broadcast sector (re: journalists and his
editor/publisher), the spectrum, base stations, policies that
surround broadcast, public/private broadcasters, etc. This is a
sector that is often held captive and tightly controlled by the state
and/or ruling party in most countries of Africa, if not the world.
Hence its political undertone. Advocating for open access in this
sector (not known as that) has been a long-time struggle. Indeed
media advocates have fought for some form of open access right
back
in the day with 'freedom of information' and 'freedom of
expression'
struggles. We should as well include the broadcast struggle in this
fight.

CHAKULA: How do you understand open access in the context of
West
Africa: Do you think West Africa is ahead of East Africa in the
access stakes, so to speak?

BA: One thing for sure is that SAT-3 had greatly improved
connectivity in West Africa in spite of its high cost of connectivity
induced by the closed consortium model of its ownership. This
sets
West Africa far ahead - in communication terms - of East Africa.
Although the individual cost of connectivity per country still
impacts heavily on the consumer, it may have improved the social
life
and living standards of West Africans in terms of their ability and
the ease of communication and access to information. Also, SAT-
3 has
spurred or incentivized the growth of other regional inland,
terrestrial fibre or submarine cables. While it is important to build
terrestrial networks, it is unclear, especially amongst investors in
East Africa, how much value such 'internal infrastructure' would
have
without a regional submarine cable that carries the generated
internal content to other parts of the world. I believe this is the
underlying, hidden issue that has negatively impacted the rapid
development and deployment of regional terrestrial and regional
submarine infrastructure in that part of the continent. While no-one
would say it this directly, it is the reason why the interest in
EASSy and its open access debate has led to no cable being laid
up
until the present moment. I however postulate that regions in
Africa
should not be compared against themselves. It’s not a question of
how
far the West exceeds the East in regional infrastructure
development
terms. But rather, it is how Africa as a whole sees itself in the
connectivity debate - perhaps against the rest of the world. It is
about how much capital flight happens annually and how that
could be
curbed. It’s about how Africans should encourage internal
communication, which will, of course, lead to the development of
our
continent as a whole and not a certain part of it while the other
suffers. (Indeed while technology growth is evident in West Africa,
there are other aspects of development in which West Africa lags
far
behind its East African counterparts). It’s about continental
economics versus the poverty picture that the continent portrays to
the rest of the world. It’s about people talking to people for next
to nothing, and it’s about encouraging my African brothers and
sisters living outside the continent to return home and contribute in
the building of our crumbled societies because there is cheap,
affordable means of communication. Which, in my opinion,
contributes
greatly to the underlying reasons why the diaspora refuses to
return
and invest in the continent. Let’s look at the fibre issue as a
continental issue, from a holistic point of view rather than the
sectored, fractured spectacles we have used up until now - of
EASSy
for East Africa and SAT-3 for West Africa. Then perhaps 'open
access'
would lose its meaning and become just 'affordable access.' Then
we
would have achieved our objective.

CHAKULA: What are the key challenges in West Africa, as far as
open
access is concerned?

BA: Firstly, the availability of SAT-3 gives us an illusion that all
our communication needs have been met and hence we do not
need to
further research or invest into alternative or more available means
of connectivity. Although there has been private sector activity in
this area (for example, the GlobalCom fibre link to London, the
Festoon cable, etc.) it may be insufficient to meet the future needs
of communication – especially, as I have already mentioned, that
all
services, including broadcast signals, would run on some of these
channels. This is one amongst many reasons why this medium
may not be
sufficient in the near future. Secondly, the open access debate has
not been an issue on the table of most West African connectivity
discussions, because of - you got it right - SAT-3. "It ain't broke,
don't fix it." Hence the struggle by civil society has been to lower
the cost and improve connectivity as opposed to directly
challenging
the rather 'political' status quo and structure of the closed
consortium; political in the sense that incumbents are tied to
governments and, believe it or not, governments have closely
guarded
interests in the revenue generated by their cash cows - the
telcoms.
While we also advocate for the opening up of the 'governing'
structure held tightly by the agreements countries (and their telcos)
may have signed binding them to secrecy, we also advocate for
the
ease of accessing this infrastructure from whatever landing station
one chooses. Could this be open access in another form? Or
perhaps
from a West African perspective?

CHAKULA: During the workshop you suggested that technology
can have a
detrimental affect, and that in some instances customs and
cultural
habits may be lost. In this way, a different kind of 'access' is
under threat - access to culture as it is being practiced. Could you
elaborate on this?

BA: I will put the discuss in context here, as the workshop focused
on access at the rural community level. I believe it is very
important that our rural folks should be reachable and should be
within either fixed or mobile coverage areas, fall within the
electricity grid, have running water, and information (either via
broadcast channels - TV, radio – or the internet), etc. Our specific
debate focused on the use and proliferation of 'free networks' in
the
rural community. This is clearly useful as I would be able to reach
my grandmother from across the world and she me if that network
is
connected to the larger national backbone. But should my grand
mum
use that tool to speak to her neighbor in the next commune of huts
-
10 meters away, just like we are used to doing in the urban areas?
(Research shows that more 'neighborhood' calls amount for a
larger
percentage of the entire household phone bill). We happen to
always
drop into a friend's place as we find ourselves 'in the
neighborhood'
without making any prior calls or appointments. This social
dynamic,
though unpleasant in some ways, is often appreciated. I may be
myopic
in my thinking here and perhaps be looking at this using the eye of
my village, the rural community that shaped my being. 'In the
neighborhood' is not the unlikely, but rather the norm, in the rural
context. Does the introduction of technology and rural
communication
affect this very fabric of rural culture? I believe so. When my
grandmother would rather speak to her neighbor on the phone
than
visit her seems to me to negatively affect communication within
the
rural community - communication being the basis by which African
communities exist. Ours is an oral culture.

CHAKULA: As a donor, what sorts of initiatives do you think need
to
be supported in the context of open access in West Africa?

BA: Clearly, the price of access needs to drop. Not just become
affordable, but way below the disposable income of the rural
person.
Secondly, barter trade still subsists in must parts of African
communities. I would like to see, putting it plainly, the ability to
exchange a basket of tomatoes for x hours of airtime for the rural
community farmer. I would also like to see the government, private
sector, etc. putting rural access on the forefront of connectivity
discuss and not just talking about it, but ensuring that something is
done - enough of the talk now. And finally, I would like to see
empowered and organised consumers and their interests cutting
across
rural and urban communities in the open access debate; and
subsequent
implementation. While I believe that regulation may be 'evil' in
some
form, a structured regulatory framework for both rural and urban
infrastructure should exist as self-regulation may be totally
impossible in connectivity issues. There are too many interests at
stake.

Background reading: Anders Comstedt, Eric Osiakwan and
Russell
Southwood (Spintrack AB): Open Access Model, Options for
Improving
Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-
Saharan
Africa), 2005.  http://www.infodev.org/files/
2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

4. LATEST ANALYSES

SATELLITE FAILURE SHOWS AFRICA’S UNDERBELLY
The cost of satellite bandwidth has rocketed as much as 50%
following
the failed launch of a satellite last January. The story shows just
how vulnerable Africa is. Russell Southwood explores the issue.
[Source: Balancing Act, www.balancingact-africa.com]
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058882

ENABLING OPEN ACCESS THROUGH UNIVERSAL ACCESS
In this paper, CIPESA’s Vincent Bagiire questions whether open
access
will bear much fruit if universal access does not begin to create
effective demand. http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5056029

OPENING UP EASSy
In the wake of what he calls the “EASSy fallout", Eric Osiakwan
goes
back to the basics of open access to get the project's engines
started again. http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5042385

BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON TELKOM SA
The Telecoms Action Group (TAG) has been making waves in
South
Africa. That's after it took out a full-page advert in two South
African newspapers slamming Telkom SA for its higher-than-fair
connectivity costs. CHAKULA spoke to Alastair Otter, founding
editor
of Tectonic, who is part of the TAG initiative.
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=he_1&x=5052971 See
also:
‘CONSUMERS SHOULDN’T SUBSIDISE TELKOM’ argues APC
Director Anriette
Esterhuysen http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057602

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

5. BACKGROUND READING

WHY AFFORDABLE INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH MATTERS
Currently Africa has amongst the highest international bandwidth
costs anywhere in the world. Although it varies, the international
element of the cost to the consumer is significant proportion of the
overall cost he or she pays. The same is true for institutional users
like governments or for companies in the private sector.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051584

FINANCING INFRASTRUCTURE
Before markets were liberalised, telephone companies were in the
main
government-owned institutions. When they wanted to build
undersea
cables, governments financed this activity and the project was
carried out by the government-owned telephone company. In the
age of
liberalisation, things get a bit more tricky.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051585

HOW FAR DOES DEMAND FOR LOW-COST CALLS GO?
Up until relatively recently, making international calls from Africa
has been expensive. People were less inclined or unable to afford
to
make an international call and the majority of international calling
was either corporate or government. A number of factors have
fundamentally changed this position.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051587

SATELLITE vs FIBRE: DIFFERENT COSTS FOR DIFFERENT
THINGS
Satellite is extremely effective in reaching places where the
volume
of traffic would not justify a fibre connection. However satellite
connectivity is often costly. On the other hand, the comparatively
low price of fibre connectivity for the consumer may not be
sustainable over the long-term in some instances.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051583

FLATTENING THE WORLD WITH FIBRE
This paper aims to define fibre optic technology, how fibre-optic
networks function, and explains how different this technology is
from
other communication infrastructures. The paper further outlines
the
prospects for fibre-optic technology in Africa, looks at some fibre-
optic networks on the continent, as well as at how fibre-optic
applications are being used to enhance technological and
economic
development.
http://www.comminit.com/africa/strategicthinking/st2006/
thinking-1897.html

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

CHAKULA is a newsletter produced by the Association for
Progressive
Communications (APC)’s Africa ICT Policy Monitor <http://
africa.rights.apc.org> which aims to mobilise African civil society
around ICT policy for sustainable development and social justice
issues.

We welcome your opinions about this newsletter. Send your
comments,
feedback or contributions to chakula at apc.org. To subscribe or
unsubscribe e-mail chakula at apc.org or go to:
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-
bin/mailman/listinfo/chakula





_______________________________________________
Grace mailing list
Grace at apcafricawomen.org
http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grace