[kictanet] Fwd: [Fibre-for-africa] Fwd: [APC-IGF] Notes on Access Plenary

[Eric Osiakwan]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Wairagala Wakabi" <wakabi at cipesa.org>
> Date: 15 November 2007 12:17:57 GMT+03:00
> To: fibre-for-africa at lists.apc.org
> Subject: [Fibre-for-africa] Fwd: [APC-IGF] Notes on Access Plenary
> Reply-To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants  
> <fibre-for-africa at lists.apc.org>
>
> --------------------------- Original Message  
> ----------------------------
> Subject: [APC-IGF] Notes on Access Plenary
> From:    "Abi Jagun" <abi at apc.org>
> Date:    Wed, November 14, 2007 9:46 pm
> To:      "Private work space for APC members,  staff and partners
> participating in the IGF" <apc-igf at lists.apc.org>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----
>
> The panel was chaired by Helio Costa [Minister of Communications,
> Brazil] and Markus Kummer [Executive Coordinator, IGF]; and was
> moderated by Richard Sambrook [Director of the BBC's Global News
> division].
>
> Panellists were: Mike Jensen [Independent consultant/APC], Roque
> Gagliano [ANTEL/NAPLA/ALAC], Valerie D'Costa [InfoDev], Sylvia Cadena
> [WILAC.net], Mouhamet Diop [Next.sn], Anita Gurumurthy [ITforChange],
> and Jacquelynn Ruff [Verizon].
>
> Discussants were: Maui Sanford, Rajesh Bansal, Hökmark Gunnar, Sam
> Paltridge, and Radhika Lal [UNDP].
>
>
> The moderator asked that the discussions of the panel be framed in
> light of the following two considerations: (i) the characteristics of
> the next billion people to be connected to the Internet - "How do they
> differ from those who are already connected … Who are they and what is
> needed in order to bring them online?; and (ii) issue emanating from
> the demand side as well as from the traditional supply side.  Issues
> arising from the supply perspective include - regulation, law, policy,
> competition, capacity building etc.  Whilst demand side considerations
> include issues of cost, ease of use, relevance of content, access for
> the elderly and those with disabilities, questions of language, and
> the crucial link between access and development.
>
>
> Key issues and/or suggestions that emerged from the Access Panel  
> are as
> follows:
>
> 1.	There was recognition that availability of Internet infrastructure
> must be considered hand-in-hand with the affordability of the
> infrastructure.
>
> 2.	There was recognition that more concrete efforts at building demand
> for the Internet are required and an important aspect of this is the
> availability of content and affordability of access.  To facilitate
> this, it was suggested that local content and traffic should be "kept"
> (in terms of hosting and transmission) at the local level.  This is
> because "Internet transit cost[a] is one of the main problems for
> developing countries" (Gagliano) and are usually borne (100%) by
> service providers/operators in the developing countries.  With this in
> mind, it was suggested that greater support (in terms of regulation
> and backbone infrastructure) be given to the establishment and
> sustainability of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) at both national and
> regional levels.
>
> 3.	With respect to high transit costs, the need for developing
> countries/regions to take advantage of the "savings" that can be made
> by adopting a regional policy of interconnected IXPs and thereby
> "break through the transit model and … [usher in a] … peering model"
> (Diop).
>
> 4.	It was also recognised that for affordable and universal access to
> be achieved, the competitive environment in developing nations needs
> to be developed.  This requires that regulatory and policy regimes be
> improved – in particular the "long-term monopolies, duopolies or cosy
> cartels" (Jensen) that exist in the key areas of international
> gateways, backhaul/terrestrial networks and mobile sector need to be
> addressed.  Other regulatory and policy areas that need to be looked
> into are interconnection, number portability, and the expansion and/or
> increase in diversity of organisations that are able to
> deliver/provide telecom services – these include community operators,
> municipal authorities, cooperatives etc.
>
> 5.	There was recognition that improvements in international and
> national fibre optic network require new models for deployment.  It
> was suggested that backhaul networks be viewed as a public good (in
> much the same way as roads are) and that in this respect their
> deployment be coordinated with other infrastructure projects – such as
> new road, rail, electricity, gas pipelines etc.  The position can also
> be taken that "…development finance for these types of infrastructure
> projects should be conditional on including fibre in their
> deployment." (Jensen)
>
> 6.	In considering the suggested need for greater coordination in the
> deployment of fibre in new infrastructure projects; it was highlighted
> that priority should be given to energy infrastructure and in
> particular electrification projects.
>
> 7.	Reviewing regulatory and policy regimes, and achieving greater
> coordination in the deployment of infrastructure (amongst others)
> requires that the capacity of regulators be built up significantly ...
>
> 8.	In order to improve and achieve more informed policy- and
> decision-making, the need to rethink indicators used for measuring
> progress/performance was highlighted.  Those that are currently
> collated and used are often characterised by a significant time lag
> (sometimes of up to two to three years) which negatively impacts on
> the reliability and realism of decisions on which they are based.  It
> was therefore suggested that more up-to-date Internet metrics - such
> as autonomous system numbers, domain names, Internet protocol
> addresses etc. – be incorporated into the repertoire of (global)
> telecom/Internet metrics.
>
> 9.	There was recognition of the tremendous strides that have been made
> by mobile and wireless technologies in enabling developing country
> populations to gain access communication services.  It was recognised
> that the mobile phone has been instrumental in this success and
> suggested that this technology, and the many initiatives that have
> adapted its use at the local/"grass root" level be considered for
> inclusion in future connectivity/access plans.  This would suggest
> that such "community-based" initiatives be considered at par with
> telco-led roll-out plans – especially with reference to rural areas
> and marginalised/under-served communities; and where funding provision
> exists for universal service.
>
> 10.	It was recognised that adopting a more "demand side" perspective
> to the access problem/issue calls for a better understanding of the
> needs of users – and in particular the needs of "the next billion" to
> be connected.  It was felt that an understanding and articulation of
> "what the critical Internet use issues[b] are in underserved
> communities" (D'Costa) will help to better identify the relevance of
> telecoms and ICT to development, and in initiating access solutions
> that better serve these communities.
>
> 11.	Recognising the needs of users – especially those in rural
> communities, highlights the importance of translating and promoting
> local languages and local customs as this facilitates the use of
> communications networks by these communities.  An appreciation of the
> culture and incorporation of local languages also helps to promote and
> develop the skills of the members of the community in using the
> networks and in adapting them to their needs.  This can significantly
> improve the sustainability and continuity of the network (Cadena).
>
> 12.	In developing countries; rural areas can no longer be treated as
> the exception: "when in truth [in cited specific instance] more than
> 70% of the population lives in rural areas" (Cadena).  It was
> therefore recognised that some reform/modification of regulation and
> policy is required to facilitate the implementation of access
> solutions in these areas.  Specific areas highlighted include the
> removal of charges and/or duties applied to new technologies that are
> particularly suited to such areas.
>
> 13.	Also with respect to rural and remote areas, it was suggested that
> certain services - such as communication during emergencies and
> disasters, should be provided as a public good (and considered more
> important than any economic interest).
>
> 14.	There was the recognition that access is more than connectivity
> and that the tools used in connecting to the Internet – in particular
> their adaptation and adequacy of use –are also important.  The need
> for capacity building around technological development and adaptation
> that would ensure that connectivity tools are "fit for use".
>
> 15.	It was highlighted that when it comes to providing access to poor
> communities: "the most meaningful ICT models … are not just about
> creating demand loops for individual users to pay, but models that
> address systemic and institutional change through ICTs" (Gurumurthy).
> It was suggested that Telecoms/ICTs can and should therefore be
> embedded within social development initiatives and in these
> circumstances be delivered as a public good.  It was emphasised that a
> "public goods approach to ICT" does not negate the need and relevance
> of market-orientated approaches to Internet access; rather each
> approach has its own area of application.
>
> 16.	It was noted that access, from the perspective of the deployment
> of infrastructure, is capital intensive and that capital available for
> investments in infrastructure is international in nature.  This
> emphasises the capacity developing countries must have in attracting
> investment/capital.  Areas that facilitate attractiveness for
> investment were identified as including transparent and stable
> regulatory environment; respect for the rule of law; openness to
> foreign investment; a commitment to encouraging competition; good
> licensing and spectrum allocation procedures, a flexibility for
> innovative services etc.
>
>
> [a] This relates to the cost of accessing Internet ports that are
> generally located outside developing countries and also the cost of
> transmission to and from these ports all of which are borne (100%) by
> the service provider in the developing country.
>
> [b] Examples of these include how such use substitutes for a two or
> three day journey to the nearest town.  How it can help a citizen
> better engage more effectively with a local or their municipal
> authority.  How it can help a small business to expand its market
> reach, or its distribution network.  How it can help new entertainment
> and information possibilities open up to those citizens. (D'Costa)
> _______________________________________________
> Apc-igf mailing list
> Apc-igf at lists.apc.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/apc-igf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fibre-for-africa mailing list
> Fibre-for-africa at lists.apc.org
> http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
>

Eric M.K Osiakwan
Executive Secretary
AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org)
Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031
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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/
Slang: "Tomorrow Now"




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20071116/90dea135/attachment.htm>