[kictanet] Revisiting The Broadband Debate in Kenya
Brian Longwe
blongwe at gmail.com
Fri Mar 26 14:32:09 EAT 2010
The recent 3g debacle, where one provider paid certain amounts for
what the media refer to as a 'licence' and other are resisting paying
is actually misreported.
The payment was for allocation of radio frequencies which would be
used for delivery of 3g services. The providers involved have already
been licensed under the unified licensing regime for the services that
provide, regardless of technology, as Joe pointed out.
Wheter or not the fee is high is another question, but obviously the
most critical issue is to provide a platform for competition and fair
play.
Regards,
Mblayo
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:53 PM, "Harry Delano" <harry at comtelsys.co.ke>
wrote:
> Thanks Joe, and Sammy G,
>
> Am actually wondering, how we can engage both the ministry(policy),
> and CCK (regulator) on this very pertinent issue...?
> Are the wrangles over licensing stifling rollout in any way, and in
> turn denying the sector the much needed competion,
> which ultimately would drive down pricing for mobile broadband..? If
> so, then it needs to be sorted now..
>
> Clearly for over a period of time now that this debate on broadband
> has raged, it has been met with a "studious" deafening
> silence. Is it not time, we asked the Kictanet secretariat to some
> form of RFC -"Request for comments" from both offices..?
> Walu...?
>
> There are very valid points, being raised here..
>
> Regards,
> Harry
>
> From: kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke]
> On Behalf Of Joseph Mucheru
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:37 PM
> To: harry at comtelsys.co.ke
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Revisiting The Broadband Debate in Kenya
>
> Sammy, Listers
>
> I am curious about certain regulations in the market. I am aware
> that CCK is issuing technology neutral unified licenses. So what is
> the big debate about 3G licenses. Can someone shed some light? Why
> did CCK charge Safaricom a fee for a technology? Are we expecting a
> further license for 4G and will they cost more than the 3G and if
> other players are having difficulty paying now, how will they pay
> for 4G, does such a licensing framework allow for lower prices and
> more capacity in future? and so on ...
>
> Below is the CCK FAQ on their website clearly stating the unified
> licensing framework is technology neutral.
> http://www.cck.go.ke/licensing/telecoms/faqs.html
>
>
> FAQs - Telecommunications
>
> Telecommunications
> The Commission constantly receives a wide-range of queries from
> various stakeholders touching on ICTs in general and
> telecommunications services in particular. The following are the
> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
> [ Ask a Question ] [ View all FAQs ]
> Who is a Local Loop operator (LLO)?
> What are the licence conditions for a LLO?
> Who is a Public Data Network Operator (PDNO)?
> What is the license and Operating fee for Public Data Network
> Operator?
> Who is a Internet Gateway and Backbone Operator?
> What is the license and Operating fee for Internet Gateway and
> Backbone Operator?
> What is the scope of Internet Gateway and Backbone license?
> What is the Commission's policy on use of xDSL services?
> What is the future trend of licenses verses technological neutrality?
> With regard to the scope of the licenses, the Commission's ultimate
> objective with respect to the market categorization, as indicated in
> our broad strategic statement released recently, is to adopt a
> unified licensing framework that permits any form of
> communications infrastructure to be used to provide any type of
> communications service that is technically capable of being provided
> and to structure the market accordingly by creating the following
> distinct and technology neutral market categorization:
>
> Network Facilities Provider (NFP) – who shall own and operate any fo
> rm of communications infrastructure irrespective of whether it is sa
> tellite or terrestrial based and could support either mobile or fixe
> d applications.
> Applications Service Provider (ASP) – to provide all forms of servic
> es to end users using the network services of a facilities provider.
> Contents Services Provider (CSP) – to provide contents such as broad
> cast (TV& Radio) material, and other information services and applic
> ations such as data processing etc.
> The Commission, therefore, intends to grant authorization for the
> various markets consistent with the aforementioned future
> segmentation without facilitating anticompetitive practices such as
> vertical integration scenario.
>
> In this regard, therefore, the Commission shall continue to insist
> on separation of service provisioning (provision through separate
> entities) between facility-based providers such as PDNO & LLO from
> those of non-facility based providers such as ISP . Consequently it
> will be expected that application and content providers such as ISPs
> on one hand and network providers such as Internet Gateway and
> Backbone providers, PDNOs etc. shall remain in different market
> segments under the above-mentioned market structure.
>
> ** Consistent with the aforementioned, therefore, Internet Backbone
> and Gateway Operators will be expected to provide national extension
> facilities to link their customers being only ISPs, IXPs and other
> licensed operators without the need to use third party facilities.
> This is also in view of the need and obligation on the part of the
> Internet Backbone and Gateway Operators to provide national Internet
> backbone services to enable the widest spread of Internet services
> throughout the country **.
>
> In this regard, therefore, Internet Backbone and Gateway Operators
> will not be allowed to provide Internet access services directly to
> end users but instead they will be expected to concentrate in
> providing backbone services to ISPs and other licensed access
> network operators. Deployment of mini VSAT equipment to service end-
> users will, therefore, not be permitted under this license.
>
> What is the Commission' policy on ownership of more than two
> companies offering services in different market segments by
> related directorship?
> Who is allowed to carry Multimedia and VoIP application Services?
> Are laws on rights of way applicable to all telecommunication
> facility providers or for selective providers?
> Can I be allowed to use the way leaves, as a new entrant in the
> telecommunication market, of the existing facilities providers like
> KPLC, Kenya railways and Telkom Kenya to construct my infrastructure?
> Do I have a right to co-locate my facilities with other
> telecommunication facilities providers or service providers?
> Are there enough frequency resources for the PDNO market in the
> country?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sam Gatere <sam.gatere at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Listeners,
>
> 4G technology looks and even sounds just great! but I think we ask
> the question to early about preparedness locally to receive this
> technology. I agree with Harry D.'s point that pressing for high
> quality broadband that is favorably priced would be a better way to
> look at it. Currenly 3G services are not accessible to many
> countrywide. So technologically speaking we are not yet exploiting
> 3G let alone prepare for 4G! Once we get one thing right, that is,
> easy and reliable access to broadband and good pricing then 4G will
> be a reality.
>
> Looking at pricing and licensing the challenges therein may need
> state intervention. Some players paid full fees for 3G licensing yet
> others feel the price is too high for them bear yet they want to
> offer the same service. If the later are let off the hook that would
> mean creating an uneven play field with different rules!
>
> On pricing I think the providers are caught in a "catch 22" Their
> operational costs still remain high (Especially Utilities e.g. power
> and human resource) and they are forced to lower their prices. I'm
> sure the price cuts we have seen in recent months have involved
> serious balancing acts. To ensure people keep their jobs, and the
> companies still offer services.
> Maybe what we shall see in the very near future is value added
> services such the Tripple or Quad play services. Instead of offering
> you just broadband services, they may just include cable TV, Land-
> line phone and a family plan Cell phone deal all for one price?
>
>
> SammyG
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Harry Delano
> <harry at comtelsys.co.ke> wrote:
>
> Mr. Pius, et al,
>
> I suppose we still have quite some "unfinished" business, on the
> current
> Mobile broadband technologies
> we have to date, the fastest being 3G.
>
> Sometime back on this forum, an embroiling debate ensued on the
> licensing
> structure for 3G, I do
> not know if this has now been resolved. Some things in our setting
> seem to
> have a knack of fading
> off into oblivion as soon as they arise and remain open ended..
>
> Before we talk of 4G, I think it would only be fair for pricing on
> Mobile
> broadband data on the
> current platform to be addressed ASAP, so that all and sundry can
> enjoy this
> resource to the maximum.
>
> Policy makers keep insisting that competition will drive down pricing.
> Clearly, we've been at it over
> time now and seems little is happening on ground - Why..? Because
> there is
> literally no competition in
> Mobile Broadband, where we have 2 - 3 main active players. Infact the
> players track each other closely
> and prices seem to be closely pegged.
>
> When all the international Optic Fibre cables were being anxiously
> awaited
> for, everyone hailed the
> advent of "rock bottom" pricing for broadband, across board only for
> this to
> become a mirage once
> they landed. What changed..?
>
> Now one additional cable is landing..? What does this herald. Downward
> pricing..? Remains to be seen.
>
> I'm not sure whether the it's time for the wielders of the "Big"
> stick now,
> to deal with this once and
> for all, including the main broadband sector.
>
> I suppose, let's sustain the momentum to press for high quality
> broadband
> experience at competitive
> pricing by our standards - national..
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: sam.gatere at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/sam.gatere%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: mucheru at google.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mucheru%40google.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Mũcherũ
> Regional Lead, Sub-Saharan Africa
> Google Kenya
> 7th Floor, Purshottam Place
> Westlands Road
> P O Box 66217 - 00800 Westlands
> Nairobi,
> KENYA
>
> +254 20 360 1701 Office
> +254 20 360 1100 Fax
> +254 20 360 1000 Switch Board (Regus)
>
> +254 722522135 Mobile
>
>
> http://www.google.com
>
> This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this
> communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else,
> please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that
> it went to the wrong person. Thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: blongwe at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20100326/0d3c2a6c/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list