[kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy

Tue Jul 23 15:11:35 EAT 2013

Hi Brian,

You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and
whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i
will raise on this platform.

Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and
if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in
building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I
interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in
Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are
branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal
affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put
it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource
persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press
release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting
the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be
undiplomatic if at all it is true.
You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary
who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it
might take time to recover it  and this will result in stalled or worse
still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national
aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless
stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process
of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views
have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to
name but a few?

Best Regards

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
>
> Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even
> after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a
> sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public
> consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed
> exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are
> merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven
> agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in
> our strategies, policies, laws etc...
>
> I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to
> these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility.
> Hopefully others will have better luck?
>
> Have a good day,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind
>> sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context
>> of such a high level strategy?
>> Pg 6
>>  ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy    broadband through a
>> nationwide LTE system
>>
>>  The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be
>> contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good
>> thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies
>> explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that
>> the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed
>> media as alternatives for infrastructure
>>
>>  Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and
>> content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong
>> kind of example to use in this section?
>>
>>  Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain;
>> wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System -
>> rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value
>> chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the
>> underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the
>> problem in the medium to long term.
>>
>>  Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with
>> latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at
>> 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as
>> it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used
>> in such an important document?
>>
>>  pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
>>
>>  While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated
>> massive transformation with the information and communication technology
>> sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that
>> the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a
>> "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
>>
>>  It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal
>> with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate
>> of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest.
>> These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the
>> Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security
>> related units, consumer protection etc...
>>
>>  While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to
>> serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is
>> true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially
>> within a national context and could be better served by specialized
>> agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a
>> focused and timely manner.
>>
>>  pg 33 Section 3.5.2
>>
>>  by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE)
>> as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might
>> appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators
>> and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and
>> the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is
>> recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the
>> mention of specific technologies.
>>
>>  The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations
>> on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks,
>> concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new)
>> funds etc...
>>
>>  Section 4 Implementation
>>
>>  once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests
>> of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more
>> affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> isoc mailing list
> isoc at orion.my.co.ke
> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
>
>

-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130723/c84b4683/attachment.htm>