<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Dear Alex,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>at cost can be very expensive if not driven by a
classical private sector aim of efficiency!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>The money in a market is limited, capacity on a
cable unlimited. The amount you sell is therefore a function of the cost you are
operating and only secondary a function of the sales price.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>We as KDN have invested TOP Dollar in
infrastructure and do of for sure intend to make a profit! The only way for us
to make a profit is to grow the market by forcing down the cost of
operation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Profits we make are reinvested in more
infrastructure to reach more Kenyans, the more Kenyans are reached, the lower
the prices get ......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>If a cable is socialistic, where are the profits
to be reinvested? A private company pays taxes back to the Government, not a bad
principle. I don't want to go into political discussions but the socialistic
model was not too successful lately?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>2-3 more years and KDN goes public, then every
Kenyan can own a piece of KDN. As for the submarine capacity, as mentioned, I
don't think an infrastructure company should own capacity, neither should a
service company own infrastructure ... = no monopoly blocks!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Rgds</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Kai</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=alex.gakuru@yahoo.com href="mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com">Alex
Gakuru</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke
href="mailto:kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke">kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 29, 2007
20:53</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best
Business & Regulatory Model forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Cable is cheap and consumers will build their own
infrastructure and operate on cost recovery basis. Both of you private
sector and government have long let us down and in any case when government
and private sector agree 100% Enrons (or is it "Kenlons" ) surface and
consumers suffer endlessly.<BR><BR>We need a "socialist" cable run by nuns and
monks to transition from the "open and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest
are just turf wars (govt, telecos, "experts " et al) protecting hitherto
imagined markets in perpetuity.<BR><BR>The only question inour mind now is,
will CCK allow us to connect to their national backbone also at cost? Losts of
services (SOA) are waiting.... <BR><BR>Those with lots of cash can build
their own parallel cables because nobody is stopping them, is there? And we
need the redudancy anyways.<BR><BR>/Alex <BR><BR><B><I>John Walubengo
<jwalu@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">Alan,<BR><BR>I
think what Eric meant was that even though the fiber<BR>cable infrastructure
would be operated at cost - it would<BR>still be open to competition i.e.
the Regulatory framework<BR>should allow for multiple, complimentary as well
as<BR>competing submarine fiber cable. <BR><BR>In other words, lets have the
EASsy, TEAMs and Flag running<BR>accross E.Africa, as long as each one of
them Operates<BR>their cable at cost and allowing other
SERVICE/APPLICATION<BR>providers equal access...<BR><BR>Unfortunately, this
model is not quite easy to execute<BR>because it demands a total overhaul of
the existing Telco<BR>market strutures. The current regulatory and
business<BR>structures in most of the regional countries allow
and<BR>probably encourage Operators to own the backbone<BR>(essential)
infrastructure and still operate accross all<BR>the service layers.
<BR><BR>For example Telkom Kenya, owns the country-wide
Backbone<BR>infrastructure as well as the International Gateway and
is<BR>licensed to compete in all the Service areas i.e through<BR>its ISP
subsidiary, its Wireless Subsidiary, etc.<BR><BR>Safaricom, Celltel (the 2
mobile operators) have also<BR>joined into the fray along the
same-principles i.e. owning<BR>the Backbone infrastructures and continuing
to compete<BR>accross the SERVICE/APPLICATION layers or sectors.<BR><BR>And
the (good/bad?)news is that the prevailing situations<BR>seem to have served
quite well if seen in terms of<BR>accelerated growth it has brought to the
Industry. So the<BR>question would be, why try and change all that? Why
should<BR>the provisioning of the submarine OFC disrupt the<BR>comfortable
status quo within the national telecoms market<BR>structures? I see this as
the biggest obstacle towards an<BR>otherwise good Open Access
model...<BR><BR>walu.<BR><BR><BR><BR>--- Alan Finlay
<ALAN@OPENRESEARCH.CO.ZA>wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi Eric<BR>> <BR>> Earlier
John said that the Open Access model put forward<BR>> that access to
the<BR>> fibre optic should be at cost, and the money made at the<BR>>
service end only.<BR>> <BR>> Your version says that access to the
cable can be<BR>> competitive - or that<BR>> entities that invest in
the cable's infrastructure must<BR>> be allowed to make a<BR>> profit
out of the cable.<BR>> <BR>> Is this correct? Can you elaborate a bit
on the<BR>> differences between these<BR>> two 'open access' positions
as you understand them?<BR>> <BR>> Thanks<BR>> Alan<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Eric
Osiakwan" <ERIC@AFRISPA.ORG><BR>> To: <ALAN@OPENRESEARCH.CO.ZA><BR>>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:42 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day
4 of 10: What are the<BR>> Existing/Sugested<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
> Dear All,<BR>> ><BR>> > The Open Access Model makes two
important distinctions<BR>> which the<BR>> regulatory policy<BR>>
> environment must capture and enforce;<BR>> > 1. the distinction
between infrastructure and services<BR>> so that<BR>> infrastructure
providers are<BR>> > NOT allowed to also provide SERVICES and vice
versa.<BR>> ><BR>> > 2. owership of the infrastructure (in layer
1) should<BR>> not guarantee any<BR>> form of fair or unfair<BR>>
> access to capacity for the provision of service (in<BR>> layer
2).<BR>> ><BR>> > 2. that there is no discrimination within and
between<BR>> both camps so that<BR>> infrastructure<BR>> >
providers are able to establish clear and transparent<BR>>
trading<BR>> relationships with all service<BR>> > providers and
vice versa. Within the infrastructure or<BR>> service layer there<BR>>
should be no<BR>> > restriction on COMPETITION and SERVICE
DELIVERY.<BR>> ><BR>> > This creates an ecosystem of various
operators<BR>> interconnecting seemlessly<BR>> and ensuring<BR>>
> there is interoperability.<BR>> ><BR>> > Eric here<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > NB: Becuase my preference is for the
"first"<BR>> infrastructure entity to be<BR>> owned in a
multi-<BR>> > stakeholder approach, the financial mechansims that
are<BR>> employed may also<BR>> impose some<BR>> > regulations
from the financial market that can only be<BR>> detailed on a
case<BR>> by case basis.<BR><BR>--- John Walubengo
<JWALU@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi All, following the w/end, it maybe
appropriate to<BR>> recollect and review how far we have gone in this
online<BR>> discussion.<BR>> <BR>> Themes Reminder<BR>> 1) Why
OFC (1day)<BR>> *it is cheaper(than Satellite option), it is faster,
more<BR>> reliable, more secure, has unlimited bandwidth
capacity.<BR>> <BR>> 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning
(2days)<BR>> *Privately provisioned<BR>> *Consortium
provisioned<BR>> *Open Access provisioned<BR>> <BR>> 3)
Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days)<BR>>
*No-Regulation<BR>> *Some Regulation<BR>> *Full Regulation<BR>>
<BR>> 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans<BR>>
(2days)<BR>> <PENDING><BR>> <BR>> 5) Projected Impact on
Stakeholders (2days)<BR>> <PENDING><BR>> <BR>> 6) Reconciling
Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (2days)<BR>> <PENDING><BR>> <BR>>
So today we start of on Point 4, and wish to hear views<BR>> on<BR>>
what would be the preferred Business and Regulatory model<BR>> for
provisioning the Optical Fiber Cable on the E.African<BR>> Coast. Feel
free to comment on a previous theme as well.<BR>> <BR>> walu.<BR>>
--- Alex Gakuru <ALEX.GAKURU@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR>> <BR>> >
Walu,<BR>> > <BR>> > I dug this interesting read off google
search a while<BR>> > back (78 page)<BR>> > <BR>> > Open
Access Models<BR>> > Options for Improving Backbone Access in
Developing<BR>> > Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan
Africa)<BR>> > Final Draft<BR>> > August 2005<BR>> > An
infoDev Technical Report<BR>> > prepared by<BR>> > S P I N T R A
C K A B<BR>> > DROTTNINGGATAN 99,<BR>> > 113 60 STOCKHOLM,
SWEDEN<BR>> > PHONE: +46-8-528 00 310 FAX: +46-8-528 00 315<BR>>
> WWW.SPINTRACK.COM INFO@SPINTRACK.COM<BR>> > <BR>> >
<<BR>>
><BR>><BR>http://www.infodev.org/files/2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf<BR>>
> ><BR>> > <BR>> > /Alex<BR>> > <BR>> > John
Walubengo <JWALU@YAHOO.COM>wrote: Found an answer<BR>> > to my own
question <<BR>> > talked about emailing instead of talking to
oneself?>> <BR>> -<BR>> > anyway...The proposed regulatory
framework for EASsy<BR>> > (which<BR>> > purportedly is going
the Open Access way) seems to be<BR>> > covered here.... <BR>> >
<BR>> > ~~~~00-copied below---<BR>> > <BR>> > East Africa:
EASSy Project Model Approved <BR>> > Thursday, 22 June 2006 <BR>>
> All countries participating in the development of the<BR>> >
East<BR>> > African Sub Marine Cable System (EASSy) have now
agreed<BR>> > to<BR>> > implement the project on an 'open access
basis,'<BR>> > overcoming<BR>> > a hurdle that had initially
threatened to derail the<BR>> > project. <BR>> > The Policy and
Regulatory Adviser of Nepad e-Africa<BR>> > Commission, Dr Edmund
Katiti said that the South<BR>> African<BR>> > government and
Nepad's ICT experts had persuaded the<BR>> > countries that were
objecting to the change in the<BR>> > project<BR>> > to realise
the limitations of the consortium model<BR>> which<BR>> > they had
preferred.<BR>> > <BR>> > The EASSy project involves laying of a
fibre optic<BR>> cable<BR>> > from Mtunzini north of Durban,
through landing stations<BR>> > along East Africa to Port Sudan. The
cable will link<BR>> with<BR>> > the countries' national networks
at the landing<BR>> stations.<BR>> > Others would subsequently be
interconnected through the<BR>> > networks of landlocked countries
like Uganda, Rwanda,<BR>> > Burundi and D.R Congo.<BR>> >
<BR>> > When the project was first conceived, it was to be<BR>>
> primarily a private sector project. The core investors<BR>>
in<BR>> > the cable infrastructure would determine the retail<BR>>
> prices<BR>> > of bandwidth. The project was to be owned and
operated<BR>> by<BR>> > a<BR>> > group of companies that
would generate financing; an<BR>> > arrangement known as the
consortium model. The South<BR>> > African government and Nepad have
recently argued that<BR>> > the<BR>> > consortium model would
not achieve the objective of the<BR>> > project � bringing down the
costs of<BR>communication in<BR>> > the region. They suggested that
the model be altered to<BR>> > "open access", where any operator or
institution in the<BR>> > participating countries would be allowed to
acquire<BR>> > equity<BR>> > if it can afford the agreed
contribution.<BR>> > <BR>> > In the open access model, the cable
would be owned and<BR>> > operated by the Special Purpose Vehicle
(SPV), a<BR>> company<BR>> > created to manage the network and
establish the price<BR>> of<BR>> > bandwidth. An Intergovernmental
Assembly is to be<BR>> formed<BR>> > to<BR>> > regulate the
costs that the SPV would charge operators.<BR>> > Rwanda will host the
headquarters of the SPV in part as<BR>> > recognition of their
commitment to the development and<BR>> > promotion of ICTs in the
country.<BR>> > <BR>> > After the agreement reached earlier in
June, the Nepad<BR>> > e-Africa Commission is working towards the
signing of a<BR>> > protocol that would form the legal framework of
the<BR>> EASSy<BR>> > project. The Commission has already prepared
a project<BR>> > plan, which it has sent to the member governments
to<BR>> > review<BR>> > and comment, a process that take until
August, when the<BR>> > protocol signing is anticipated. Construction
is<BR>> expected<BR>> > to commence by the end of 2006.<BR>>
> <BR>> > Katiti said they hope to raise a quarter of the
funding<BR>> > from equity acquisition payments by companies from
the<BR>> > region and then raise the remainder from African<BR>>
> financial<BR>> > institutions: African Development Bank, Comesa's
PTA<BR>> > Bank,<BR>> > East African Development Bank and
others.<BR>> > <BR>> > Source: The Monitor - WDR/Intelecon
Regulatory News <BR>>
><BR>><BR>http://www.regulateonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=32&relaItemid=877<BR>>
> <BR>> > walu.<BR>> > <BR>> > --- John Walubengo
wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> > > What form/level of regulation would
be required? Eric<BR>> > > plse<BR>> > > on Open Access,
plse elaborate maybe in three<BR>> > paragraphs.<BR>> > > And
maybe also Kai would have a comment on Regulation<BR>> > >
with<BR>> > > regard to a Private sector submarine OFC<BR>> >
> provisioning....oh<BR>> > > yes, Kihanya (the learned one) may
have a point<BR>> too...<BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > walu.<BR>> > > nb: Govt officials are also encouraged to
say<BR>> something<BR>> > -<BR>> > > members are informed
to treat their comments as their<BR>> > > personal and not official
postions ;-).<BR>> > > <BR>> > > --- Lucy Kimani
wrote:<BR>> > > <BR>> > > > Regulation is definately
required as even the big<BR>> > boys<BR>> > > of<BR>> >
> > the west are<BR>> > > > regulated, in a capitalistic
environment (read<BR>> > > > cat-throat) self-regulation<BR>>
> > > has not worked, and is sure a recipe for disaster.<BR>>
> > > <BR>> > > > LK<BR>> > > > > OK.
Looks like Fridays are still fridays -even<BR>> > > online.<BR>>
> > > Very<BR>> > > > > little activity. Heard from
only Harry and<BR>> > Alex...is<BR>> <BR>=== message truncated
===<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Don't
pick lemons.<BR>See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo!
Autos.<BR>http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>kictanet mailing
list<BR>kictanet@kictanet.or.ke<BR>http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet<BR><BR>Please
unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com<BR></JWALU@YAHOO.COM></ALEX.GAKURU@YAHOO.COM></PENDING></PENDING></PENDING></JWALU@YAHOO.COM></ALAN@OPENRESEARCH.CO.ZA></ERIC@AFRISPA.ORG></ALAN@OPENRESEARCH.CO.ZA></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
<A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49678/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL">Get
your own web address.</A><BR>Have a HUGE year through <A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49678/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL">Yahoo!
Small Business.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>kictanet mailing
list<BR>kictanet@kictanet.or.ke<BR>http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet<BR><BR>Please
unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>