<!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>Well Alex,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>KDN is not an ISP and is not an IPTV company. We
lay the fiber and on that the bandwidth is not shared.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Same happens on our Gateway: We sell 1:1 to the
ISPs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>I think if we have an infrastructure that can
(but must not) be used for multiple purposes, the cost of every single service
will go down.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Last time I counted we hav about 40 active ISP
licenses in the country, multiplied by 40 (that is the factor India has a higher
population), this is equivalent to India having 1600 ISPs. I don't think the
number of ISPs is the limiter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>India produced vast amounts of local content,
this is content that does NOT have to be purchased from outside! Even in India
you have a dominance of certain players and exectly those were the ones driving
down prices since they could use the economics of scale!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>I strongly believe the consumer has the power to
decide, as long as there is no regulated monopoly!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Rgds</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT> </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> Tuesday, January 30, 2007
14:36</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best
Business & Regulatory Modelforprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs, etc)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>All:<BR><BR>We have been fooled for very long by these
companies.<BR><BR>Take the last known CCK internet users data 1.5 million, if
they actually supplied <BR>clean bandwidth at the internationally
accepatable parallel sharing ration if 1:100. That is for every 1 MB a
maximum of 100 share it, they calculate how much band width the telcos should
be purchasing internatioanally, but they don't.<BR><BR>Result, Hundreds of
thousands of users are made to share very narrow bandwidths--> all
connnected "parallel", and they are told there you have it
32/32, 64/64, 128/128 etc among others. <BR><BR>Mobile ones purchase
time-based bandwidth ( as opposed to volume or kilobytes traffic) Then they
decide they should bill consumers by the packet, Quite lucrative making
money out of air dont you think?<BR><BR>Internationally recommended contention
ratios are not followed locally and I have had very serious opposition to
educating consumers to demand what ratio their ISP follows. Of course
CCK should have offered leadership here.... Expecting them to disclose this is
like asking voluntary elimination of super profits. <BR> <BR>Would
you not like to have below speeds (e.g. a true 128 up and down link at
19,000?) Well, again you cannot have because CCK wont allow you, because of
the market licensing, because investors would complain, because fibre is
coming, because international VOIP would adversly affect other
"dorminant" players, becuase...... consumers should not enjoy low
prices?<BR><BR>Below are the prices available from satellites out there , and
all the while we keep blaming "high satellite costs". It is not true and in
any case fibre will not reach every Wanjiku in every next year in a snap. We
need ISPs to purchase bandwidth from any carrier. We want competition not
closed (to) competition markets. <BR><BR><FONT
color=#da8119><http://www.satsig.net/ivsat-africa.htm><BR><BR>Outbound
speed from <B>1<I>28 kbps to 2048 kbps</I></B>. Inbound speed from 36 kbps to
<I><B>153 kbps </B></I><BR>> Service price starting at <I><B>147
€/month</B></I> for 128 kbps <BR>> Special new subscription of <I><B>100 €
per 1 GB with 2 Mbit/s, to be spent in 3 months </B><BR><B>> Many different
subscription choices (25)</B></I> including shared unlimited, shared quota and
leased line. </FONT>
<DIV>Very high quality service and QoS management </DIV>Kai:<BR><BR>There is a
trick some infrastructure companies are using to fool consumers to sign
up to bad agreements.<BR><BR>See below:-<BR><BR>IPTV And Home Television
Offerings Are Telcos Best Stealth<BR>Solution To Bypass Any Net Neutrality
Resistance: Wake Up<BR>by: Robin Good<BR><BR><A
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/29/iptv_and_home_television_offerings.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/01/29/iptv_and_home_television_offerings.htm</A><BR><BR>In
this article I report about the very negative experience of<BR>installing the
newest Internet high-speed offering cum IPTV<BR>solution in my home as to
avoid others not only the same<BR>frustrations and the waste of time and
money, but also to share<BR>the fact that what many may still perceive as an
upgrade offer<BR>to their Internet connectivity, is nothing else but your
own<BR>very unconscious capitulation to net neutrality, as well as<BR>your
official consent to install a proprietary IPTV system at<BR>your
premises.<BR><BR><snip><BR><BR>A telecom company, who is also a large
Internet provider, needs<BR>only a little marketing campaign to convince its
users and<BR>potential clients that with about $50 a month they can get
the<BR>most unique offer to come around in recent times: super-high-<BR>speed
Internet access, (the customer representative who called<BR>me to explain this
offer and clarify any doubts said<BR>specifically 20 Mbps), home television
channels with free and<BR>pay-per-view content including movies and live
sports, and even<BR>a video-phone!<BR><BR><snip><BR><BR>IPTV is nothing
else but the ability of your provider to have<BR>you buy into a mix of
Internet access and private DRMed content<BR>for which it installs dedicated
reception/decoding equipment at<BR>your end.<BR><BR>By doing this you
basically give up into a partnership into<BR>which your Internet provider is
basically serving itself a<BR>reserved channel and abundant bandwidth to have
you see and pay<BR>for this premium content. Further, the telco locks you
into<BR>having to use its own equipment (as mentioned my old standard<BR>ADSL
modem does not work anymore - as mentioned, I have<BR>basically upgraded
myself into a "proprietary network" without<BR>realizing it - and the telco
has created a "de facto"<BR>proprietary dedicated IPTV infrastructure and
delivery channel<BR>to my home/office).<BR><BR>The moment you realize this,
you should also realize how you<BR>yourself have now sold your line to the
very enemy of net<BR>neutrality. You have sold and paid for a telco that will
devote<BR>the greatest and better part of the bandwidth you have<BR>supposedly
leased, to serve to you its own very content. (A<BR>little slower internet
surfing will not be noticeable when most<BR>of you have already been long
spoiled by bad and inconsistent<BR>service from these very
companies.)<BR><BR>The telco can therefore boast the delivery of a bandwidth
it is<BR>in fact reserving for the greatest part for its
commercial<BR>interests while serving you with just the same bandwidth
(or<BR>less) you were getting before.<BR><BR>In this scenario, you and I
become the very unconscious allies<BR>to these companies while providing them
with the very means to<BR>install and deploy their own private IPTV
delivery<BR>infrastructure into our homes.<BR><BR>Mucheru, <BR><BR>The cost of
internet would drop this afternoon, if CCK wanted that to happen.<BR>I have a
very serious problem with licensing layers upon layers of local bandwidth
resellers and I wonder what "processing" they actually do.<BR><BR>Because we
are competing with India wrt outsourcing, consider their below case.<BR>I hope
after reading it you will all understand why there is an very big need to
ensure the cable benefits in this order 1. Consumer 2. Entrepreneurs
(especially local after the Institute of Economic Affairs study that sought to
find out if liberalising Kenya's telecoms benefitted locals. (my guess is that
CKK auctions consumers to highest bidder)<BR><BR>INDIA:<BR>The ISP services
were a monopoly of the earstwhile government owned<BR>International carrier,
VSNL from 1995 onwards. These services were<BR>opened up for private sector
competition in November 1998.<BR>In the 3 years, that the Internet services
were a monopoly, there were<BR>only 250,000 subscribers in India.<BR><BR>The
licenses that were introduced in Nov 1998 (internet telephony
was<BR>disallowed at that time), were kept free of any license
fee<BR>obligations. Bank Guarantees were only required to be submitted,
to<BR>ensure Licensees started services within 18-24 months. From 2003,
the<BR>license fee was to be a nominal amount of Rupee 1.0 only (just about
2<BR>cents).<BR><BR>VSNL had a state guaranteed monopoly on international
connectivity<BR>till 2004 (was however done away with in 2002 and coincided
with<BR>opening up of restricted Internet Telephony through an amended
ITSP<BR>license).<BR><BR>A virtual Zero license fee, along with provisions
allowing ISPs to set<BR>up their own last mile links, setting up of
International Satellite<BR>Gateways and later Submarine Cable links, thus
allowing ISPs to<BR>connect through any carrier of his choice, resulted in
more than 750<BR>licenses that were granted between 1998 and 2005. About 350
ISP<BR>licenses still exist today.<BR><BR>Intense competition was thus
introduced and coupled with a fall in<BR>Domestic and Internatinonal bandwith
prices gradually, saw the<BR>Internet Subscriber base rise up phenomenally
from 250,000 only to 8.6<BR>million subscriber base (as of Sept 2006). In
addition to growth and<BR>penetration of Internet increasing, subscribers
gained through massive<BR>price reductions, introduction of various valued
services and<BR>currently India has some ambitious targets for
Internet/Broadband<BR>going further.<BR><BR><BR><BR><B><I>Kai Wulff
<kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">Hmm
...<BR><BR>we had only 2 years of free market ... All infrastructure must be
put in <BR>place and somehow it needs to be paid for. I know some ISPs are
selling <BR>Butterfly unlimited for 3000 KSH a month! ADSL2+ is around the
corner (saw <BR>offers for 5000 inclusive of TV .. ). For sure speeds are
not what they <BR>could be with submarine cable .. now we are back to
DAY1.<BR><BR>Kai<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Lucy Kimani"
<LKIMANI@COMNEWS.CO.KE><BR>To: <KAI.WULFF@KDN.CO.KE><BR>Sent: Tuesday,
January 30, 2007 11:43<BR>Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business
& Regulatory Model <BR>forprovisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs,
etc)<BR><BR><BR>Bw. Micheru:<BR><BR>This consumer says we are nowhere near
where we should and can be. Paying<BR>$19 a month for DSL is what I was used
to a couple of months ago and now<BR>I am paying x300 for lower speeds! I
think the answer lies somewhere in<BR>between.. Yes competition works, but
there needs to be a "big brother"<BR>watching & willing to enforce
whatever regulations are passed.<BR><BR>LK<BR><BR><BR>>
Alex,<BR>><BR>> You are taking a dangerous route here. Remember KPTC?
It was run for the<BR>> people by the people. The legacy issues from
those days are still haunting<BR>> TKL today. When you say cost based,
remember how many employees they<BR>> hired?<BR>> Remember Safaricom
before it was privatised and a strategic investor<BR>> brought<BR>>
in? They has 20,000 subscribers and barely covered Nairobi and MSA
and<BR>> some<BR>> highly political locates on their 071 analogue
service. Today Safaricom is<BR>> in places we did not even know existed,
thanks to competition from Celtel.<BR>> You can now get phone for 3,000/-
shillings compared to 250,000/- before.<BR>> As<BR>> a consumer of the
mobile services. I am certainly better off. I trust when<BR>> you speak
for consumers you are also speaking for me a consumer.<BR>><BR>>
Remember Internet services 5 years ago used to cost - to operators
$8,000<BR>> per 64Kbps (half circuit) today the same $64Kbps is less than
$200 to the<BR>> consumer. Consumers are getting Internet services on the
GSM network on a<BR>> pay as you go basis, 300/- for 30MB and so on.
Surely Alex as a consumer I<BR>> am better of.<BR>><BR>>
Competition works!!! Let's not be too hasty to discount progress that
is<BR>> being made. We must be seen to support the progress. The
beneficiaries are<BR>> all of us.<BR>><BR>>><BR>>> The
only question inour mind now is, will CCK allow us to connect to<BR>>>
their<BR>>> national backbone also at cost? Losts of services (SOA)
are waiting....<BR>>><BR>><BR>> Finally is there any information
you have that CCK will own the national<BR>> backbone. Please let me
know, I would need to have a major discussion with<BR>> Eng Waweru (DG) I
am certain the regulator is not going to operate a<BR>> cable.<BR>>
This would be against all things one can be against :-)<BR>><BR>>
--<BR>> Joseph Mucheru<BR>> Executive Director<BR>>
mucheru@wananchi.com<BR>><BR>><BR>>> From: Alex Gakuru
<ALEX.GAKURU@YAHOO.COM><BR>>> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network -
KICTANet <KICTANET@KICTANET.OR.KE><BR>>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007
09:53:53 -0800 (PST)<BR>>> To: <MUCHERU@WANANCHI.COM><BR>>>
Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 6 of 10: Best Business & Regulatory
Model<BR>>> for<BR>>> provisioning OFC(EASsy, TEAMs,
etc)<BR>>><BR>>> Cable is cheap and consumers will build their
own infrastructure and<BR>>> operate<BR>>> on cost recovery
basis. Both of you private sector and government have<BR>>>
long<BR>>> let us down and in any case when government and private
sector agree<BR>>> 100%<BR>>> 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<BR>>>
"open<BR>>> and shut" internet in Kenya today. The rest are just turf
wars (govt,<BR>>> telecos,<BR>>> "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<BR>>>
their<BR>>> 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<BR>>> nobody is<BR>>> stopping
them, is there? And we need the redudancy anyways.<BR>>><BR>>>
/Alex<BR>>><BR>>> John Walubengo <JWALU@YAHOO.COM>wrote:
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
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"<BR>>>>
To:<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 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>>>><BR>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> 5)
Projected Impact on Stakeholders
(2days)<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> 6)
Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions
(2days)<BR>>>><BR>>><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
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 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<BR>>>
=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<BR>>>
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
---------------------------------<BR>>> Get your own web
address.<BR>>> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small
Business.<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<BR>>>
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mucheru%40wananchi.com<BR>><BR>><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<BR>>
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----------------------------------------<BR>This
email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail.<BR>"
"<BR>http://www.accesskenya.com/<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
<BR>http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke<BR><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></MUCHERU@WANANCHI.COM></KICTANET@KICTANET.OR.KE></ALEX.GAKURU@YAHOO.COM></KAI.WULFF@KDN.CO.KE></LKIMANI@COMNEWS.CO.KE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
Everyone is raving about <A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42297/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">the
all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.</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>