04Apr
04Apr
03Apr
The World Bank’s Plan for Regional Open Access Infrastructure
In March 2007, the World Bank announced the approval of $164.5 million financing for Burundi, Kenya and Madagascar as the first tranche of the $424 million Regional Communications Infrastructure Programme (RCIP) for East and Southern Africa. CIPESA spoke to an RCIP team coordinated by World Bank RCIP Team Leader Laurent Besancon. What follows are excerpts:
Q. The World Bank has just announced financing of the initial tranche of $164.5 million. When will this money be available, and when is it hoped the projects it is going to fund will materialise?
The timing for the disbursement of the funds approved end of March may vary between countries covered by Phase 1 of the RCIP. It is nonetheless expected that disbursement will start in the course of July 2007. The activities financed for the Phase 1 of RCIP are expected to materialise over the next four years (Burundi and Madagascar) and next five years (Kenya), which is the planned duration of the respective projects. It is expected that the first two years will be particularly active based on the current momentum for swift implementation.
Q. Why are you financing the building of terrestrial fibre optics while the region does not have access to international fibre? What benefits will this create?
Based on the current number of international submarine cable initiatives aimed at connecting East and Southern Africa, as well as based on their advancement, it is fair to assume that the region will have submarine cable connectivity by 2009. RCIP supports countries in the region to ensure they will be able to take full advantage of that connectivity when it is available. RCIP also supports countries in accelerating terrestrial cross-border connectivity.
Q. Who will this money be given to in the various countries, and what exactly are they going to do with it?
Financing in Burundi and Madagascar is notably aimed at accelerating the roll-out of backbone infrastructure. This will be carried out in cooperation with telecommunications operators. Although the nature of the Public Private Partnerships will vary in both countries, the resulting infrastructure will be operator-run on an open access basis.
Financing in Kenya is notably aimed at financing (i) capacity purchase schemes for Government users, Universities (through the Kenya Education Network – KENET), and the Business Process Outsourcing industry; (ii) a government virtual private network and (iii) key eGovernment activities which are expected to increase transparency and quality of service provided to citizens and businesses.
Q. How does this programme feed into ongoing and planned fibre programmes in the region, both by governments and private entities?
The activities financed under RCIP, including the ones related to fibre connectivity in Burundi and Madagascar, have been designed by the respective Governments. Furthermore, the emphasis on leveraging investment by private entities will ensure consistency with their programs. As an example, five fixed and mobile telecommunications operators are participating in the formulation of the related public-private partnership in Burundi where activities are most advanced.
In Kenya, capacity purchase schemes financed under RCIP will take the form of capacity requirements being tendered out (i.e. any operator which can fulfil the capacity demand expressed can bid).
Q. Does this programme complement EASSy? Are they related at all?
While a separate proposal by International Finance Corporation (IFC is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group) is focused on the EASSy submarine cable, the World Bank-financed RCIP operation focuses on the terrestrial elements of the overall regional communications infrastructure and on activities generating demand for the infrastructure being put in place. As such RCIP and EASSy are complementary. It is important to note that RCIP will be equally complementary to EASSy, SEACOM, TEAMS or FLAG Africa, should any of these East Africa submarine cables materialise.
Q. Will the fibre built by RCIP financing be subjected to Open Access principles? Who will run this fibre, and how will the Bank ensure it is accessed at affordable terms?
One of the founding principles for World Bank financing under RCIP is indeed Open Access, broadly defined as an equal opportunity for operators to have unfettered access to given infrastructure or services under similar terms and conditions. It is expected that the principle of Open Access as well as cost-based pricing will be enshrined into the Public Private Partnerships arrangements referred to above.
Q. What is your take on the various marine cables (besides EASSy) which are planned on the east coast of Africa? Do you think all these planned cables will materialise, and if they do, will they all be feasible?
We do not expect all the current initiatives to necessarily materialise in the current timeframe but we note that the resulting competition means the various initiatives are racing to be the first to materialise. We believe this momentum is positive. It means the region will be connected by 2009. Should there be more than one cable, this would mean additional downward pressure on prices, which, from the policy angle, would be a welcome development.
Q. Why were Kenya, Madagascar and Burundi specifically chosen for this programme? And are there ways in which other countries in the region will benefit from the programme?
The countries participating in the first phase of RCIP World Bank operation (Kenya, Burundi and Madagascar) were chosen based on readiness and based on the timing of their official support request addressed to the World Bank (from their respective Ministries of Finance), which showed: (i) ownership of the activities beyond the Ministry of Telecommunications or its equivalent; (ii) the desire to work with the World Bank Group; and (iii) the activities to be financed are at the core of the country’s priorities. It is also worth noting that the three countries have subscribed to an open access platform and have advanced considerably in terms of ICT sector liberalisation and sector reform, both of which will enhance the impact of RCIP.
Overall, RCIP is open to other countries including: Angola, Botswana, Comoros, DRC, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, provided these countries are eligible for World Bank financing at the time of request for support.
Q. In your view, what needs to be done to improve the uptake of Internet in East/Southern Africa? And besides this programme, are there other initiatives the World Bank is engaged in/plans in this regard?
We believe uptake of Internet in the region will be seriously boosted provided (i) the cost of Internet access is dramatically reduced; (ii) cost of personal computers available in the region is reduced; and (iii) the literacy challenge is tackled.
RCIP is targeting the cost of Internet access by contributing to solve the connectivity issue. For Burundi and Madagascar, RCIP will also finance domestic Internet Exchange Points so as to allow national internet traffic to remain national (instead of having to transit through Europe or the US, consuming expensive international bandwidth along the way). In Kenya, RCIP will also support the roll-out of “digital villages”, essentially a one-stop shop for e-government services and Internet access.
Q. One of the stated outcomes of RCIP is that “bandwidth costs are projected to decline more than tenfold from between USD 5,000-8,000 per month for 1 Megabit today to around US$150 per Megabit in 2008 at retail level, and to rapidly decline further.” What other initiatives are planned under RCIP to help achieve this?
RCIP will accelerate national infrastructure roll-out, encourage traffic demand and support eGovernment applications. The proposed RCIP is designed to: (i) accelerate the roll-out of the terrestrial regional and related national backbone infrastructure to extend the reach of submarine cable traffic to consumers in all the countries of the Eastern and Southern region, rather than only the coastal countries; (ii) finance purchase of capacity for use by Government and by other targeted users (schools, universities, hospitals, etc.); and (iii) finance related activities such as eGovernment.
We expect that the combined outcome of RCIP-financed activities, availability of submarine cable connectivity, similar connectivity efforts funded by other development partners, private sector entities and Governments will be the commoditisation of international bandwidth capacity.
Q. How do you plan on stimulating demand for the infrastructure which RCIP is putting into place?
RCIP support is tailored to the individual country’s request. For instance, in the case of Kenya, the Government would like to use RCIP to finance capacity purchase schemes for targeted user groups (Government users, universities, Business Process Outsourcing industry), as well as to accelerate the roll-out of digital villages. – May 2007
03Apr
Spectrum management and implications for Open Access fibre
An International Telecommunications Union forum on November 17 2007 reached a treaty aimed at meeting the global demand for radio-frequency spectrum, which has been fuelled by rapid technological developments and growth in the ICT sector. The treaty, reached at the World Radiocommunication Conference 2007, aims to ensure “the most rational and efficient ways to exploit the limited resource of radio-frequency spectrum” and among others, stipulates that valuable radio spectrum now used mainly by broadcasters should be opened up to broadband services offered by mobile phone operators.
The new treaty came hot on the heels of the Connects Africa Summit, where there were calls for infrastructure-sharing and for effective spectrum management as some of the ways to improve connectivity in Africa.
This CIPESA/Fibre for Africa paper makes the case for reform in the allocation and management of spectrum for telephony, and argues that efficient spectrum management has a bearing on efforts to deliver affordable fibre in Africa.
Neotel’s quest for ‘cheap’ spectrum
South Africa’s Second National Operator Neotel last March reported a milestone when it was awarded a licence by the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) to operate on the 800 MHz frequency. Without access to that spectrum, it would have been forced to work through a sphere owned by a competitor – Telkom SA – which would have represented an expensive option for Neotel. Neotel said the 800MHz frequency band is critical for ensuring consumers benefit optimally from technologies whose handsets are available at low cost. ICASA said the allocation would “open up access to new, innovative and world-class technologies, and the provision of services to low-income consumers for whom telecoms has previously been unaffordable”.
This narrative about Neotel has a bearing on efforts to deliver affordable fibre in Africa. It shows that the market is the loser where few operators have access to a strategic and scarce resource such as spectrum (or international fibre). It follows that where such monopolies or duopolies exist, regulatory mechanisms are needed to ensure that they do not arbitrarily decide what to charge for their services. While this could call to mind the need for multi-national collaboration in developing regional fibre, it also raises questions as to whether the more favoured spectrum bands in Africa are optimally managed and utilised.
What ITU Says
Spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile communications, enabling operators to employ certain technologies, and to operate in certain localities. But its allocation has often been inequitable, offering incumbents and other early comers advantaged access, thereby raising the barriers to entry for new players. With open access premised on the need for numerous operators co-existing in a level playing field, it becomes evident that equitable spectrum allocation and management are necessary for open access to work in Africa.
ITU recommends that spectrum management should objective, timely, transparent and non-discriminatory. Indeed, a number of African countries have enshrined these principles in their national ICT policies. Kenya’s ICT policy says the communications commission shall manage radio frequency spectrum to achieve, inter alia, efficient and affordable telecommunication services. Zambia and Zimbabwe’s policies commit to establish equitable and cost-effective mechanisms to manage their spectrum in order to allow for the development of modern, effective and efficient communication systems.
The Ghanaian and Ugandan experiences
Despite the realisation that spectrum allocation needs to be equitable and aimed to ensure a level playing ground and affordable services for consumers, the reality on the ground does not always reflect this. Ghanaian telecom company WESTEL was fined US$25 m by the regulator National Communications Authority (NCA), for failing to roll out the number of lines required under its licence agreement. It had hooked up 3,000 lines rather than the obligatory 50,000 lines by 2002. The company attributed its slow progress to inability to get from the NCA the GSM band spectrum it needed, and the prohibitive interconnection arrangement it had with the incumbent, Ghana Telecom. Consequently, WESTEL suspended its investments, and was in 2006 renationalised, then a majority stake in the company was sold to a new group. By then it had accumulated US$38.5m in outstanding fines and licence fees.
In Uganda, it emerged earlier in 2007 that the regulator nine years ago signed agreements with telecom operators stipulating that channels in the GSM 900 band would be shared equally among a maximum of three operators. An agreement with MTN, which got the Second National Operator (SNO) licence in 1998 stipulates that: “The Licensee (MTN) shall be informed of any applications for frequencies in the GSM 1880 – 2200 MHZ band. The licensee will be given opportunity to comment on the application prior to any [Communications] Commission’s action. Such comments shall be taken into account by the Commission.”
Edward Baliddawa, who chairs Uganda’s parliamentary Sessional committee on ICT, contends that this clause threatened to not only lock out permanently any operator from the GSM 900 band, but also went ahead to put unfair conditions on the other bands that any investor might have to be forced to resort to. This was because the two national operators (MTN and Uganda telecom) had also taken up chunks of channels within the 1800 MHZ band in addition to the GSM 900 which they already fully controlled.
Why Low-end Spectrum is Critical
The catch is that GSM 900MHz transmits over longer distances than 1800MHz. This means that GSM 900 operators use less base stations to cover a similar area than do operators in the 1800MHz range. Additionally, GSM 900MHz has better penetration characteristics for buildings, and some of the handsets available in African markets are not GSM 1800 compliant. In many African countries, the number of operators in the GSM 900MHz zone has been two or three.
And as South African communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri noted during the October 29-30 Connects Africa summit, effective spectrum management should entail creating more licences in the highly sought-after low-end frequency spectrum, which she believes would encourage private investors to provide mobile wireless technologies and infrastructure in rural areas. Others have argued elsewhere that the “last mile” is where inadequate or inappropriate spectrum allocation could prove a stumbling block to improving affordable connectivity; and that this is especially so in countries where geographical distances dramatically raise the time and cost of making the last-mile connection.
The Case for Re-allocation
In Uganda, the Communications Commission says it has reviewed operators’ licenses as part of the implementation of the new licensing regime that came into effect on January 2 2007. At least two additional national telecoms operators have been licensed and the regulator has allocated them some of the GSM900 frequencies earlier allocated to the three existing operators.
Looking beyond Africa, in Finland the 900 MHz band was assigned unequally between the three nationally operating mobile operators. The two smaller mobile operators complained that they were less competitive as they did not have GSM 900 channels and their cost structures were resultantly inefficient. In the wake of regulatory revisions, towards the end of 2005, the regulator carried out a more equitable re-assignment of GSM 900 channels. And with more European countries aspiring for a more equitable allocation of spectrum, in France and Finland, all 2G/3G operators have the same amount of spectrum.
Secondary Trade
Some consider that the implementation of secondary market for frequencies would help to ease access limitations. This would work by having mechanisms which enable those companies that have big allocations to sell some of their surpluses. It has been argued also that the best way to improve competition especially in cases when one or few operators have rights of use for spectrum, but don’t use them effectively, is to soften or cancel restrictions related to technology use. And then the use of technology neutral licences may certainly be one step which may contribute to alleviate potential competition problems as this, at least in the long run, will increase the amount of spectrum which to a large extent may be used to offer competing services.
The GM Association says spectrum should be allocated “on the basis of achieving economically efficient, competitive and structurally desirable outcomes rather than to extract monopoly rents from the industry.” It says if the market is the best allocator of scarce resources, as most economists would argue, it is important that countries should be able to develop their own spectrum trading arrangements.
A recent Infodev report notes that in the absence of strict regulations governing the use and non-use of frequencies, private operators may be tempted to ‘bank’ licences, being motivated by the prospect of a future sale, or simply by the desire to keep the frequency out of the hands of a competitor. It adds that the process of returning spectrum can be an awkward one unless it was written into the licence awarding the original frequency assignment.
Spectrum Commons?
A way forward is to advocate for a ‘spectrum commons’ model as an alternative to the market-based model. The spectrum commons would be administered by an independent organisation constituted of representatives from the government, the private sector and civil society. Such a model would be designed to produce a more democratic allocation of spectrum. It would start from the principle that the spectrum should be regulated in the public interest and for public benefit. Commercial use of the spectrum would need to demonstrate social and economic benefit and would be considered a form of “leasehold” of a portion of the spectrum commons. Spectrum “rental” charges would be levied and applied to the public good with a proportion being re-invested in the improvement of the communications environment through support for civil society communications initiatives and other communications services for public benefit. – CRIS and APC, Involving Civil Society in ICT Policy
Conclusion
The GSM Association says the citizens of 19 African countries are still being forced to pay too much for international calls, due to the maintenance of a monopoly on international gateway services. It argues that introduction of competition into the international gateways market can reduce call prices by up to 90% and double call volumes, giving the example of Kenyan mobile operator Safaricom which received an international gateways license in 2006 and was able to cut international call prices by 70%. In similar vein, reducing the stranglehold some companies have on spectrum could translate into tangible benefits for users. And the process of unbundling would itself be an enabler of open access initiatives, such as ongoing backbone initiatives, and the upcoming marine fibre networks.
03Apr
Should Africans Care About ICANN?
During the last few years the relationship of African stakeholders with ICANN has received greater attention. Driven by a few key individuals within African governments, the technical community, and civil society organizations, the increased scrutiny has highlighted the importance of Internet governance issues for Africa. But the question hangs in the air: “Why should Africans care about ICANN?”
The number of Africans using the Internet is increasing every year, but there is debate as to whether ICANN and Internet names and numbers management should be a priority issue for the continent. Many commentators argue that Africa should care about ICANN. Internet infrastructure offers Africa unprecedented access to information, participation, communication, and trade, and Africans are major stakeholders in the information society today and, perhaps more importantly, in the future. The argument follows that, therefore, Africa should have decision-making responsibility to control its own Internet resources, such as domain names and IP addresses. And this view holds that the continent’s participation in ICANN is essential if it is to accelerate the development of its technical communications infrastructure -– something that promises to benefit the poor every bit as much as the wealthy.
Many others disagree. They point out that only a limited number of local technical experts and civil society organizations need to be involved in ICANN and Internet architecture development in order to look after Africa’s Internet development. Bolstering their efforts may be useful. But taking the ICANN debate to the general public and getting governments more involved may not only be a distraction from more pressing issues facing Africa, it could backfire and lead to government control of the Internet that is not in the best long-term interests of Africa’s development efforts.
These commentators point out that people in poor countries need to learn how to use the Internet and to use it to run businesses, share information, support healthcare and education and other important activities. Instead, many of their best-educated, wealthiest citizens are spending time in Geneva and other nice places, glad to have a seat at the table. But what is being accomplished at that table? The creation of additional bodies and working groups and advisory councils to give people a say is not the best use of scarce resources. Africa would do better spending its valuable time discussing issues related to the rampant disease, poverty and food security issues, among other pressing needs.
To help Africans decide for themselves, the Collaboration for International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa, or CIPESA, recently published “ICANN, Internet governance and Africa”, a public briefing on the current status and key points of the debate that provides essential background for the second phase of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).
While the issues at stake have the potential to affect all current and future Internet users, the Internet governance field tends to be dominated by a handful of experts and interested parties, many of whom have dedicated their careers to understanding the political and technical minutiae involved. In Africa, only a few are in the position to dedicate fulltime attention to the dialogue, which occurs both online and in numerous face-to-face meetings around the world.
For those who are interested in the issues but do not have the resources to follow the details, this brief explains the current status and key points of the discussion on ICANN and Internet governance as relevant to Africa.
If African stakeholders are to have a real say in the discussion — whether in the short term through the WSIS process, or in the longer term through ICANN and/or whatever new structures emerge — they need a basic understanding of ICANN’s role and functions and how it fits within the Internet governance area more broadly. Being generally informed on the issues may be as relevant to a ground-level NGO as it is to a government official — even if the inclusion is that governments should leave Internet technical management to the technical community.
CIPESA director Vincent Waiswa Bagiire said, “Before now there was no single place where all the basic facts about Africa’s participation in ICANN could be found. So learning about the issues required a lot of Internet research, and some savvy to find the best online sources — which isn’t simple because connectivity is so costly in Africa. This document brings it all together, and tells you where to find out more.”
The brief sets out basic facts and describes opinions about the main issues for African stakeholders. It provides an overview of ICANN, noting what it does and does not do. And it describes the main points of the WGIG report, considering what the findings could mean for ICANN’s future role in the management of Internet resources, and where the debate will play out leading up to, and beyond, the second phase of WSIS. Finally, it looks at views on why Africa should care about ICANN — and why not.