[APC Chakula] CHAKULA Issue No. 16: Opening access to Africa: Interviews and analyses

[Chakula]

CHAKULA Issue No. 16, February 2007: Opening access to Africa:  
Interviews and analyses

CONTENTS

1. EASSy: MAPPING THE PLAYERS
-        EASSy stakeholder analysis by Abiodun Jagun
-        Interview with Edmund Katiti, the policy and regulatory  
advisor to NEPAD’s e-Africa Commission
-        Interview with Isidoro Pedro da Silva, CRASA’s executive  
secretary
-        CIPESA speaks to Uganda Telecom’s Donald Nyakairu
-        What’s in a name? The controversy over the EASSy name change

2. ‘A CREDIBLE THREAT’: Kenya in the driver’s seat…
-        Interview with Bitange Ndemo, Kenya’s Permanent Secretary in  
the Ministry of Information and Communication
-        Wairagala Wakabi asks if too much competition is a bad thing
-        It’s like waiting for a Matatu, says Russell Southwood
-        KICTANeT reports back on its online discussion and workshop
-        Rebecca Wanjiku spices up the debate

3. APC/UNDP WORKSHOP FOCUS
-        Interview with Ben Akoh, OSIWA’s ICT programmme officer
-        Interview with Polly Gaster, head of the Centre for  
Information and Communication at the University Eduardo Mondlane  
(CIUEM) in Maputo, Mozambique
-        Links to workshop reports and presentations

4. LATEST ANALYSES
-        Satellite failure shows Africa’s underbelly, argues Russell  
Southwood
-        CIPESA’s Vincent Bagiire questions whether open access will  
bear much fruit if universal access does not begin to create  
effective demand
-        Eric Osiakwan gets back to EASSy basics
-        Telkom SA under pressure from consumer activists

5. BACKGROUND READING
-        A selection of introductory content from  
www.fibreforafrica.net to get you going

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

INTRODUCTION: THE FIBRE RUSH FOR AFRICA

If Kenya is anything to go by, the rush for cheap, effective  
broadband in Africa is moving fast: everyone from multinationals, to  
governments, to individual investors, both local and foreign, are  
involved, and they all seem to want a piece of the opportunity.

A centrepiece of all the action is the Eastern Africa Submarine Cable  
System (EASSy), a much-maligned and delayed attempt to link up  
several coastal countries in Eastern and Southern Africa to other  
global submarine cables systems in the North (See: http:// 
fibreforafrica.net). The US$300 million plus project, which will  
result in about 9900km of fibre-optic cable being laid, is  
struggling, and a number of countries, like Kenya, have decided to go  
it alone.

The project has the misfortune of raising several key issues about  
the fibre rush for Africa. Such as: Who is going to own and run the  
cable? Who is going to pay for it? And who will benefit and who will  
lose out?

This issue of CHAKULA tries to offer some sense of direction. It maps  
out some of the players in the EASSy project, provides a taste of  
some of the recent controversies, asks questions about open access,  
and offers links to analyses, as well as background reading for  
beginners.

Two useful links for those who need to orientate themselves to the  
discussions in this newsletter: In ‘Saturating the marketplace’ (See:  
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057717), Wairagala Wakabi  
from Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern  
Africa (CIPESA) outlines some recent fibre-optic plans for the  
continent, and asks: Is too much competition a bad thing? It is a  
good place to get an overview of what’s happening and some of the  
political and economic challenges involved.

Some of these challenges are detailed, and technical in nature.  
Recently the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANeT) held an online  
discussion to talk about the various regulatory and institutional  
challenges to fibre-optic cables in Kenya. John Walubengo produced an  
excellent explanatory document on the ownership options to get the  
discussions going. (See: http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058919)

This issue of Chakula has been compiled by Abiodun Jagun, Ory Okolloh  
and Alan Finlay.

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

1. EASSy: MAPPING THE PLAYERS

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
This paper by the Association for Progressive Communication’s (APC)  
ICT policy researcher for the African region, Abiodun Jagun, adopts a  
stakeholder approach to analysing EASSy. It provides a graphical  
illustration of the hierarchy of power and interest among the  
different stakeholder groups engaged in the EASSy process. The paper  
highlights how different stakeholder groups are able - through  
forming coalitions – to influence the proposed ownership structure of  
the fibre-optic cable. The paper provides a graphical illustration of  
the current impasse within the EASSy project, which has been  
described as a disconnect between the commercial and political ends  
of the cable. The analysis of this impasse shows two competing  
groups; one the NEPAD Protocol coalition, and the other the Submarine  
Fibre Consortium. The analysis identifies that the powerful position  
initially held by the consortium has been diluted, and that the  
impasse has created high levels of uncertainty about the viability of  
the EASSy project.

Download the stakeholder analysis: http://fibreforafrica.net/ 
main.shtml?x=5057715

‘WE’RE NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO DO…’
Edmund Katiti is the policy and regulatory advisor to the New  
Partnership for Africa’s Development’s (NEPAD’s) e-Africa Commission.  
The e-Africa Commission is charged with the coordinated development  
of NEPAD’s ICT policies, programmes and projects. A top priority is  
to ensure that all African countries will be connected to one another  
by broadband fibre-optic cable systems that will, in turn, link them  
to global telecommunications networks through existing or planned  
submarine cable systems. CHAKULA asked Katiti some easy, and more  
difficult questions…

[Interview took place in January 2007]

*************************************

“The NEPAD process of conducting business does not permit any country  
to dominate the process or behave undemocratically.”

-- Edmund Katiti, policy and regulatory advisor to NEPAD’s e-Africa  
Commission

*************************************

CHAKULA: What exactly is NEPAD's role in the EASSy project?

EDMUND KATITI [EK]: On the 9th March, 2003, the NEPAD Heads of State  
and Government Implementation Committee adopted the development of a  
broadband ICT network linking all countries in Africa to one another  
and, in turn, to the rest of the world as a top priority NEPAD  
project. As a result, the NEPAD e-Africa Commission has been working  
towards the development of two regional networks, and a continent- 
wide satellite network. The first network is what we call the NEPAD  
ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network for Eastern and Southern Africa.  
This comprises a submarine (Eastern Africa Submarine Cable) segment,  
and a terrestrial segment. This network was agreed at a workshop of  
stakeholders (including telecom operators) held in Johannesburg in  
July 2004. The second regional network is the NEPAD ICT Broadband  
Infrastructure Network for Central, West and North Africa. Then  
there’s the NEPAD e-Schools satellite network. As you can see from  
this, the submarine project is just part of a bigger ICT  
infrastructure programme for the African continent, and it’s the  
NEPAD e-Africa Commission’s mandate to coordinate the structured  
developed of the ICT sector on the continent.

CHAKULA: You’ve also being working on regulatory barriers?

EK: Yes. With a view to resolving policy and regulatory issues that  
may impede or prevent the realization of the rationalised network,  
the e-Africa Commission has worked with government ICT experts, ICT  
policy advisors, regulators, civil society, legal experts, executives  
of telecom companies, and development funding institutes to develop a  
policy and regulatory framework within which the network could be  
developed. The experts and policy advisors agreed that the integrated  
ICT broadband backbone should be based on several principles. These  
are: non-discriminatory open access; equitable joint ownership of the  
backbone infrastructure across the region; the separation of  
ownership of the infrastructure from its use; the use of Special  
Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to build, own and operate the broadband ICT  
network; and that the infrastructure should be viewed as a ‘public  
good’ and operated on a cost-recovery basis.

CHAKULA: Do these principles apply to EASSy?

EK: The experts and policy advisors agreed that these principles  
would cover the submarine cable as well as the terrestrial network.  
In addition, they recommended that a Protocol should be signed  
between the countries of the region in order to underpin their  
collaboration in developing this network. A Protocol that  
encapsulates these principles in a policy and regulatory framework,  
as well as the details of the SPVs that will own, operate and  
maintain the NEPAD network, was developed and accepted by a number of  
governments in Eastern and Southern Africa. This Protocol has been  
signed under the auspices of the African Union, by 12 countries:  
Botswana, DRC, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, South  
Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe [As of January 2007].  
The countries that have not yet signed the Protocol may accede to it  
in the future. The NEPAD e-Africa Commission is the implementing  
agency of the Protocol, and is also the Secretariat of the Inter- 
Governmental Assembly (IGA).

CHAKULA: Of the countries that haven't signed, the sticking point  
seems to be differences over the IGA. I understand the IGA to be a  
government-run structure for the ownership and management of the  
cable's inter-connection points between countries. How flexible is  
this issue, if countries continue to refuse to sign the protocol  
because of it? Could the requirements for an IGA be dropped from the  
protocol or changed?

EK: The IGA is not an issue with most of the countries that are yet  
to sign the Protocol. Most countries were unable to sign because of  
the internal procedures for approving the signing of a regional  
treaty. In some of the countries the Protocol has to be approved by  
Parliament before the Minister responsible for the sector can sign  
the Protocol, and this takes longer than the three months the  
countries had from the date the Protocol was finalized to the  
deadline for signing. The countries that did not sign the Protocol by  
November 30, 2006, will be able to accede to the Protocol when it  
comes into effect sometime in the first half of 2007, when it has  
been ratified by seven signatory countries. The IGA is not “a  
government-run structure for the ownership and management of the  
cable’s interconnection points between countries.” The IGA will  
ensure that the policy and regulatory aspects of the Protocol are  
upheld by the SPVs. The SPVs will have a Board of Directors and a  
Management Team and these are the structures that will be responsible  
“for the ownership and management” of the SPVs. There is therefore no  
need for the IGA to be dropped from the Protocol.

CHAKULA: Some role-players say that NEPAD is asserting ownership of  
the project. Is this true?

EK: As you can see from the above, NEPAD was created before the  
submarine project was started, and the NEPAD e-Africa Commission has  
been involved in the project right from the beginning.

CHAKULA: Kenya recently said South Africa was behaving  
undemocratically. One can't help the feeling that some tensions  
around NEPAD more generally (and South Africa's role on the  
continent) are being reflected in this specific issue. Do you feel  
this may be true?

EK: The inability of some countries to sign the Protocol within the  
three months window was due to legislative procedures within those  
countries and not resistance to the Protocol. Only one country has  
expressed reservations about a few aspects of the Protocol. The NEPAD  
process of conducting business does not permit any country to  
dominate the process or behave undemocratically.

*************************************

‘WE ARE NOT GIVING UP ON NEPAD’
Kenya’s sudden exit from the EASSy project has set tongues wagging –  
and the controversy has not been helped by South Africa apparently  
unilaterally changing the project’s name to The Nepad Broadband  
Infrastructure Network (NBIN). CIPESA recently spoke to Uganda  
Telecom’s Donald Nyakairu. Katiti is also canvassed by CIPESA for his  
views.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058257

WHAT’S IN A NAME?
The recent announcement by South Africa’s communications minister  
that the EASSy had been renamed the NEPAD Broadband Infrastructure  
Network (NBIN) was as astounding as her assertion, during the same  
function, that “the original model developed for the cable is not  
what international financial institutions such as the World Bank  
would have liked”, writes Anthony Mugeere.
http://www.cipesa.org/246
See also:
NOTHING’S FIXED, SAYS NEPAD
NEPAD’s e-Africa Commission issued a statement saying that the  
project’s shareholders can chose any name they want at an up-coming  
meeting in April/May.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058917

‘OPEN ACCESS IS NO LONGER JUST A CONCEPT’
The Communications Regulators’ Association of Southern Africa (CRASA)  
is a forum
of communications regulators and other ICT services stakeholders in  
Southern Africa. CRASA’s objectives include introducing effective  
competition through liberalization, and promoting an effective and  
efficient regulatory environment. CHAKULA spoke to its executive  
secretary, Isidoro Pedro da Silva.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058892

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

2. ‘A CREDIBLE THREAT’: Kenya in the driver’s seat…

Kenya has become a vocal player in the drive for faster and cheaper  
connectivity in Africa, and the country is fast emerging as a  
spirited leader on the issue. It recently announced that it is  
pursuing no fewer than three major access initiatives in the country:  
The East African Marine System (TEAMS), a Kenya Data Network (KDN)/ 
Flag Telecom initiative, and EASSy. The country’s spiritedness has  
caused some controversy, with a representative from the World Bank  
adding fuel to the fire by stating that the Kenyan plans are a  
“credible threat” to the EASSy project. Indeed: it withdrew from  
EASSy a few months later. But, backed up by an open and inclusive  
policy development process, that involves a range of stakeholders and  
sectors through the country’s multi-stakeholder network KICTANeT, it  
looks like the country’s ‘take no prisoners’ approach may yield  
results. Bitange Ndemo is Kenya’s Permanent Secretary in the Ministry  
of Information and Communication – which means, effectively, that  
he’s the person who gets things done. CHAKULA asked him about TEAMS.

*************************************

  “Bottom line we have real opportunity to change our country  
irreversibly.”

-- Bitange Ndemo, Kenya’s Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of  
Information and Communication

*************************************

CHAKULA: The Kenyan government is stepping up efforts to address the  
high cost of internet access in the country. Why has infrastructure  
become a priority for the government and your ministry, and what  
impact do you see these efforts having on the average Kenyan citizen?

BITANGE NDEMO [BN]: Our national ICT Policy objectives include  
lowering cost of access to emerging technologies, including  
internet.  Besides, unemployment in this country has reached chronic  
levels.  To curb the problem the Government realized that we had an  
opportunity to utilize the highly educated youth in the Business  
Processing Outsourcing (BPO) industry.  We had the first conference  
in February this year [2006] and by then there was only one 200-seat  
call centre.  We then started to market our country as a BPO  
destination.  It became apparent that in spite of the human resource  
capacity that we have, bandwidth, with acceptable levels of latency  
in the BPO sector, was the bottleneck.  Nevertheless, we now have  
4,000 Kenyans working in this new sector.  The cost of accessing  
internet continues to hurt the growth of ICT in the country. Thus the  
frustration with the delays in the implementation of EASSy.

CHAKULA: The government recently announced the launch of TEAMS. Can  
you tell us a bit more about the project and how it will be financed?

BN: Kenya is a regional gateway and as such cannot wait to be guided  
on what to do in the region.  Although TEAMS is being driven by the  
Government of Kenya, the aim of the project is to fast track  
connectivity to the East African region. The ultimate ownership of  
TEAMS would not be entirely Government, but by willing investors and  
Governments in the region.  This project is like a road whose  
objectives are to open up the region and on this road you can have  
many buses competing.  Therefore on TEAMS shall be many operators and  
other investors from the region.  We consider TEAMS as a means to an  
end that would enable us compete with India and other parts of the  
world.

CHAKULA: Will non-governmental actors have a role in the project and  
how will you ensure that access to the fibre will be truly open?

BN: The Government will have a minimum role; probably not beyond  
regulation.  The initial seed money will come from the Government and  
as more operators/users join, the Government would maintain minimum  
shareholding but leave the running of a special purpose vehicle to  
the private sector that will be eventually be listed on the stock  
exchange through an IPO.  The Government, as well as other public  
institutions (e.g. universities), would buy their capacity  
requirement like all other users.  Our model is more like the Swedish  
one that is probably the Gold Standard of open access with minimal  
impact on the environment.  Whether you are Telkom Kenya Limited  
(TKL) or a newly registered operator, you will buy your capacity  
requirement at the same price as TKL

CHAKULA: How do you see EASSy co-existing with efforts like TEAMS?  
BN: Africa’s problems emanate from monopolies (read National  
Telecoms; and note the problems being experienced with SAT-3).  We  
must avoid these problems by encouraging a competitive environment in  
all infrastructure projects.  Therefore EASSy or TEAMS have a role in  
maintaining low prices that would make the continent competitive.    
Kenya also has another fibre project being undertaken by the private  
sector, and we as a government welcome all these developments as they  
truly become a means to economic and social development.  Fujairah,  
for example, has four cables that are benefiting the region  
enormously… [Interview by Ory Okolloh]

*************************************

SATURATING THE MARKETPLACE
Marine cables could flood the east coast of Africa, but how viable  
will the competing cables be? asks Wairagala Wakabi.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057717

THE FINAL FRONTIER
The East African coast remains the only seabed in Africa yet to be  
covered by international submarine fibre-optic cable. An online  
discussion and face-to-face workshop hosted by KICTANeT charted the  
best way forward.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058762

IT’S LIKE WAITING FOR A MATATU…
It’s like waiting for a matatu. You wait for ages and none come  
along. But just when you’re about to give up hope, three come along  
at the same time, all trying to come to a screaming halt in front of  
you. Balancing Act’s Russell Southwood discusses Kenya’s options.  
[Source: Balancing Act, www.balancingact-africa.com]
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5045073

SPICING UP THE DEBATE
When Kai Wulff, CEO of KDN and Bitange Ndemo are in one room  
discussing issues of internet connectivity, you can be assured of  
fireworks. But the common denominator is that they are concerned  
about reducing internet connectivity charges, writes Rebecca Wanjiku.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058921

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

3. APC/UNDP WORKSHOP FOCUS

OPENING UP ACCESS FOR ALL
Open access, what it means, and how best to get communities connected  
came under the spotlight at a three-day workshop held in Johannesburg  
late last year. The workshop was billed a “dialogue and exchange on  
promising options and critical issues” and was organized by the  
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and APC. It aimed to  
share project success stories and innovations, and explore ways of  
supporting policy and capacity development initiatives that promote  
open access on the continent. Participants include community ICT  
practitioners, researchers, policy advocates, regulators, academics  
and donors from across Africa.
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=n30084e_1&x=5043863

WORKSHOP REPORT AND PRESENTATIONS
For a run down of the workshop proceedings and links to presentations  
visit:
http://www.propoor-ict.net/content/view/21/1/

‘WE CAN’T STOP AND WAIT FOR MEGA-PROJECTS LIKE EASSy’
Polly Gaster  is the head of the Centre for Information and  
Communication at the University Eduardo Mondlane (CIUEM) in Maputo,  
Mozambique. She has been involved in telecentre development in  
Mozambique for many years, and attended the Johannesburg workshop.  
CHAKULA asked her what she expected from the EASSy project.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058916

GETTING POLITICAL
Ben Akoh is the ICT programmme officer at Open Society Initiative for  
West Africa (OSIWA). OSIWA supports the creation of open societies in  
West Africa: societies marked by a functioning democracy, good  
governance, the rule of law, basic freedoms, and widespread civic  
participation. OSIWA is based in Dakar, Senegal. CHAKULA caught up  
with Akoh at the Johannesburg workshop.

*************************************

“It’s about people talking to people for next to nothing, and it’s  
about encouraging my African brothers and sisters living outside the  
continent to return home and contribute in the building of our  
crumbled societies because there is cheap, affordable means of  
communication.”

--- Ben Akoh, ICT programme officer, OSIWA

*************************************

CHAKULA: There were a number of definitions of open access put  
forward at the workshop. Yours struck me as having a distinctly  
political aspect to it, because it included the idea of media  
freedoms. What is open access to you?

BEN AKOH [BA]: The concept of open access has been a tug-of-war  
within development circles. I have seen (or heard) definitions from  
'open source' to 'open content' and then 'open access'. Pre-pending  
the word 'open' to any other word seems to automatically qualify that  
word to be included in what I will call the general 'open concept'  
framework or parlance. It becomes difficult to then define, and in  
turn accept as final, any one or the other definition of open access.  
I will also not attempt to define it, though at the workshop I  
managed to 'say' what it meant to me. And these are purely my  
thoughts on open access until it is subjected to scientific and  
social discuss, theorized and then proven - in scientific parlance.  
Russell Southwood and Eric Osiakwan [see below], in their open access  
infoDev paper say (carefully choosing my words) that open access is  
the separation of services from infrastructure and that the base  
infrastructure (which I will call the medium - and not to be confused  
with media) is the responsibility of those that have the means and  
power to build this. So in telecommunications it is the copper cable,  
fibre; in broadcasting it is the airwaves (frequency allocation,  
spectrum management and the associated speak - 'open spectrum') and  
the attendant last mile exchanges; in electricity it is the poles,  
transformers, substations; in mobile technology, the base stations,  
etc. And government usually has the means to build this type of  
capital-intensive infrastructure and should stick to it; although in  
recent years the private sector has entered into this space. The  
second component of the open access framework is the services which  
run on these mediums. The definition of open access has therefore  
been firstly the separation of this spectrum and secondly the  
advocacy for unrestricted access to any of the components of the  
spectrum (re: infrastructure - or mediums - and the services that run  
on these mediums). I have added the broadcast sector to this  
definition because of the sooner rather than later shift towards the  
convergence of technologies. It will become 'difficult' to separate  
what runs on the medium - difficult but not impossible to distinguish  
the type of traffic. And if convergence will 'force' all technologies  
towards a converged media then the broadcast sector should be  
included in the ‘open' speak. Broadcast can be further subdivided  
into various little components - the content, the broadcaster, the  
human resource within the broadcast sector (re: journalists and his  
editor/publisher), the spectrum, base stations, policies that  
surround broadcast, public/private broadcasters, etc. This is a  
sector that is often held captive and tightly controlled by the state  
and/or ruling party in most countries of Africa, if not the world.  
Hence its political undertone. Advocating for open access in this  
sector (not known as that) has been a long-time struggle. Indeed  
media advocates have fought for some form of open access right back  
in the day with 'freedom of information' and 'freedom of expression'  
struggles. We should as well include the broadcast struggle in this  
fight.

CHAKULA: How do you understand open access in the context of West  
Africa: Do you think West Africa is ahead of East Africa in the  
access stakes, so to speak?

BA: One thing for sure is that SAT-3 had greatly improved  
connectivity in West Africa in spite of its high cost of connectivity  
induced by the closed consortium model of its ownership. This sets  
West Africa far ahead - in communication terms - of East Africa.  
Although the individual cost of connectivity per country still  
impacts heavily on the consumer, it may have improved the social life  
and living standards of West Africans in terms of their ability and  
the ease of communication and access to information. Also, SAT-3 has  
spurred or incentivized the growth of other regional inland,  
terrestrial fibre or submarine cables. While it is important to build  
terrestrial networks, it is unclear, especially amongst investors in  
East Africa, how much value such 'internal infrastructure' would have  
without a regional submarine cable that carries the generated  
internal content to other parts of the world. I believe this is the  
underlying, hidden issue that has negatively impacted the rapid  
development and deployment of regional terrestrial and regional  
submarine infrastructure in that part of the continent. While no-one  
would say it this directly, it is the reason why the interest in  
EASSy and its open access debate has led to no cable being laid up  
until the present moment. I however postulate that regions in Africa  
should not be compared against themselves. It’s not a question of how  
far the West exceeds the East in regional infrastructure development  
terms. But rather, it is how Africa as a whole sees itself in the  
connectivity debate - perhaps against the rest of the world. It is  
about how much capital flight happens annually and how that could be  
curbed. It’s about how Africans should encourage internal  
communication, which will, of course, lead to the development of our  
continent as a whole and not a certain part of it while the other  
suffers. (Indeed while technology growth is evident in West Africa,  
there are other aspects of development in which West Africa lags far  
behind its East African counterparts). It’s about continental  
economics versus the poverty picture that the continent portrays to  
the rest of the world. It’s about people talking to people for next  
to nothing, and it’s about encouraging my African brothers and  
sisters living outside the continent to return home and contribute in  
the building of our crumbled societies because there is cheap,  
affordable means of communication. Which, in my opinion, contributes  
greatly to the underlying reasons why the diaspora refuses to return  
and invest in the continent. Let’s look at the fibre issue as a  
continental issue, from a holistic point of view rather than the  
sectored, fractured spectacles we have used up until now - of EASSy  
for East Africa and SAT-3 for West Africa. Then perhaps 'open access'  
would lose its meaning and become just 'affordable access.' Then we  
would have achieved our objective.

CHAKULA: What are the key challenges in West Africa, as far as open  
access is concerned?

BA: Firstly, the availability of SAT-3 gives us an illusion that all  
our communication needs have been met and hence we do not need to  
further research or invest into alternative or more available means  
of connectivity. Although there has been private sector activity in  
this area (for example, the GlobalCom fibre link to London, the  
Festoon cable, etc.) it may be insufficient to meet the future needs  
of communication – especially, as I have already mentioned, that all  
services, including broadcast signals, would run on some of these  
channels. This is one amongst many reasons why this medium may not be  
sufficient in the near future. Secondly, the open access debate has  
not been an issue on the table of most West African connectivity  
discussions, because of - you got it right - SAT-3. "It ain't broke,  
don't fix it." Hence the struggle by civil society has been to lower  
the cost and improve connectivity as opposed to directly challenging  
the rather 'political' status quo and structure of the closed  
consortium; political in the sense that incumbents are tied to  
governments and, believe it or not, governments have closely guarded  
interests in the revenue generated by their cash cows - the telcoms.  
While we also advocate for the opening up of the 'governing'  
structure held tightly by the agreements countries (and their telcos)  
may have signed binding them to secrecy, we also advocate for the  
ease of accessing this infrastructure from whatever landing station  
one chooses. Could this be open access in another form? Or perhaps  
from a West African perspective?

CHAKULA: During the workshop you suggested that technology can have a  
detrimental affect, and that in some instances customs and cultural  
habits may be lost. In this way, a different kind of 'access' is  
under threat - access to culture as it is being practiced. Could you  
elaborate on this?

BA: I will put the discuss in context here, as the workshop focused  
on access at the rural community level. I believe it is very  
important that our rural folks should be reachable and should be  
within either fixed or mobile coverage areas, fall within the  
electricity grid, have running water, and information (either via  
broadcast channels - TV, radio – or the internet), etc. Our specific  
debate focused on the use and proliferation of 'free networks' in the  
rural community. This is clearly useful as I would be able to reach  
my grandmother from across the world and she me if that network is  
connected to the larger national backbone. But should my grand mum  
use that tool to speak to her neighbor in the next commune of huts -  
10 meters away, just like we are used to doing in the urban areas?  
(Research shows that more 'neighborhood' calls amount for a larger  
percentage of the entire household phone bill). We happen to always  
drop into a friend's place as we find ourselves 'in the neighborhood'  
without making any prior calls or appointments. This social dynamic,  
though unpleasant in some ways, is often appreciated. I may be myopic  
in my thinking here and perhaps be looking at this using the eye of  
my village, the rural community that shaped my being. 'In the  
neighborhood' is not the unlikely, but rather the norm, in the rural  
context. Does the introduction of technology and rural communication  
affect this very fabric of rural culture? I believe so. When my  
grandmother would rather speak to her neighbor on the phone than  
visit her seems to me to negatively affect communication within the  
rural community - communication being the basis by which African  
communities exist. Ours is an oral culture.

CHAKULA: As a donor, what sorts of initiatives do you think need to  
be supported in the context of open access in West Africa?

BA: Clearly, the price of access needs to drop. Not just become  
affordable, but way below the disposable income of the rural person.  
Secondly, barter trade still subsists in must parts of African  
communities. I would like to see, putting it plainly, the ability to  
exchange a basket of tomatoes for x hours of airtime for the rural  
community farmer. I would also like to see the government, private  
sector, etc. putting rural access on the forefront of connectivity  
discuss and not just talking about it, but ensuring that something is  
done - enough of the talk now. And finally, I would like to see  
empowered and organised consumers and their interests cutting across  
rural and urban communities in the open access debate; and subsequent  
implementation. While I believe that regulation may be 'evil' in some  
form, a structured regulatory framework for both rural and urban  
infrastructure should exist as self-regulation may be totally  
impossible in connectivity issues. There are too many interests at  
stake.

Background reading: Anders Comstedt, Eric Osiakwan and Russell  
Southwood (Spintrack AB): Open Access Model, Options for Improving  
Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a Focus on Sub-Saharan  
Africa), 2005.  http://www.infodev.org/files/ 
2569_file_OPEN_ACCESS_REPORT.pdf

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

4. LATEST ANALYSES

SATELLITE FAILURE SHOWS AFRICA’S UNDERBELLY
The cost of satellite bandwidth has rocketed as much as 50% following  
the failed launch of a satellite last January. The story shows just  
how vulnerable Africa is. Russell Southwood explores the issue.  
[Source: Balancing Act, www.balancingact-africa.com]
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5058882

ENABLING OPEN ACCESS THROUGH UNIVERSAL ACCESS
In this paper, CIPESA’s Vincent Bagiire questions whether open access  
will bear much fruit if universal access does not begin to create  
effective demand.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5056029

OPENING UP EASSy
In the wake of what he calls the “EASSy fallout", Eric Osiakwan goes  
back to the basics of open access to get the project's engines  
started again.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5042385

BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON TELKOM SA
The Telecoms Action Group (TAG) has been making waves in South  
Africa. That's after it took out a full-page advert in two South  
African newspapers slamming Telkom SA for its higher-than-fair  
connectivity costs. CHAKULA spoke to Alastair Otter, founding editor  
of Tectonic, who is part of the TAG initiative.
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=he_1&x=5052971
See also:
‘CONSUMERS SHOULDN’T SUBSIDISE TELKOM’ argues APC Director Anriette  
Esterhuysen http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5057602

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

5. BACKGROUND READING

WHY AFFORDABLE INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH MATTERS
Currently Africa has amongst the highest international bandwidth  
costs anywhere in the world. Although it varies, the international  
element of the cost to the consumer is significant proportion of the  
overall cost he or she pays. The same is true for institutional users  
like governments or for companies in the private sector.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051584

FINANCING INFRASTRUCTURE
Before markets were liberalised, telephone companies were in the main  
government-owned institutions. When they wanted to build undersea  
cables, governments financed this activity and the project was  
carried out by the government-owned telephone company. In the age of  
liberalisation, things get a bit more tricky.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051585

HOW FAR DOES DEMAND FOR LOW-COST CALLS GO?
Up until relatively recently, making international calls from Africa  
has been expensive. People were less inclined or unable to afford to  
make an international call and the majority of international calling  
was either corporate or government. A number of factors have  
fundamentally changed this position.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051587

SATELLITE vs FIBRE: DIFFERENT COSTS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS
Satellite is extremely effective in reaching places where the volume  
of traffic would not justify a fibre connection. However satellite  
connectivity is often costly. On the other hand, the comparatively  
low price of fibre connectivity for the consumer may not be  
sustainable over the long-term in some instances.
http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=4051583

FLATTENING THE WORLD WITH FIBRE
This paper aims to define fibre optic technology, how fibre-optic  
networks function, and explains how different this technology is from  
other communication infrastructures. The paper further outlines the  
prospects for fibre-optic technology in Africa, looks at some fibre- 
optic networks on the continent, as well as at how fibre-optic  
applications are being used to enhance technological and economic  
development.
http://www.comminit.com/africa/strategicthinking/st2006/ 
thinking-1897.html

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

CHAKULA is a newsletter produced by the Association for Progressive  
Communications (APC)’s Africa ICT Policy Monitor <http:// 
africa.rights.apc.org> which aims to mobilise African civil society  
around ICT policy for sustainable development and social justice issues.

We welcome your opinions about this newsletter. Send your comments,  
feedback or contributions to chakula at apc.org. To subscribe or  
unsubscribe e-mail chakula at apc.org or go to: http://lists.apc.org/cgi- 
bin/mailman/listinfo/chakula