Dear GKD List, My posting in response to the article "The Great African Internet Robbery" that appeared on the BBC web-site has attracted a good deal of opposing views and arguments (on and off the list). I would like to thank all that took the time to write as it helped me to verify some of my statements and encouraged me to further investigate the matter.
Unfortunately, some of the responses I received mixed-up technical, economical, political and even philosophical arguments. In order to reach a coherent understanding of the issues (and ultimately improve the situation of the African continent) one needs to dissect the different levels of analyses and must be careful not to confuse the diverse issues at hand. I will hence briefly put forth my argument and will include what I believe are realistic approaches to bring down the costs of Internet connectivity in developing countries. Finally, I will directly address some of the points made by the other authors in the appendix. The initial news item and my response were dealing with the issue of high-costs for Internet connectivity in Africa and possible explanations thereof. To make this very clear: I wholeheartedly agree that the costs are too high and that they hinder real access for many Africans. And I also agree that intercontinental data transfer is prohibitively expensive. However, I am unsatisfied with the answers brought forward in the article as to why the costs are so high; especially because such answers are ultimately shaping the discussion about possible solutions. One of the points made was that following the practice of telephone traffic, the costs for international data connections should be divided btw. both parties - rather than one side picking up the entire tab. I agree with all political and ethical arguments in support of this request: namely the fact that the haves should help the have-nots to benefit from the potential of ICT. However, the argument seems to disregard completely the inherent difference between telephone networks and the Internet. The telephone network itself does not contain content, it only connects people (and their content) and therefore provides a medium of communication. The Internet, on the other hand contains content. It actually IS content, rather than just a grid of cables that connect nodes. And therefore different parts of the network have higher value than others and it is more attractive for non-content carrying sub-networks to connect to the content-carrying sub-networks than vice versa. Besides, is it really surprising that a T1 connection from Nicaragua to the US should be more expensive than a comparable connection within the US? Isn't this likely due to the high amortization costs for the network, which are split between fewer interested and potential users than the hundreds of thousands users in the U.S. (and cut-throat competition)? In my original posting I argued that African monopolistic structures and mis-management in the telecommunications sector are two major culprits for the high-costs. These points were also heavily disputed. Let me support my reasoning with two further arguments: One solution to bring down connectivity costs are network interchange points to connect sub-networks, which btw is also recognized by the Kenyan ISPs in the BBC article. South Africa features two of these and they help to route local traffic through local networks more efficiently, avoiding constant "detours" via the major U.S. or European backbones. In addition the resulting African backbone could be connected to the European backbone via a few shorter links than the ones currently in use. However, today many requests even for African content still traverse the Atlantic, because no national or regional infrastructure is in place to avoid this. Monopolies have shown little interest in peering, effectively hindering the implementation of more national and international interchange points, AND ultimately inflating the costs. Furthermore, cheaper than monopoly-offered bandwidth (via satellite) exists in many developing countries. HOWEVER, access is denied by legislation designed to protect the existing monopoly. The following OECD report provides additional food for thought in respect to some of the above points. It explains the evolution of global end-to-end data networks and describes the relevance of exchange points. http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027258.pdf Again I am pro lower connection costs, but I think local solutions would solve the substantial part of this problem and would do so in more sustainable manner, than pointing the finger at evil western telcos and governments. Thanks, Philipp Schmidt Cape Town, SA [Appendix: Direct answers to some of the replies] From: Steve Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phillip's argument was certainly valid 15-20 years ago, when I and my > generation of IS researchers were dependent upon the largesse of the US > DoD for international e-mail. > > Since then, however, the explosion of commercial internet use has been > driven largely by the product of Tim Berners-Lee's work at CERN. > Arguably this was funded by all the taxpayers of the governments > supporting that research organisation. Steve, reading this I must come to the conclusion that /your/ argument is the one not valid! Tim Berners-Lee's work (at CERN as well as with the W3) undoubtedly has had an incredible impact on the World Wide Web (not the Internet, big difference). However it has no relevance for the underlying network that among other things carries Internet traffic and which is the subject of this discussion. > The internet is now no more a US resource than the English language is > the proprietary medium of native speakers. I agree that the Internet (capital I) should not be called a "US resource". However please keep in mind where most of the WWW content is produced and hosted. And you must surely agree that besides E-Mail the World Wide Web is the most popular and relevant element of the Internet (so relevant in fact, that you confused the two). > Nor are distorted internal telecoms costs relevant to the argument set > out. > > The issues surely is the selective adherence to international agreements > by the powerful nations in general - not just the U.S. - while insisting > on slavish adherence from less powerful partners. The "do as I say not > as I do approach" does us no credit. I could not agree more, but the fact that an almost cynical practice of international agreements exists today does not improve an otherwise flawed argument. ------------------------------------------ From: "Cornelio Hopmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dear Phillipp, > > Have a look at the below -taken from the ITU news-server- and you'll > find that there do exist other opinions. And as you might note the US > delegation rejected even the very weak recomendation to look bilateraly > for more apropriate solutions. I have taken a look and must come to the conclusion that this is a 2 year old last-minute agreement on a recommendation that has no binding power and does not even provide details on what should be agreed upon between two providers. This lion clearly has no teeth - However, there must be more recent developments and agreements, which I was not able to dig out of the ITU web-site. Maybe you could help? > By the way: an Internet-E1 connection from Nicaragua to the Backbone > somewhere in the US -- without any (!) local TELCO costs -- takes > between 9,800 to 24,000 US$ a month -- depending on the period of the > lease. This is 8 to 18 times what the same service -- no tax money > involved anymore -- costs within the US. As obvious final enduser in > Nicaragua either have to pay 8 to 18 times what they would pay in the US > or get a 8 to 18 times poorer service (means email only, no high graphic > web, no larger downloads). see my argument above! > As long as this situation persists, there is a unilateral tariff-barrier > which provokes in turn digital divide ... and even the most efective > local TELCO can't change it. > > At the same time and applying general ITU principles, telephone traffic > is handled on shared cost base with precentages varying according to who > initated the call and who pays for it. Long distance moreover is only 3 > times more expensive than same service within the US. again, please see above. > The full text of the Recommendation can be found here: > > <http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/documents/wtsa2000rep.htm#Internation > al> ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
