Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Thanks, Mark, for clarifying important aspects of the reality of access costs. African countries show the results of taxation and monopolies very clearly. I have been working with a college in Tanzania that is an hour away from Dar es Salaam, which in this case means 'remote', at least in terms of access. The college has to pay USD 400/month for a dedicated line of 128 Kbs from the national telecom. You can compare this cost to the USD 40/month that I pay for a 2 Mbs connection in Stockholm. Lack of open and free competition is one of the main reasons behind high access costs in Tanzania. Even alternative providers (VSAT operators) take advantage of the situation and price themselves at similar levels. Africa also suffers from excessive tariffs for overseas connections, which is not only a local/regional issue but also related to agreements with overseas (European and American) operators. In many countries, indirect subsidies already exist, using external funding. Inflated access costs are often borne by foreign organizations (private companies or aid organizations) and donor-funded agents and projects. While these initiatives provide access to some users, they also perpetuate a situation where it is very difficult for local companies to operate. Mark is absolutely right to point out that subsidies will support monopolies, while preventing local entrepreneurs from creating sustainable business models. Meanwhile, local actors, like the aforemenioned college, have to struggle to foot the bill for access. Although new access solutions like WiFi could go a long way in spreading access, the issues involved are not just regulatory. In most cases, there is no (or very little) local technical capacity to set up and maintain the smart system that Mark describes. User-friendly interfaces and hands-on training are key to make the system viable in a local context. I have heard of these systems being tried out in all kinds of places, very successfully. But we also need to think of a way of upscaling/replicating them to make a real difference. Meanwhile, value added services like VoIP would make a big difference in people's lives (just look at the mobile phone revolution to get an idea of how valuable communication is perceived to be, even for poor people). Again we are back to regulatory issues -- VoIP is illegal in countries like Tanzania. So rather than talking subsidies, let's look at the regulatory regimes, and work towards adjusting them. It was not long ago that Internet access was rather costly in Euorpe as well, something that deregulation has taken care of by now. Meanwhile, let's also focus on building local capacity so that entrepreneurs can learn how to use smart solutions like WiFi. Paula Paula Uimonen, PhD Executive Director Net4Dev Månadsvägen 64 S-177 42 Järfälla Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 580 811 59 Mobile: +46 (0)768 882 663 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.net4dev.se On 1/5/05, Mark Summer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when we now look at places in the developing world and examine the situation there it's very easy to see why costs are so high: For example it is not legal to use WiFi as a distribution medium in many countries due to legal restrictions (e.g. India). In many countries the government requires ISPs to obtain very costly licenses and they will only issue a very limited number of licenses to selected people (see Laos where the daughter of the prime minister runs the in-country ISP). In other places the government requires that it own parts of ISPs (in Thailand the government used to require a 50% government stake in ISPs) but of course that does not mean that they will be taking part in the investments to setup the ISPs, take a share of the profits. In other places ISPs are not free to buy connectivity from upstream providers they choose, rather they are required to buy their bandwidth at inflated costs from the local telcos / universities or the government. Internet access is often seen in the same way long distance phone calls have been treated in Europe and other places until about 15 years ago, as something only the wealthy and foreigners use and therefore can be taxed as much as desired by the governments. If we now subsidize Internet access we just support these kinds of taxation and control systems and hinder the development of free enterprises in the country, adding more wealth to the already rich. When we talk about sustainable solutions on the community level we need to as well think about how to create sustainable opportunities for entrepreneurs in these places. I don't think that supporting monopolies through subsidies is a good thing; this will prevent more people from gaining access to ICTs rather then enabling them to use them in the long term. Another important factor are the restrictions placed on the use of technologies in many countries, usually again in support of very few
[GKD] RFI: WiMax Utilization
Dear GKD Members, I was reading though the message submitted by Lee Thorn and was particularly interested in his use of WiMax technology. Lee could you exaborate on how far you have been able to progress with the WiMax technology? If there are any others in our group with WiMax experience, I would appreciate your comments. We are in the process of building a hybrid e-school to be regionalized around Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA. Even though we do not have the last mile connectivity issues that many participants in the GKD group face, we too are limited in the type of education we employ by the lowest connectivity speed. I did some reasearch on using this technology to create a metropolitan area network, and with the potential for a 30 mile coverage radius from one tower a lot of headaches could be eliminated, but the feedback I received was that it is still several years off, and that the hardware is not yet small enough to fit into a notebook computer. If any of you have additional info, I would appreciate hearing from you. Keith Birkhold The Web Education Academy On 1/5/05, Lee Thorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..snip... As you know, villagers in Phon Kham have not been able to get permission to connect yet. We're working on a new idea using WiMax that might overcome the main barrier. We are proceeding with the process of developing a POC of the Jhai PC and communication system on the Navajo reservation and betas in several other countries, including Laos. ..snip... ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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/
Re: [GKD] Nigeria: Silicon Valley Transplant
Dear GKD Members, Its been a while since this was originally posted but in relation to current discussions, I wanted to add this response to the original comments by Femi Oyesanya. The comments relate to the Interesting parallel between this Nigerian government proposal and the Unity Center www.onevillagefoundation.org/ovf/unitycenters.html concept that we have developed through OVF, explaining how if it was done a little differently, the Nigerians might just be able to pull it off. These comments also relate to the recent post I made in relation to Walter Rostow's Stages to Take-off. On 12/03/2004, Femi Oyesanya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recent Nigerian Newspaper article cited the Nigerian Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nasir El-Rufai, as saying that the Nigerian Government has given the approval for the building of a Technology Village. Nigeria will be building its own Silicon Valley on a 650 hectare property, located in a suburb of the Federal Capital city, Abuja. The Newspaper article quoted El-Rufai as saying, we want to create a city of knowledge in Abuja. And on the way to the airport, we have got about 650 hectares of land we have reserved out of the Abuja master-plan. What we hope to do with the technology village, which is going to cost us between $300 to $400 million is to have the highest quality infrastructure attracting the best brains in information and bio-technology, pharmaceutical and Information Technology (IT) research to work in Abuja. (1) ** Silicon Valley Story The determination of such a center's success is not so much the technology or the planning but the building of a framework of governance from which financial, technological and social infrastructure can emerge in a climate of trust and transparency. Such a realization of a grand vision, necessarily involves the social and cultural components of storytelling and myth-making. Silicon Valley at its essence is a replaying of the modern American mythology of rugged individualism. The story of Apple Computer being started in Steve Jobs' garage is repeated again and again, so that it has become the classic Silicon Valley success story. It is the story of hard working, highly intelligent people who identify innovations and know how to make them happen by working with other, often underappreciated innovators. Ironically, though, the very necessary ingredients which led to America's Silicon Valley success (and its overall success in modern times) are being weakened from the pressures of a ruling class that eshews accountability and transparency. * Pre-conditions to Take-off: 1. Such a center would ideally be organized to avoid any of the transparency and corruption issues that plaque Nigerian civil society. In this way it could be a model for a more decentralized model of governance as an alternative to the nation-state model and therefore putting Africa on the leading edge of post-industrial development. 2. Rather than seek to create one massive center it might be more realistic to develop several prototype nodes that could experiment with leading ICT as well as other leading sector innovations and then integrate them to create new models of living that are suitable for emerging markets. These nodes would be designed to be rapidly replicated into surrounding regions, eventually forming a decentralized, distributed grid that would facilitate sustainable commerce. This would include communications, food production, consulting as well as ICT related services. 3. Emphasis would be on an open source, community scaled and ICT augmented development paradigm rather than a top-down proprietary model that reinforces elite-periphery dynamics. Jeff ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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/
[GKD] Tsunami Disaster and Business Response to the Crisis
Dear Colleagues, I was pleased to see the message from Robert Davies, Chief Executive Officer, International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the material prepared by IBLF and the International Tourism Partnership in response to the coastal disaster in Asia. I like the clarity of their paper in identifying the three phases of the crisis: (1) Rescue (2) Relief, and (3) Recovery. I think this is a good way to think about the crisis and emergency. But there is something sadly missing, something wrong. I cannot put my finger on exactly what it is. Maybe it is because tourism often flourishes in beautiful places in little enclaves surrounded by grinding poverty. Maybe it is because the business model for tourism success is high prices, high profits and leave very little of value in the local economy and the host country. Maybe it is because tourism is often associated with a certain level of sexual entertainment that we don't often talk about. Somehow, something is missing. So while I am glad to see leaders in the international business community and the tourism industry writing about the crisis, I have a concern which is not easy to explain. Rescue and relief has been done very well. Not perfect, but an impressive local and international response. From my perspective, I see a level of expertise and commitment in the international emergency response community that is very encouraging. The large international NGOs have a lot of experience and good people. Organizations like UNHCR do a wonderful job in crisis situations. Local organizations and ordinary people in a crisis do quite extraordinary things. And when the military is used for emergency logistics instead of dropping bombs and doing destruction, they also are amazing. In fact, its almost worth having the military budget bill just so that they can perform in these emergency situations. On balance I have to say that local and international response to handle rescue and relief has been extraordinary. But recovery is another matter. How does the tsunami crisis rank in the global development arena? How does one go about having success in development around the world and success in the long term post tsunami recovery phase? I am an optimist about what is possible, but very pessimistic about what will actually happen. Already there are the first reports of scams, rip-offs and obscene profiteering that usually emerge quite quickly in any crisis, and this is no exception. In terms of obscene profiteering, the reports of child abductions are most sickening. To maximize profit from exploitation of children, free children is about as good as it gets! Sick. But exploiting children is big business. Scams and rip-offs will happen, and most organizations are not well equipped for transparency and accountability that would make it much more difficult for scammers and rip-off artists to operate. As the recovery phase begins, there are a lot of questions, and few easy answers. What is the impact of the SE Asia's tsunami crisis on the rest of the world? Will resources for recovery in the tsunami crisis be incremental or will they merely be diversions of resources from other critical programs. What is the impact going to be, for example, on the global health and HIV-AIDS crisis. We are not seeing many images of the AIDS crisis in the world media at the moment, yet the death toll in three weeks related to AIDS is numerically about the scale of the tsunami deaths to date. Again ... in three weeks, death from AIDS related causes is estimated to be around 150,000. Will the tsunami crisis sensitize the world to the plight of poor people? Will it get more people to ask questions about poverty and the failure of world leadership and the development community to make progress in the elimination of abject poverty. Around the world, maybe half of the population is terribly poor ... some 3 billion people. Around the world, a lot of countries and their governments are essentially bankrupt and therefore unable to deliver any services that rich countries now routinely expect governments to provide. It really is a mess. In many parts of the world, poor people can more easily get hold of a gun than a good meal! What the rescue and relief performance does show is that amazing things can be done, and done very quickly. It would be wonderful if the tsunami recovery process was done in a way to demonstrate that recovery and development can be successful. The tsunami recovery can be done well. But history suggests that the recovery or development phase will be either excessively overfunded or underfunded, and the priorities determined in the worst possible way. This need not be. It can be done well, but it requires a different approach from what has usually been done. Success in development is unlikely to be best when it is driven by the prevailing development mindset of the international donors with government the driver of recovery implementation, or the international welfare model
Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Dear Colleagues, I took the liberty of answering in-line and editing the message, hopefully without disturbing the context. On 1/4/05, Edmond Gaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Monthly connection costs under volume-based pricing (1GB total traffic per month) is about $230. Recognizing the realities of school funding cycles, AFSAT bills schools at the beginning of each term, when school fees are collected. Roughly 45 rural secondary schools now have VSATs under this program, which was launched in the spring of 2003. A few of these schools serve very disadvantaged communities, and have received upfront capital in the form of grants. Most of the 14 that we've looked at are covering their recurrent costs via combinations of school fees and community-focused operations. Wow, so $10,350/month is being drained out of these 45 communities we are trying to help. I won't even comment on the new KU-band VSAT terminals for US $2800 but I suspect someone made an awful lot of money on that sale. This equipment sells in Asia (where most of this equipment is manufactured) for a few hundred dollars each. This arrangement is far from perfect. In particular, some schools have more than 1GB of traffic per month, which results in increased costs for AFSAT and radical slow-downs in connectivity speeds at those schools. Actually, for the $10,350/month that is being spent this service doesn't even cover the requirements of some of the schools. Let me give you a breakdown in English as to what we are really providing these schools. A one Gigabyte transfer cap (as it is called in this business) divides down to just over 30 megabytes per day (assuming we use the 30-31 day month equally) For comparison's sake, a 56Kbps dialup modem (which most people will agree is obsolete) has a theoretical transfer rate of 17 Megabytes per hour (going from memory) As a habit I meter my internet connection and I routinely exceed 30 Megabytes in a day of web surfing. This does not include any kind of multimedia files (movies, etc) but only takes into consideration reading the international news, viewing any associated pictures provided by the news sources and other typical browsing. This level of service is not suitable for the needs of a school and the typical argument I am used to hearing that this is better than nothing equates to me as We had no water until we counted the morning dew. But the situation is interesting because it's arisen out of market demand and opportunities, which are being met by a largely responsible private-sector provider. Yes, for that amount of money I am sure that some private sector provider would jump in. Bushnet, another private-sector provider, is also offering wireless connectivity in rural Uganda via -- I think -- microwave hubs. Cost of each hub is I believe upwards of $6K U.S., but these are intended to provide service to clusters of communities using 802.11 technologies. As of my latest information, there are over 30 hubs located in urban and rural areas. As someone in the business of employing 802.11 to deliver connectivity I can safely say this is also a wildly profitable endeavor for Bushnet. If they are charging upwards of $6K for their client installations they are making roughly that much for a day or two of work. We buy the client side of these radios for well under $200/each. May I ask why there isn't an outrage at this kind of profiteering? This leads to a far deeper question about why this is happening. I am quite sure that we all agree there simply isn't enough money to do everything we would like to accomplish - yet incredibly expensive solutions are being applied without any apparent understanding of what the real cost should be. From a businessperson's standpoint, this is beyond wasteful and borders on complete incompetence. I'm offering these numbers in part to add to the general storehouse of information that this discussion has built up. I'm also concerned that private-sector successes in providing Internet access not be overlooked. Private area successes? I look at this as a fleecing of every single customer and the people who are financing these projects. I am even more concerned that this information isn't causing an outcry from anyone who understands value and loathes outright profiteering. The possibility of a social enterprise providing Internet connectivity to multiple communities, as Jeff has proposed, is intriguing. To be successful, however, an enterprise of this sort would need to compete against private-sector providers. The organization would itself be, in essence, a private-sector provider, yes? Compete? At these prices they should be able to retire in very short order! I understand that this list in not necessarily technically oriented but the prices that have been introduced in this message are nothing short of obscene. I am sorry but I don't think I could live with myself if I was gouging people this badly. When we look at the
