From Heloise@dbsa.org Thu Feb 8 12:48:02 2001
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:48:02 +0200
From: Heloise Emdon Heloise@dbsa.org
Subject: [Communitysa] Universal Service Fund
Peter
I've been meaning to write and compliment you on this note. However, I would
like to take up with you (and Aki?) the discussion on the management of the
USF, as I do believe the DBSA can add value to it. However, the colloquium
is now history, the consultants are now writing, and I made a very last
minute proposal once it appeared the colloquium was moving in a particular
direction with this.
I believe the DBSA can, on an agency basis, should provide the type of
service required to appraise and disburse grant funds, and possibly even a
mix of grants with loans to fund the various universal service projects,
such as the last mile projects, etc.
Please could we take up the discussion at your convenience.
Best regards
Heloise
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Benjamin [mailto:peter@sn.apc.org]
Sent: 01 February 2001 03:01
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Public meeting 29 Jan write-up
Dear all,
This is the write-up of the public meeting on universal service &
access policy on Monday 29 January. Aki Stavrou is now writing up
the report on this for the colloquium on Friday.
Cheers,
Peter
===========================
Report on Public Meeting on Universal Service & Access Policy
Monday 29 January 2001, LINK Centre, P&DM, Wits University
[Attendance list with email at end]
There were short presentations on general universal access issues from
Peter Benjamin, and Aki Stavrou presented proposals on the future of
the USA. This report covers points from the discussion.
REVIEWING ACHIEVMENTS TO DATE
While there has been some success in extending access in the years
since the last Telecomms Act (1996), there are still huge disparities
between racial groups in South Africa - especially in terms of
Universal Service.
Quality standards were not strong in the original targets. This leads
to a problem of simply counting number for rollout, rather than really
assessing what impact this has had. Need to focus on quality and
affordability - not simply numerical rollout. In many rural areas
quality standards are not high, with infrequent repair and cardphones
with no cards to purchase locally. Also, the high rate of churn shows
that affordability is as important to think of as rollout.
There has been a great increase in cellphone usage recently. Pre-paid
has been successful for cellphones and should be further looked at for
fixed lines. Fixed line carries data more easily than cellphone. If
we are considering data access we need to focus on fixed lines
currently.
Other countries (such as Chile and Malaysia) have had a much greater
expansion in networks.
Telkom outsourcing and related job losses can have a negative impact
on the economy of SA.
NEW GOALS
Several people agreed that the focus of universal access policy should
be in rural areas to promote wider development.
We need to be clear of the problem we are trying to address: filling
in the gaps that the present regime have allowed; and / or to refocus
on overcoming the digital divide. Where there are specific issues to
be addressed, such as subsidising rural women, we need to conduct
clear research to define the problem and work out the best mechanisms
to address this.
Several people agreed that focusing on the sector was important for
the overall development of the country. Investment in transport &
telecommunications is very strong in stimulating wider economic
growth. Equity is important for growth, and telecomms is part of
this.
LOCAL LOOP & SUBSIDY
Affordability and prices is closely related to market structure. For
cost reduction through competition, monopoly and duopoly should be
broken. Competition is unlikely to increase service extension - it
will most likely focus on business and high-end users.
Internationally there is little competition in local service. There
should be some mechanism for subsidy to support wider use. Clear
cross-subsidisation will be required to extend affordability to many
groups. Rebalancing of tariffs will continue, raising local use
prices.
Tina James has coordinated a submission around telecomms co-ops
offering local loop services. For these local businesses (e.g. co-ops
or local government) to allow local loop services, then the licensing
framework will have to allow this, and not limit licenses only to a
few bigger national operators. However, others questioned the
definition of a co-op which could have various meanings, not all of
which are supportive of the disadvantaged.
FUND / PAY OR PLAY / OBLIGATIONS
There was not agreement on these points, though everyone agreed that
some form or obligation, supported projects or 'pay or play' was
needed. The sector should not be left simply to market forces.
However, agreed goals need to be worked out, and then a clear
mechanism developed to meet them. This system must be accountable and
transparent, with regular public reporting on what has been achieved.
The Universal Service Fund should not be administered by the same
people who are implementing projects from the fund. The USA should
not both manage the fund, and be an implementer - both a player and
the referee.
Need to have a form of subsidy to encourage network extension, with a
sliding scale for different areas. This subsidy can be used to reduce
rental charges for users, which should make the services more
affordable reducing churn.
Annual reviews are important, but license conditions for operators
cannot be changed this frequently or they will become annual disputes.
We need to be careful not to over-regulate and reduce the dynamism of
the economy, especially for SMMEs.
Telkom has been given much higher targets (1.7 million) compared to
the cellphone operators (under 30,000). Now that there are more
cellphones than fixed lines, should these targets be dramatically
revised? Within a few years, there will probably be 6 major operators
in SA (fixed and cellular). We need a structure of licensing,
obligations and tariff caps that calls upon them all to provide a
proper universal service / access mechanism. One view was than
operators should all run their own projects (all 'Play', no 'pay').
Also support for disabled users can be organised as part of the
license for operators and not through a separate agency.
MTN and Vodacom have licenses (clause 21) stating that government will
not put on more taxation to the companies. However, the community
service obligations of the cellular operators are up for
renegotiation.
A focus of subsidy should be rural women, especially women headed
households. These are the most marginalised, and have the best impact
on wider development.
'Free' services are coming: ABSA free email and British Council
announced offering email to schools. While the equipment is still
required, how does this effect universal access in SA?
There are many subsidy initiatives, such as the Global Service Trust
Fund and E-rate (for education services).
ROLE OF THE USA
Some people even questioned whether the USA should continue, seeing it
as weak so far. The USA has primarily set up telecentres, which are
not mandated in the Telecomms Act 1996.
However, most people saw that given the changes in the last few years,
there probably is a need for someone to perform functions to assist in
bridging the digital divide. Form should follow function, and we
should not be limited by the past.
Many speakers saw a role for an organisation like the USA to respond
to equity issues, redressing historic legacy, urban / rural divide in
the ICT / telecommunications sector. There is also a role to link
telecomms infrastructure to developmental impacts. Need to link to
other initiatives such as GCIS MPCCs, Integrated Rural Development
Strategy and Batho Pele. There is an important role in finding
community information needs, that could (possibly) be done through the
USA.
Many people stressed the need for research - into where there was low
levels of access, into new mechanisms for addressing these issues and
research into new technologies. Support is needed for university
innovation, venture capital, SMME support. Part of long term support
for universal service.
There are many projects and initiatives on Universal Access in the
country, with some successes, many failures but very little
co-ordination. A GIS / database needs to be developed showing where
people are who have no access to telephony / ICTs. This should be a
public document.
Regional and local involvement in telecentre provision - not all
central. The focus must be on sustainability and real impact - not
just on starting projects. Research is central to this. Many
telecentres are being planned without proper feasability studies.
The USA could be active in supporting and promoting 'Information
Rights'.
The USA must be quite focussed so that it does not take on too much.
LOCATION OF USA
There was a debate on the best organisational position for the USA.
Many felt that the USA would be stronger if it were based within the
regulator (ICASA), and that this would stop potentially damaging
overlap between the 2 organisations. Overlap of jurisdiction can be
exploited by operators, which can be done legally to delay
obligations.
A board of directors for the 'USA' was generally supported to bring
together various stakeholders to reduce political control and increase
wider input.
Monitoring of obligations and rollout should be central to regulation
of the sector, and done within a strengthened ICASA. Another view was
that regulation (ICASA) and coordination (potentially USA) should be
kept separate. The regulator should be responsible for all
subsidisation / tariffs issues, not the USA.
The competence of the regulator is a crucial question. It must be
capacitated to give proper structure to the economy. If it is weak
now with only a few operators, then it must be strengthened before the
sector becomes much more complex. One person said that accountability
is key - and it is sad that both DoC and ICASA are weak.
There needs to be a mechanism to direct where the obligations of
operators will go, to ensure full national coverage. ICASA is in a
better place to oblige the operators to go to certain places, but the
USA could conduct the research on where there are low levels of
service.
PRESENT:
Aki Stavrou Univ Natal-Durban astavrou@iafrica.com
Bas Kotterink IDRC b@solwey.com
Dominic Shofield CABSA dscabsa@mweb.co.za
Holly Luton-Nel Alexsan alexsan@iafrica.com
Gertrude Makhaya Wits Economic Dept gmakhaya@hotmail.com
Simon Roberts Wits Economic Dept 060sjr@mentor.edcm.wits.ac.za
Tito Ndibongo Globalstar SA tito.ndibongo@globalstar.co.za
Louis Makua Alcatel Altech lmakua@alcatel.altech.co.za
Mohummen Peer Telkom peerma@telkom.co.za
Allison Gillwald LINK, Wits gillwald.a@pdm.wits.ac.za
Mohudi Mothiba Vodacom mohudi.mothiba@vodacom.co.za
Elelwani Pahlana Telkom ndouem@telkom.co.za
Pete Lebepe Makwakwaila Telecentre 083 533 7560
Paul Johnson NYC Youth Info johnsonp@nyc.pwv.gov.za
Edmund Sechefo Singakwenza MPCC lsechefo@hotmail.com
Leonorah Khanyile InfoLit project khanyile.l@pdm.wits.ac.za
B Mokhele
botlenyana.mokhele@za.didata.com
R Singh Telkom singhrs@telkom.co.za
Trevor Nivi LINK, Wits trevornivi@hotmail.com
Ashraf Patel OSISA ashrafp@osiafrica.org
Mohamed Essa Class Consulting class@efunda.co.za
Karabo Motlana Telkom motlanbk@telkom.co.za
Thami Nxasana Telkom nxasantm@telkom.co.za
Andrew Modise Telkom modisma1@telkom.co.za
Tina James Tina James consulting tjames@intekom.co.za
Kate Wild IDRC kwild@idrc.org.za
Heloise Emden DBSA heloise@dbsa.org
Mark Burke ITSD Consulting burkem@itsd.co.za
Shawn Kariem ITSD Consulting kariems@itsd.co.za
Heather Schreiner Research Consultant d.schreiner@pixie.co.za
Antony Trowbridge Technikon SA atrow@usa.net
Paul West Technikon SA pgwest@pgw.org
Khumbulani Mkhize MTN mkhize_k@mtn.co.za
Katharina Pillay USA kathrina@usa.org.za
John Moore MTN moore_j@mtn.co.za
Arnold Pietersen CECS cecsgp@wn.apc.org
Josiah Ntsibande Intuthuko Projects lethu@iafrica.com
Velaphi Mtshali Khaya-Metro Info lethu@iafrica.com
Joshua Manamela USA 011 726 5241
Mandla Sithole USA mandla@usa.org.za
Anriette Esterhuysen APC, Sangonet anriette@apc.org
Charley Lewis COSATU charley@cosatu.org.za
Apologies
Marc Fulman Internet Solution marcf@is.co.za
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk Mon Feb 12 14:19:17 2001
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:19:17 -0000
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest, management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From zamile@siza.co.za Thu Feb 8 14:22:41 2001
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:22:41 +0200
From: Themba Vilakazi zamile@siza.co.za
Subject: [Communitysa] used computer project
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C091EB.5C3FC8C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am writing you from Scientific Resource Management Pty. LTD. (SRM). We =
are in the process of initiating a computer refurbishment business to =
address the technological exclusion of most of our people in Southern =
Africa. Worldwide there is a new environmental problem of computer =
hardware waste. Many of the machines put out of use are due to =
corporate upgrades motivated by the introduction of newer software. Many =
of the machines shelved or discarded are in working order or can be made =
so inexpensively and used to bridge the ever widening digital gap. Our =
plans include a refurbished brand name pentium 1 machine, fully equiped =
with a software suite such as MS 95 or Newdeal (www.newdealinc.com test =
software available on the net) with internet access for under R3,000.=20
My interest in communicating with you is to elicit from you comments and =
questions, and also to see if your organization might be interested or =
able to serve as part of our distribution network.
You can contact Themba Vilakazi at this e-mail address.
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C091EB.5C3FC8C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I am writing you from Scientific =
Resource=20
Management Pty. LTD. (SRM). We are in the process of initiating a =
computer=20
refurbishment business to address the technological exclusion of most of =
our=20
people in Southern Africa. Worldwide there is a new environmental =
problem of=20
computer hardware waste. Many of the machines put out of use are =
due to=20
corporate upgrades motivated by the introduction of newer software. Many =
of the=20
machines shelved or discarded are in working order or can be made so=20
inexpensively and used to bridge the ever widening digital gap. Our =
plans=20
include a refurbished brand name pentium 1 machine, fully equiped with a =
software suite such as MS 95 or Newdeal (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.newdealinc.com">www.newdealinc.com</A> test software =
available=20
on the net) with internet access for under R3,000. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>My interest in communicating with you is to elicit =
from you=20
comments and questions, and also to see if your organization might be =
interested=20
or ab</FONT><FONT size=3D2>le to serve as part of our distribution=20
network.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You can contact Themba Vilakazi at this e-mail=20
address.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C091EB.5C3FC8C0--
From r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk Thu Feb 15 10:48:59 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:48:59 -0000
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
only we allow initiative to bloom.
Roy.
On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
[Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
Mike
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From mikej@wind.sn.apc.org Sat Feb 17 12:59:13 2001
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:59:13 +0200 (SAST)
From: Mike Jensen mikej@wind.sn.apc.org
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
actually heloise wrote that text below:-), but there are many
examples like Roy's around now, and serious efforts to do this for
whole cities - see for eg. http://www.consume.net in SA a commercial
venture is trying it at : http://www.megawan.net
mike
> Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
> further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
> have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
> outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
> maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
> a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
> well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
> only we allow initiative to bloom.
>
> Roy.
>
> On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
>
> [Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
>
> So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
> cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
> capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
> tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
> local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
> cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
> is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
> in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
> http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
> local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
> than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
> uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
> deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
> which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
> technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
> fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Roy Williams
> Block 33, University of Reading,
> London Road, Reading,
> RG1 5 AQ
> +44 118 931-6317
>
> _______________________________________________
> Communitysa mailing list
> Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
> http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
>
From Patrick@usa.org.za Mon Feb 19 13:31:37 2001
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:31:37 +0200
From: Patrick Msomi Patrick@usa.org.za
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C09A78.48DA5290
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hallow Everybody,
It is with sadness that so much analysis and conclusions are drawn in regard
to issues around the Universal Service Agency without looking at certain
facts.
Apparently, the USA is judged from the successes or failures of telecentre
projects in South Africa. By the way, the issue is not whether the
telecentre projects have been a success or not.
What is important is that; the question of Internet access by the
disadvantaged and rural communities has been put on the agenda in South
Africa. The recently held Colloquium is a proof to that. Perhaps what we
need to look into is; how can universal access for ICT be achieved in South
Africa. We need to debate as to what extent has GSM addressed universal
access for voice telephony in South Africa. There are a lot of other issues
we need to concern ourselves with.
I would also like to share with you some information which, I hope, can
clarify certain issues. I am not trying to justify anything other that
sharing of information.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
The Universal Service Agency is a statutory body established by the
Telecommunications Act 1996 and mandated to promote universal service and
universal access through monitoring, recommendations to the Minister and
implementing projects that stimulate public awareness on benefits of
telecommunication services in rural and historically disadvantaged
communities.
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
Monitoring Function:
The Universal Service Agency is empowered to continuously survey and
evaluate the extent to which universal service and universal access has been
achieved in South Africa and to monitor the industry compliance with
universal service and universal access obligations.
Recommendations to the Minister Function:
The USA shall continuously make recommendations, after extensive
consultation with the public, to enable the Minister to determine what shall
constitute, from time to time, universal access and universal service to
telecommunication services by all areas and communities in South Africa.
Projects Implementation:
The USA is mandated to implement projects that stimulate public
awareness on benefits of telecommunications services to the communities in
under-serviced areas. This endeavor is part of the reconstruction and
development program contemplated in Section 3(a) of the Reconstruction and
Development Program Act 1994 (Act No. 7 of 1994), where such projects
contribute to the attainment of the goals of universal service and universal
access.
At the same time, this endeavor stimulate market expansion in under-serviced
areas with a buying power that cannot be ignored while ensuring that the gap
between cities and rural areas is narrowed.
DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE
The current definitions are based on commissioned research work
around universal service and access issues and workshops that involved
community-based organizations in various parts of the country.
Under-serviced areas:
An under-serviced area is any township, village, location and isolated
homestead which is considered to be a place where disadvantaged communities
or individuals reside and accessible public and private telephone services
are not readily available.
The basic standard, defining an area as under-serviced, will be: an area
where the percentage of households having a telephone is less than 12%.
Universal Access for Voice Telephony:
Is a working telephone available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
within 1 Km in rural areas and 200m in urban areas.
Universal Access for Information and Communication Technologies:
Is a minimum of one point per under-serviced area, with Internet
access.
Universal Service
A reliable connection, from any part of the country, to the
telecommunication network able to support voice, data and high speed
Internet access priced in such a way that most users in under-serviced areas
can afford it and are able to access emergency services free of charge.
These are provisional definitions subject to approval by the Minister as
stipulated in the Act No. 103 of 1996 S 59 (2) (a).
-----Original Message-----
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk [mailto:r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:19 PM
To: communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of
innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest,
management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it
infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
_______________________________________________
Communitysa mailing list
Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
------_=_NextPart_001_01C09A78.48DA5290
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hallow Everybody,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It is with sadness that so much analysis and =
conclusions are drawn in regard to issues around the Universal Service =
Agency without looking at certain facts.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Apparently, the USA is judged from the successes or =
failures of telecentre projects in South Africa. By the way, the =
issue is not whether the telecentre projects have been a success or =
not. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What is important is that; the question of Internet =
access by the disadvantaged and rural communities has been put on the =
agenda in South Africa. The recently held Colloquium is a proof to =
that. Perhaps what we need to look into is; how can =
universal access for ICT be achieved in South Africa. We need to debate =
as to what extent has GSM addressed universal access for voice =
telephony in South Africa. There are a lot of other issues we need to =
concern ourselves with. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I would also like to share with you some information =
which, I hope, can clarify certain issues. I am not trying to =
justify anything other that sharing of information.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Universal Service Agency is a statutory body =
established by the Telecommunications Act 1996 and mandated to promote =
universal service and universal access through monitoring, =
recommendations to the Minister and implementing projects that =
stimulate public awareness on benefits of telecommunication services in =
rural and historically disadvantaged communities.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> FUNCTIONS =
OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>Monitoring =
Function:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>The =
Universal Service Agency is empowered to continuously survey and =
evaluate the extent to which universal service and universal access has =
been achieved in South Africa and to monitor the industry =
compliance with universal service and universal access =
obligations.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT =
SIZE=3D2>Recommendations to the Minister Function: </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The USA shall continuously make recommendations, =
after extensive consultation with the public, to enable the Minister to =
determine what shall constitute, from time to time, universal access =
and universal service to telecommunication services by all areas and =
communities in South Africa.</FONT></P>
<P> =20
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Projects Implementation:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>The USA is =
mandated to implement projects that stimulate public awareness on =
benefits of telecommunications services to the communities in =
under-serviced areas. This endeavor is part of the reconstruction and =
development program contemplated in Section 3(a) of the Reconstruction =
and Development Program Act 1994 (Act No. 7 of 1994), where such =
projects contribute to the attainment of the goals of universal service =
and universal access.</FONT></P>
<P> =20
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At the same time, this endeavor stimulate market =
expansion in under-serviced areas with a buying power that cannot be =
ignored while ensuring that the gap between cities and rural areas is =
narrowed.</FONT></P>
<P> =20
<BR> <FONT =
SIZE=3D2>DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>The =
current definitions are based on commissioned research work around =
universal service and access issues and workshops that involved =
community-based organizations in various parts of the =
country.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Under-serviced areas:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>An under-serviced area is any township, village, =
location and isolated homestead which is considered to be a place where =
disadvantaged communities or individuals reside and accessible public =
and private telephone services are not readily available. =
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The basic standard, defining an area as =
under-serviced, will be: an area where the percentage of =
households having a telephone is less than 12%.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Universal Access for Voice Telephony:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>Is a =
working telephone available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week within 1 Km =
in rural areas and 200m in urban areas.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Universal Access for Information and Communication =
Technologies:</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>Is a =
minimum of one point per under-serviced area, with Internet =
access.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Universal Service</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2>A reliable =
connection, from any part of the country, to the telecommunication =
network able to support voice, data and high speed Internet access =
priced in such a way that most users in under-serviced areas can afford =
it and are able to access emergency services free of charge.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>These are provisional definitions subject to approval =
by the Minister as stipulated in the Act No. 103 of 1996 S 59 (2) =
(a).</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk">mailto:r.t.williams@reading.a=
c.uk</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:19 =
PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: =
communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: =
Re: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> NEED FOR A USA?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The origen of the USA was good in principle, but =
poor in strategy, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>structure, management, and staffing. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the =
banning of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the =
early 1980s, when </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the =
morning after the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>launch of the most innovative proto-internet =
initiative, globally. The </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) =
was that public </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>services/regulation should be separated from private =
intitiative (both </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>for profit and not for profit). That was written up =
in a paper at the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>time.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What the USA did was to involve itself in the design =
and delivery of innovation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>as well as the service/regulatory issues. A =
conflict of interest, management,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> etc. Plain dumb would cover it. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in =
facilitiating </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>policy and regulation in the public interest. =
It cannot involve itself in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>implementation and providing services, which it then =
has to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>research and regulate. And vice versa. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The regulator has a track record of sorts in =
research, policy, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>facilitation. It should develop these areas of =
operation (they need </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>change and upgrading in the USA area, you are =
perfectly right), </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and stay completely clear of implementation. =
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Most of these things should be =
"self-evident". But this is a good </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>time to restate them. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a =
separate USA now in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> South Africa?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>No. There never was. Its regulatory and =
facilitator role should be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>an integral part of the regulator. It should fall =
within the motivation </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>for the merging of the two regulators in the first =
place. Funding </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>telecentres should be split off, and ideally =
outsourced. State </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>departments are not innovation centres, and should =
not try to be. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The role of the State should be to provide the =
infrastructure and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>regulatory framework for others to innovate. =
It does not have the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with =
others if it does so, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks =
(which are a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>necessary part of innovation). </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE =
AGENCY</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> If it is decided that there should be a USA, =
what roles should it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> play? And how can it be structured so =
that it is a more effective</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> organisation? There are different roles =
it could have:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Implementer of =
telecentres: </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>NO! The point is that it should not be a =
question of whether the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>USA telecentre are efficient and effective or =
not. They should not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have been USA centres in the first place. See =
above. The State </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>would be better advised to spend its time revisiting =
the structure of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, =
which leaves </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the =
regulators make </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post =
office </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>structures? </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Monitor </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout =
obligations of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> operators, though should this be done by the =
USA or the regulator</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (ICASA).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Of course. ICASA.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Research & =
advocacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Researching the current level of access and =
service, recommending to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> regulator, government. Writing articles =
for media. Developing new</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ideas on community access, linking SA to =
various international debates</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> on these issues.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully =
outsourced. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Policy development. Maybe. It depends on =
the division of turf </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>between the Dept and the regulator. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Information centre / =
'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> There are many projects, but not covering the =
country fully (many in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The =
USA could be a central point</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> keeping track of these centres, with a =
Geographical Information System</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be =
used to ensure that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> community service obligations of the operators =
do not overlap with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> each other until there is full national =
coverage.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be =
part of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>regulator, as the community service obligations =
leave much to be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>desired. The regulator is better placed to =
monitor the efforts of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>State (or State owned) operators than the State. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Support agency for =
information projects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Interesting issue. If it is at the level of =
infrastructure (2Meg wireless </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies =
etc) the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>State must do it. (Under the heading big, =
boring and routine). If it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>is at project, and innovation level, NO. That =
should be done by civil </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>society. (And, given the level of central party =
involvement in local </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>government appointements, NOT by "local" =
government either). The </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>closer "locally deployed" govt is to the =
central State, the more the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil =
society. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > * Develop information services for =
centre</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, =
but by another agency if it is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2> at the level of innovative projects, and at =
the level of the State if is it infrastructure. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Universal Service Fund =
(USF) as seed funding</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Rather than spending the money in the USF =
itself, publish tenders for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> others to provide various services and centres =
(possibly using Least</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small =
entrepreneurs developing new</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ICT services (some money for innovation, =
starting new projects). </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation =
and dissemination of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> results.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length. =
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * Mobiliser for =
'information rights'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is =
more appropriate. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of =
these roles seem appropriate for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a USA? (Or is this all too =
grandiose?)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Few. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Any other ideas on what a USA should be =
doing?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Its policy and facilitator role should be an =
integrated, functional </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The =
State should get </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the infrastructure right, (across the PO and =
Telkom). Innovation </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>should be at arms length. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> There is a role for some organisation to support =
/ be an umbrella for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should =
this be the USA?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>No. The state is too closely aligned with the =
private sector, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>incorporates "local" govt too closely =
within the central party </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>authority to take on this role. Civil society, =
with independent funds, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>should do it. > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> STRUCTURE OF THE USA</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> QUESTION: What structure would you =
suggest for the USA/</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> How can we ensure more transparency / =
accountability? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Should there be a board governing the USA (not =
just reporting to Dept</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of Communications)?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Scrap it and start again. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> * BRIDGE: =
(Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> & Empowerment / Employment)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that =
important. USA </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Roy. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Roy Williams </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Block 33, University of Reading,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>London Road, Reading,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>RG1 5 AQ</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>+44 118 931-6317 </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Communitysa mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa</=
A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C09A78.48DA5290--
From peter@sn.apc.org Sun Feb 18 15:52:51 2001
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:52:51 +0000
From: Peter Benjamin peter@sn.apc.org
Subject: [Communitysa] 3pi
Forwarded from amos maleka <amaleka@yahoo.com>
3pi.com is a team of young people in South Africa have recently
registered a company. This company has been set up in response to the
problem regarding lack of access to technology, information and
facilities in many disadvantaged African communities. These problems
lead to many businesses, youth, women and other members of communities
not realising their full potential or being able to take advantage of
the opportunities available by access to technology and information.
3pi.com is a personal prepaid Internet concept designed to provide
services accessible by the ordinary person on the street in South
Africa, people like small and Medium businesses, students, home- based
businesses, and other potential Internet users.
This concept could help the disadvantaged communities, in schools,
malls and libraries and it could change the face of small business
computing in the world of Information Technology in South Africa. It
involves the establishment of a unique Service provider, online
services on a "One Stop shop" basis. In addition it uses a Smart card
that is rechargeable which makes it easy to access these services, in
a user friendly and secure environment.
The Objectives of the 3pi.com are:
+ To provide Internet services to previously disadvantaged businesses,
+ students, first time Internet users and the "silver surfer"
+ generation (this the older generation who are often technophobes,
+ but looking for an easy, convenient means to access the Internet and
+ communicate via e-mails.
+ To provide a stable, user-friendly platform for the users.
+ To offer all of these on an affordable subscription basis.
+ Rechargeable vouchers.
What 3pi.com offers
3pi.com is a services provider to small and home based businesses and
students who can't afford to purchase computers, people who want to
access the World Wide Web and the Internet, and to provide them with
the means to a secure environment to operate profitably and
effectively. As more information is placed On- line and scattered
throughout the Web, and as more businesses seek to conduct business on
the Web, it becomes more and more difficult for the small
businessperson, student or "silver surfer": particularly the
"first-timer" to find the information and services pertinent to them.
It is the function of the Centre to facilitate this process. The 3p.i
will have computers located in safe places like libraries, malls,
schools and public facilities that provide a One- Stop-Shop to
facilitate use by normal businesses, students, smaller corporate and
others.
By making use of the Centre's Internet environment, the user can be
assured that the partners and business associates with whom he deals
can be trusted. Using the facility also enables the formation of
consortia, supplier "families" and other on-line communities to meet
specific requirements. The Products and Services offered by the Centre
are not all unique. However, what makes them unique is how we have put
them together. Many other companies offer different parts of this
concept, but they always concentrate on big business and the already
advanced market places.
Why we think this Concept will Succeed?
There are no facilities and there is demand of internet. It will be
placed in safe areas. It will be user friendly. It will be affordable,
no bills and no contact. It will be accessible to a wide range of
people. It will be reliable as any internet and powerful. It will
reach the most marginalized especially in the rural, the disabled and
the women.
Conclusion
We are a team that is mostly dedicated in seeing this concept
succeed. For a long time communities have expressed the lack of
facilities and technology in their areas, and yet we know that they
have great obvious answers that put them in that position from
concered companies or organizations. We have introduced to you 3pi.com
the hope and solution for unskilled, semi-skilled, learners, business
person, unemployed and ordinary persons in the street. This is the
solutions and empowerment to Africans problems and we would like to
invite you to be the partner in developing this concept and become the
fast growing internet in Africa and the World.
Amos maleka
(Director)
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From Heloise at dbsa.org Thu Feb 8 14:48:02 2001
From: Heloise at dbsa.org (Heloise Emdon)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] Universal Service Fund
Message-ID: <405A3E1CFCE6454199B870708207A96D411702@dvbmdex1.dbsa.org>
Peter
I've been meaning to write and compliment you on this note. However, I would
like to take up with you (and Aki?) the discussion on the management of the
USF, as I do believe the DBSA can add value to it. However, the colloquium
is now history, the consultants are now writing, and I made a very last
minute proposal once it appeared the colloquium was moving in a particular
direction with this.
I believe the DBSA can, on an agency basis, should provide the type of
service required to appraise and disburse grant funds, and possibly even a
mix of grants with loans to fund the various universal service projects,
such as the last mile projects, etc.
Please could we take up the discussion at your convenience.
Best regards
Heloise
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Benjamin [mailto:peter@sn.apc.org]
Sent: 01 February 2001 03:01
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Public meeting 29 Jan write-up
Dear all,
This is the write-up of the public meeting on universal service &
access policy on Monday 29 January. Aki Stavrou is now writing up
the report on this for the colloquium on Friday.
Cheers,
Peter
===========================
Report on Public Meeting on Universal Service & Access Policy
Monday 29 January 2001, LINK Centre, P&DM, Wits University
[Attendance list with email at end]
There were short presentations on general universal access issues from
Peter Benjamin, and Aki Stavrou presented proposals on the future of
the USA. This report covers points from the discussion.
REVIEWING ACHIEVMENTS TO DATE
While there has been some success in extending access in the years
since the last Telecomms Act (1996), there are still huge disparities
between racial groups in South Africa - especially in terms of
Universal Service.
Quality standards were not strong in the original targets. This leads
to a problem of simply counting number for rollout, rather than really
assessing what impact this has had. Need to focus on quality and
affordability - not simply numerical rollout. In many rural areas
quality standards are not high, with infrequent repair and cardphones
with no cards to purchase locally. Also, the high rate of churn shows
that affordability is as important to think of as rollout.
There has been a great increase in cellphone usage recently. Pre-paid
has been successful for cellphones and should be further looked at for
fixed lines. Fixed line carries data more easily than cellphone. If
we are considering data access we need to focus on fixed lines
currently.
Other countries (such as Chile and Malaysia) have had a much greater
expansion in networks.
Telkom outsourcing and related job losses can have a negative impact
on the economy of SA.
NEW GOALS
Several people agreed that the focus of universal access policy should
be in rural areas to promote wider development.
We need to be clear of the problem we are trying to address: filling
in the gaps that the present regime have allowed; and / or to refocus
on overcoming the digital divide. Where there are specific issues to
be addressed, such as subsidising rural women, we need to conduct
clear research to define the problem and work out the best mechanisms
to address this.
Several people agreed that focusing on the sector was important for
the overall development of the country. Investment in transport &
telecommunications is very strong in stimulating wider economic
growth. Equity is important for growth, and telecomms is part of
this.
LOCAL LOOP & SUBSIDY
Affordability and prices is closely related to market structure. For
cost reduction through competition, monopoly and duopoly should be
broken. Competition is unlikely to increase service extension - it
will most likely focus on business and high-end users.
Internationally there is little competition in local service. There
should be some mechanism for subsidy to support wider use. Clear
cross-subsidisation will be required to extend affordability to many
groups. Rebalancing of tariffs will continue, raising local use
prices.
Tina James has coordinated a submission around telecomms co-ops
offering local loop services. For these local businesses (e.g. co-ops
or local government) to allow local loop services, then the licensing
framework will have to allow this, and not limit licenses only to a
few bigger national operators. However, others questioned the
definition of a co-op which could have various meanings, not all of
which are supportive of the disadvantaged.
FUND / PAY OR PLAY / OBLIGATIONS
There was not agreement on these points, though everyone agreed that
some form or obligation, supported projects or 'pay or play' was
needed. The sector should not be left simply to market forces.
However, agreed goals need to be worked out, and then a clear
mechanism developed to meet them. This system must be accountable and
transparent, with regular public reporting on what has been achieved.
The Universal Service Fund should not be administered by the same
people who are implementing projects from the fund. The USA should
not both manage the fund, and be an implementer - both a player and
the referee.
Need to have a form of subsidy to encourage network extension, with a
sliding scale for different areas. This subsidy can be used to reduce
rental charges for users, which should make the services more
affordable reducing churn.
Annual reviews are important, but license conditions for operators
cannot be changed this frequently or they will become annual disputes.
We need to be careful not to over-regulate and reduce the dynamism of
the economy, especially for SMMEs.
Telkom has been given much higher targets (1.7 million) compared to
the cellphone operators (under 30,000). Now that there are more
cellphones than fixed lines, should these targets be dramatically
revised? Within a few years, there will probably be 6 major operators
in SA (fixed and cellular). We need a structure of licensing,
obligations and tariff caps that calls upon them all to provide a
proper universal service / access mechanism. One view was than
operators should all run their own projects (all 'Play', no 'pay').
Also support for disabled users can be organised as part of the
license for operators and not through a separate agency.
MTN and Vodacom have licenses (clause 21) stating that government will
not put on more taxation to the companies. However, the community
service obligations of the cellular operators are up for
renegotiation.
A focus of subsidy should be rural women, especially women headed
households. These are the most marginalised, and have the best impact
on wider development.
'Free' services are coming: ABSA free email and British Council
announced offering email to schools. While the equipment is still
required, how does this effect universal access in SA?
There are many subsidy initiatives, such as the Global Service Trust
Fund and E-rate (for education services).
ROLE OF THE USA
Some people even questioned whether the USA should continue, seeing it
as weak so far. The USA has primarily set up telecentres, which are
not mandated in the Telecomms Act 1996.
However, most people saw that given the changes in the last few years,
there probably is a need for someone to perform functions to assist in
bridging the digital divide. Form should follow function, and we
should not be limited by the past.
Many speakers saw a role for an organisation like the USA to respond
to equity issues, redressing historic legacy, urban / rural divide in
the ICT / telecommunications sector. There is also a role to link
telecomms infrastructure to developmental impacts. Need to link to
other initiatives such as GCIS MPCCs, Integrated Rural Development
Strategy and Batho Pele. There is an important role in finding
community information needs, that could (possibly) be done through the
USA.
Many people stressed the need for research - into where there was low
levels of access, into new mechanisms for addressing these issues and
research into new technologies. Support is needed for university
innovation, venture capital, SMME support. Part of long term support
for universal service.
There are many projects and initiatives on Universal Access in the
country, with some successes, many failures but very little
co-ordination. A GIS / database needs to be developed showing where
people are who have no access to telephony / ICTs. This should be a
public document.
Regional and local involvement in telecentre provision - not all
central. The focus must be on sustainability and real impact - not
just on starting projects. Research is central to this. Many
telecentres are being planned without proper feasability studies.
The USA could be active in supporting and promoting 'Information
Rights'.
The USA must be quite focussed so that it does not take on too much.
LOCATION OF USA
There was a debate on the best organisational position for the USA.
Many felt that the USA would be stronger if it were based within the
regulator (ICASA), and that this would stop potentially damaging
overlap between the 2 organisations. Overlap of jurisdiction can be
exploited by operators, which can be done legally to delay
obligations.
A board of directors for the 'USA' was generally supported to bring
together various stakeholders to reduce political control and increase
wider input.
Monitoring of obligations and rollout should be central to regulation
of the sector, and done within a strengthened ICASA. Another view was
that regulation (ICASA) and coordination (potentially USA) should be
kept separate. The regulator should be responsible for all
subsidisation / tariffs issues, not the USA.
The competence of the regulator is a crucial question. It must be
capacitated to give proper structure to the economy. If it is weak
now with only a few operators, then it must be strengthened before the
sector becomes much more complex. One person said that accountability
is key - and it is sad that both DoC and ICASA are weak.
There needs to be a mechanism to direct where the obligations of
operators will go, to ensure full national coverage. ICASA is in a
better place to oblige the operators to go to certain places, but the
USA could conduct the research on where there are low levels of
service.
PRESENT:
Aki Stavrou Univ Natal-Durban astavrou@iafrica.com
Bas Kotterink IDRC b@solwey.com
Dominic Shofield CABSA dscabsa@mweb.co.za
Holly Luton-Nel Alexsan alexsan@iafrica.com
Gertrude Makhaya Wits Economic Dept gmakhaya@hotmail.com
Simon Roberts Wits Economic Dept 060sjr@mentor.edcm.wits.ac.za
Tito Ndibongo Globalstar SA tito.ndibongo@globalstar.co.za
Louis Makua Alcatel Altech lmakua@alcatel.altech.co.za
Mohummen Peer Telkom peerma@telkom.co.za
Allison Gillwald LINK, Wits gillwald.a@pdm.wits.ac.za
Mohudi Mothiba Vodacom mohudi.mothiba@vodacom.co.za
Elelwani Pahlana Telkom ndouem@telkom.co.za
Pete Lebepe Makwakwaila Telecentre 083 533 7560
Paul Johnson NYC Youth Info johnsonp@nyc.pwv.gov.za
Edmund Sechefo Singakwenza MPCC lsechefo@hotmail.com
Leonorah Khanyile InfoLit project khanyile.l@pdm.wits.ac.za
B Mokhele
botlenyana.mokhele@za.didata.com
R Singh Telkom singhrs@telkom.co.za
Trevor Nivi LINK, Wits trevornivi@hotmail.com
Ashraf Patel OSISA ashrafp@osiafrica.org
Mohamed Essa Class Consulting class@efunda.co.za
Karabo Motlana Telkom motlanbk@telkom.co.za
Thami Nxasana Telkom nxasantm@telkom.co.za
Andrew Modise Telkom modisma1@telkom.co.za
Tina James Tina James consulting tjames@intekom.co.za
Kate Wild IDRC kwild@idrc.org.za
Heloise Emden DBSA heloise@dbsa.org
Mark Burke ITSD Consulting burkem@itsd.co.za
Shawn Kariem ITSD Consulting kariems@itsd.co.za
Heather Schreiner Research Consultant d.schreiner@pixie.co.za
Antony Trowbridge Technikon SA atrow@usa.net
Paul West Technikon SA pgwest@pgw.org
Khumbulani Mkhize MTN mkhize_k@mtn.co.za
Katharina Pillay USA kathrina@usa.org.za
John Moore MTN moore_j@mtn.co.za
Arnold Pietersen CECS cecsgp@wn.apc.org
Josiah Ntsibande Intuthuko Projects lethu@iafrica.com
Velaphi Mtshali Khaya-Metro Info lethu@iafrica.com
Joshua Manamela USA 011 726 5241
Mandla Sithole USA mandla@usa.org.za
Anriette Esterhuysen APC, Sangonet anriette@apc.org
Charley Lewis COSATU charley@cosatu.org.za
Apologies
Marc Fulman Internet Solution marcf@is.co.za
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Mon Feb 12 16:19:17 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
In-Reply-To: <200101170834.KAA07954@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A87F0E5.1100.CF523F@localhost>
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest, management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From zamile at siza.co.za Thu Feb 8 16:22:41 2001
From: zamile at siza.co.za (Themba Vilakazi)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] used computer project
Message-ID: <001f01c091da$99359ea0$12c721c4@zamilemediclinic.co.za.mediclinic.co.za>
I am writing you from Scientific Resource Management Pty. LTD. (SRM). We are in the process of initiating a computer refurbishment business to address the technological exclusion of most of our people in Southern Africa. Worldwide there is a new environmental problem of computer hardware waste. Many of the machines put out of use are due to corporate upgrades motivated by the introduction of newer software. Many of the machines shelved or discarded are in working order or can be made so inexpensively and used to bridge the ever widening digital gap. Our plans include a refurbished brand name pentium 1 machine, fully equiped with a software suite such as MS 95 or Newdeal (www.newdealinc.com test software available on the net) with internet access for under R3,000.
My interest in communicating with you is to elicit from you comments and questions, and also to see if your organization might be interested or able to serve as part of our distribution network.
You can contact Themba Vilakazi at this e-mail address.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010208/f4962228/attachment.html
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Thu Feb 15 12:48:59 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <200101282017.WAA06824@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost>
Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
only we allow initiative to bloom.
Roy.
On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
[Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
Mike
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From mikej at wind.sn.apc.org Sat Feb 17 14:59:13 2001
From: mikej at wind.sn.apc.org (Mike Jensen)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost> from "r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk" at Feb 15, 2001 10:48:59 AM
Message-ID: <200102171259.OAA03504@wind.sn.apc.org>
actually heloise wrote that text below:-), but there are many
examples like Roy's around now, and serious efforts to do this for
whole cities - see for eg. http://www.consume.net in SA a commercial
venture is trying it at : http://www.megawan.net
mike
> Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
> further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
> have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
> outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
> maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
> a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
> well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
> only we allow initiative to bloom.
>
> Roy.
>
> On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
>
> [Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
>
> So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
> cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
> capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
> tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
> local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
> cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
> is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
> in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
> http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
> local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
> than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
> uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
> deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
> which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
> technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
> fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Roy Williams
> Block 33, University of Reading,
> London Road, Reading,
> RG1 5 AQ
> +44 118 931-6317
>
> _______________________________________________
> Communitysa mailing list
> Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
> http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
>
From Patrick at usa.org.za Mon Feb 19 15:31:37 2001
From: Patrick at usa.org.za (Patrick Msomi)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
Message-ID: <31381BF9F786D311BE7D00902773AE88AE14@USASERVER>
Hallow Everybody,
It is with sadness that so much analysis and conclusions are drawn in regard
to issues around the Universal Service Agency without looking at certain
facts.
Apparently, the USA is judged from the successes or failures of telecentre
projects in South Africa. By the way, the issue is not whether the
telecentre projects have been a success or not.
What is important is that; the question of Internet access by the
disadvantaged and rural communities has been put on the agenda in South
Africa. The recently held Colloquium is a proof to that. Perhaps what we
need to look into is; how can universal access for ICT be achieved in South
Africa. We need to debate as to what extent has GSM addressed universal
access for voice telephony in South Africa. There are a lot of other issues
we need to concern ourselves with.
I would also like to share with you some information which, I hope, can
clarify certain issues. I am not trying to justify anything other that
sharing of information.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
The Universal Service Agency is a statutory body established by the
Telecommunications Act 1996 and mandated to promote universal service and
universal access through monitoring, recommendations to the Minister and
implementing projects that stimulate public awareness on benefits of
telecommunication services in rural and historically disadvantaged
communities.
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
Monitoring Function:
The Universal Service Agency is empowered to continuously survey and
evaluate the extent to which universal service and universal access has been
achieved in South Africa and to monitor the industry compliance with
universal service and universal access obligations.
Recommendations to the Minister Function:
The USA shall continuously make recommendations, after extensive
consultation with the public, to enable the Minister to determine what shall
constitute, from time to time, universal access and universal service to
telecommunication services by all areas and communities in South Africa.
Projects Implementation:
The USA is mandated to implement projects that stimulate public
awareness on benefits of telecommunications services to the communities in
under-serviced areas. This endeavor is part of the reconstruction and
development program contemplated in Section 3(a) of the Reconstruction and
Development Program Act 1994 (Act No. 7 of 1994), where such projects
contribute to the attainment of the goals of universal service and universal
access.
At the same time, this endeavor stimulate market expansion in under-serviced
areas with a buying power that cannot be ignored while ensuring that the gap
between cities and rural areas is narrowed.
DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE
The current definitions are based on commissioned research work
around universal service and access issues and workshops that involved
community-based organizations in various parts of the country.
Under-serviced areas:
An under-serviced area is any township, village, location and isolated
homestead which is considered to be a place where disadvantaged communities
or individuals reside and accessible public and private telephone services
are not readily available.
The basic standard, defining an area as under-serviced, will be: an area
where the percentage of households having a telephone is less than 12%.
Universal Access for Voice Telephony:
Is a working telephone available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
within 1 Km in rural areas and 200m in urban areas.
Universal Access for Information and Communication Technologies:
Is a minimum of one point per under-serviced area, with Internet
access.
Universal Service
A reliable connection, from any part of the country, to the
telecommunication network able to support voice, data and high speed
Internet access priced in such a way that most users in under-serviced areas
can afford it and are able to access emergency services free of charge.
These are provisional definitions subject to approval by the Minister as
stipulated in the Act No. 103 of 1996 S 59 (2) (a).
-----Original Message-----
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk [mailto:r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:19 PM
To: communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of
innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest,
management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it
infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
_______________________________________________
Communitysa mailing list
Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010219/901ffdec/attachment.html
From peter at sn.apc.org Sun Feb 18 17:52:51 2001
From: peter at sn.apc.org (Peter Benjamin)
Date: Tue Feb 27 14:07:35 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] 3pi
Message-ID: <200102181302.PAA00826@brain.sn.apc.org>
Forwarded from amos maleka
3pi.com is a team of young people in South Africa have recently
registered a company. This company has been set up in response to the
problem regarding lack of access to technology, information and
facilities in many disadvantaged African communities. These problems
lead to many businesses, youth, women and other members of communities
not realising their full potential or being able to take advantage of
the opportunities available by access to technology and information.
3pi.com is a personal prepaid Internet concept designed to provide
services accessible by the ordinary person on the street in South
Africa, people like small and Medium businesses, students, home- based
businesses, and other potential Internet users.
This concept could help the disadvantaged communities, in schools,
malls and libraries and it could change the face of small business
computing in the world of Information Technology in South Africa. It
involves the establishment of a unique Service provider, online
services on a "One Stop shop" basis. In addition it uses a Smart card
that is rechargeable which makes it easy to access these services, in
a user friendly and secure environment.
The Objectives of the 3pi.com are:
+ To provide Internet services to previously disadvantaged businesses,
+ students, first time Internet users and the "silver surfer"
+ generation (this the older generation who are often technophobes,
+ but looking for an easy, convenient means to access the Internet and
+ communicate via e-mails.
+ To provide a stable, user-friendly platform for the users.
+ To offer all of these on an affordable subscription basis.
+ Rechargeable vouchers.
What 3pi.com offers
3pi.com is a services provider to small and home based businesses and
students who can't afford to purchase computers, people who want to
access the World Wide Web and the Internet, and to provide them with
the means to a secure environment to operate profitably and
effectively. As more information is placed On- line and scattered
throughout the Web, and as more businesses seek to conduct business on
the Web, it becomes more and more difficult for the small
businessperson, student or "silver surfer": particularly the
"first-timer" to find the information and services pertinent to them.
It is the function of the Centre to facilitate this process. The 3p.i
will have computers located in safe places like libraries, malls,
schools and public facilities that provide a One- Stop-Shop to
facilitate use by normal businesses, students, smaller corporate and
others.
By making use of the Centre's Internet environment, the user can be
assured that the partners and business associates with whom he deals
can be trusted. Using the facility also enables the formation of
consortia, supplier "families" and other on-line communities to meet
specific requirements. The Products and Services offered by the Centre
are not all unique. However, what makes them unique is how we have put
them together. Many other companies offer different parts of this
concept, but they always concentrate on big business and the already
advanced market places.
Why we think this Concept will Succeed?
There are no facilities and there is demand of internet. It will be
placed in safe areas. It will be user friendly. It will be affordable,
no bills and no contact. It will be accessible to a wide range of
people. It will be reliable as any internet and powerful. It will
reach the most marginalized especially in the rural, the disabled and
the women.
Conclusion
We are a team that is mostly dedicated in seeing this concept
succeed. For a long time communities have expressed the lack of
facilities and technology in their areas, and yet we know that they
have great obvious answers that put them in that position from
concered companies or organizations. We have introduced to you 3pi.com
the hope and solution for unskilled, semi-skilled, learners, business
person, unemployed and ordinary persons in the street. This is the
solutions and empowerment to Africans problems and we would like to
invite you to be the partner in developing this concept and become the
fast growing internet in Africa and the World.
Amos maleka
(Director)
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From Heloise at dbsa.org Thu Feb 8 14:48:02 2001
From: Heloise at dbsa.org (Heloise Emdon)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:18 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] Universal Service Fund
Message-ID: <405A3E1CFCE6454199B870708207A96D411702@dvbmdex1.dbsa.org>
Peter
I've been meaning to write and compliment you on this note. However, I would
like to take up with you (and Aki?) the discussion on the management of the
USF, as I do believe the DBSA can add value to it. However, the colloquium
is now history, the consultants are now writing, and I made a very last
minute proposal once it appeared the colloquium was moving in a particular
direction with this.
I believe the DBSA can, on an agency basis, should provide the type of
service required to appraise and disburse grant funds, and possibly even a
mix of grants with loans to fund the various universal service projects,
such as the last mile projects, etc.
Please could we take up the discussion at your convenience.
Best regards
Heloise
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Benjamin [mailto:peter@sn.apc.org]
Sent: 01 February 2001 03:01
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Public meeting 29 Jan write-up
Dear all,
This is the write-up of the public meeting on universal service &
access policy on Monday 29 January. Aki Stavrou is now writing up
the report on this for the colloquium on Friday.
Cheers,
Peter
===========================
Report on Public Meeting on Universal Service & Access Policy
Monday 29 January 2001, LINK Centre, P&DM, Wits University
[Attendance list with email at end]
There were short presentations on general universal access issues from
Peter Benjamin, and Aki Stavrou presented proposals on the future of
the USA. This report covers points from the discussion.
REVIEWING ACHIEVMENTS TO DATE
While there has been some success in extending access in the years
since the last Telecomms Act (1996), there are still huge disparities
between racial groups in South Africa - especially in terms of
Universal Service.
Quality standards were not strong in the original targets. This leads
to a problem of simply counting number for rollout, rather than really
assessing what impact this has had. Need to focus on quality and
affordability - not simply numerical rollout. In many rural areas
quality standards are not high, with infrequent repair and cardphones
with no cards to purchase locally. Also, the high rate of churn shows
that affordability is as important to think of as rollout.
There has been a great increase in cellphone usage recently. Pre-paid
has been successful for cellphones and should be further looked at for
fixed lines. Fixed line carries data more easily than cellphone. If
we are considering data access we need to focus on fixed lines
currently.
Other countries (such as Chile and Malaysia) have had a much greater
expansion in networks.
Telkom outsourcing and related job losses can have a negative impact
on the economy of SA.
NEW GOALS
Several people agreed that the focus of universal access policy should
be in rural areas to promote wider development.
We need to be clear of the problem we are trying to address: filling
in the gaps that the present regime have allowed; and / or to refocus
on overcoming the digital divide. Where there are specific issues to
be addressed, such as subsidising rural women, we need to conduct
clear research to define the problem and work out the best mechanisms
to address this.
Several people agreed that focusing on the sector was important for
the overall development of the country. Investment in transport &
telecommunications is very strong in stimulating wider economic
growth. Equity is important for growth, and telecomms is part of
this.
LOCAL LOOP & SUBSIDY
Affordability and prices is closely related to market structure. For
cost reduction through competition, monopoly and duopoly should be
broken. Competition is unlikely to increase service extension - it
will most likely focus on business and high-end users.
Internationally there is little competition in local service. There
should be some mechanism for subsidy to support wider use. Clear
cross-subsidisation will be required to extend affordability to many
groups. Rebalancing of tariffs will continue, raising local use
prices.
Tina James has coordinated a submission around telecomms co-ops
offering local loop services. For these local businesses (e.g. co-ops
or local government) to allow local loop services, then the licensing
framework will have to allow this, and not limit licenses only to a
few bigger national operators. However, others questioned the
definition of a co-op which could have various meanings, not all of
which are supportive of the disadvantaged.
FUND / PAY OR PLAY / OBLIGATIONS
There was not agreement on these points, though everyone agreed that
some form or obligation, supported projects or 'pay or play' was
needed. The sector should not be left simply to market forces.
However, agreed goals need to be worked out, and then a clear
mechanism developed to meet them. This system must be accountable and
transparent, with regular public reporting on what has been achieved.
The Universal Service Fund should not be administered by the same
people who are implementing projects from the fund. The USA should
not both manage the fund, and be an implementer - both a player and
the referee.
Need to have a form of subsidy to encourage network extension, with a
sliding scale for different areas. This subsidy can be used to reduce
rental charges for users, which should make the services more
affordable reducing churn.
Annual reviews are important, but license conditions for operators
cannot be changed this frequently or they will become annual disputes.
We need to be careful not to over-regulate and reduce the dynamism of
the economy, especially for SMMEs.
Telkom has been given much higher targets (1.7 million) compared to
the cellphone operators (under 30,000). Now that there are more
cellphones than fixed lines, should these targets be dramatically
revised? Within a few years, there will probably be 6 major operators
in SA (fixed and cellular). We need a structure of licensing,
obligations and tariff caps that calls upon them all to provide a
proper universal service / access mechanism. One view was than
operators should all run their own projects (all 'Play', no 'pay').
Also support for disabled users can be organised as part of the
license for operators and not through a separate agency.
MTN and Vodacom have licenses (clause 21) stating that government will
not put on more taxation to the companies. However, the community
service obligations of the cellular operators are up for
renegotiation.
A focus of subsidy should be rural women, especially women headed
households. These are the most marginalised, and have the best impact
on wider development.
'Free' services are coming: ABSA free email and British Council
announced offering email to schools. While the equipment is still
required, how does this effect universal access in SA?
There are many subsidy initiatives, such as the Global Service Trust
Fund and E-rate (for education services).
ROLE OF THE USA
Some people even questioned whether the USA should continue, seeing it
as weak so far. The USA has primarily set up telecentres, which are
not mandated in the Telecomms Act 1996.
However, most people saw that given the changes in the last few years,
there probably is a need for someone to perform functions to assist in
bridging the digital divide. Form should follow function, and we
should not be limited by the past.
Many speakers saw a role for an organisation like the USA to respond
to equity issues, redressing historic legacy, urban / rural divide in
the ICT / telecommunications sector. There is also a role to link
telecomms infrastructure to developmental impacts. Need to link to
other initiatives such as GCIS MPCCs, Integrated Rural Development
Strategy and Batho Pele. There is an important role in finding
community information needs, that could (possibly) be done through the
USA.
Many people stressed the need for research - into where there was low
levels of access, into new mechanisms for addressing these issues and
research into new technologies. Support is needed for university
innovation, venture capital, SMME support. Part of long term support
for universal service.
There are many projects and initiatives on Universal Access in the
country, with some successes, many failures but very little
co-ordination. A GIS / database needs to be developed showing where
people are who have no access to telephony / ICTs. This should be a
public document.
Regional and local involvement in telecentre provision - not all
central. The focus must be on sustainability and real impact - not
just on starting projects. Research is central to this. Many
telecentres are being planned without proper feasability studies.
The USA could be active in supporting and promoting 'Information
Rights'.
The USA must be quite focussed so that it does not take on too much.
LOCATION OF USA
There was a debate on the best organisational position for the USA.
Many felt that the USA would be stronger if it were based within the
regulator (ICASA), and that this would stop potentially damaging
overlap between the 2 organisations. Overlap of jurisdiction can be
exploited by operators, which can be done legally to delay
obligations.
A board of directors for the 'USA' was generally supported to bring
together various stakeholders to reduce political control and increase
wider input.
Monitoring of obligations and rollout should be central to regulation
of the sector, and done within a strengthened ICASA. Another view was
that regulation (ICASA) and coordination (potentially USA) should be
kept separate. The regulator should be responsible for all
subsidisation / tariffs issues, not the USA.
The competence of the regulator is a crucial question. It must be
capacitated to give proper structure to the economy. If it is weak
now with only a few operators, then it must be strengthened before the
sector becomes much more complex. One person said that accountability
is key - and it is sad that both DoC and ICASA are weak.
There needs to be a mechanism to direct where the obligations of
operators will go, to ensure full national coverage. ICASA is in a
better place to oblige the operators to go to certain places, but the
USA could conduct the research on where there are low levels of
service.
PRESENT:
Aki Stavrou Univ Natal-Durban astavrou@iafrica.com
Bas Kotterink IDRC b@solwey.com
Dominic Shofield CABSA dscabsa@mweb.co.za
Holly Luton-Nel Alexsan alexsan@iafrica.com
Gertrude Makhaya Wits Economic Dept gmakhaya@hotmail.com
Simon Roberts Wits Economic Dept 060sjr@mentor.edcm.wits.ac.za
Tito Ndibongo Globalstar SA tito.ndibongo@globalstar.co.za
Louis Makua Alcatel Altech lmakua@alcatel.altech.co.za
Mohummen Peer Telkom peerma@telkom.co.za
Allison Gillwald LINK, Wits gillwald.a@pdm.wits.ac.za
Mohudi Mothiba Vodacom mohudi.mothiba@vodacom.co.za
Elelwani Pahlana Telkom ndouem@telkom.co.za
Pete Lebepe Makwakwaila Telecentre 083 533 7560
Paul Johnson NYC Youth Info johnsonp@nyc.pwv.gov.za
Edmund Sechefo Singakwenza MPCC lsechefo@hotmail.com
Leonorah Khanyile InfoLit project khanyile.l@pdm.wits.ac.za
B Mokhele
botlenyana.mokhele@za.didata.com
R Singh Telkom singhrs@telkom.co.za
Trevor Nivi LINK, Wits trevornivi@hotmail.com
Ashraf Patel OSISA ashrafp@osiafrica.org
Mohamed Essa Class Consulting class@efunda.co.za
Karabo Motlana Telkom motlanbk@telkom.co.za
Thami Nxasana Telkom nxasantm@telkom.co.za
Andrew Modise Telkom modisma1@telkom.co.za
Tina James Tina James consulting tjames@intekom.co.za
Kate Wild IDRC kwild@idrc.org.za
Heloise Emden DBSA heloise@dbsa.org
Mark Burke ITSD Consulting burkem@itsd.co.za
Shawn Kariem ITSD Consulting kariems@itsd.co.za
Heather Schreiner Research Consultant d.schreiner@pixie.co.za
Antony Trowbridge Technikon SA atrow@usa.net
Paul West Technikon SA pgwest@pgw.org
Khumbulani Mkhize MTN mkhize_k@mtn.co.za
Katharina Pillay USA kathrina@usa.org.za
John Moore MTN moore_j@mtn.co.za
Arnold Pietersen CECS cecsgp@wn.apc.org
Josiah Ntsibande Intuthuko Projects lethu@iafrica.com
Velaphi Mtshali Khaya-Metro Info lethu@iafrica.com
Joshua Manamela USA 011 726 5241
Mandla Sithole USA mandla@usa.org.za
Anriette Esterhuysen APC, Sangonet anriette@apc.org
Charley Lewis COSATU charley@cosatu.org.za
Apologies
Marc Fulman Internet Solution marcf@is.co.za
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Mon Feb 12 16:19:17 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
In-Reply-To: <200101170834.KAA07954@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A87F0E5.1100.CF523F@localhost>
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest, management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From zamile at siza.co.za Thu Feb 8 16:22:41 2001
From: zamile at siza.co.za (Themba Vilakazi)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] used computer project
Message-ID: <001f01c091da$99359ea0$12c721c4@zamilemediclinic.co.za.mediclinic.co.za>
I am writing you from Scientific Resource Management Pty. LTD. (SRM). We are in the process of initiating a computer refurbishment business to address the technological exclusion of most of our people in Southern Africa. Worldwide there is a new environmental problem of computer hardware waste. Many of the machines put out of use are due to corporate upgrades motivated by the introduction of newer software. Many of the machines shelved or discarded are in working order or can be made so inexpensively and used to bridge the ever widening digital gap. Our plans include a refurbished brand name pentium 1 machine, fully equiped with a software suite such as MS 95 or Newdeal (www.newdealinc.com test software available on the net) with internet access for under R3,000.
My interest in communicating with you is to elicit from you comments and questions, and also to see if your organization might be interested or able to serve as part of our distribution network.
You can contact Themba Vilakazi at this e-mail address.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010208/f4962228/attachment-0001.html
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Thu Feb 15 12:48:59 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <200101282017.WAA06824@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost>
Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
only we allow initiative to bloom.
Roy.
On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
[Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
Mike
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From mikej at wind.sn.apc.org Sat Feb 17 14:59:13 2001
From: mikej at wind.sn.apc.org (Mike Jensen)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost> from "r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk" at Feb 15, 2001 10:48:59 AM
Message-ID: <200102171259.OAA03504@wind.sn.apc.org>
actually heloise wrote that text below:-), but there are many
examples like Roy's around now, and serious efforts to do this for
whole cities - see for eg. http://www.consume.net in SA a commercial
venture is trying it at : http://www.megawan.net
mike
> Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
> further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
> have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
> outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
> maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
> a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
> well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
> only we allow initiative to bloom.
>
> Roy.
>
> On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
>
> [Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
>
> So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
> cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
> capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
> tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
> local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
> cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
> is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
> in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
> http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
> local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
> than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
> uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
> deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
> which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
> technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
> fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Roy Williams
> Block 33, University of Reading,
> London Road, Reading,
> RG1 5 AQ
> +44 118 931-6317
>
> _______________________________________________
> Communitysa mailing list
> Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
> http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
>
From Patrick at usa.org.za Mon Feb 19 15:31:37 2001
From: Patrick at usa.org.za (Patrick Msomi)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
Message-ID: <31381BF9F786D311BE7D00902773AE88AE14@USASERVER>
Hallow Everybody,
It is with sadness that so much analysis and conclusions are drawn in regard
to issues around the Universal Service Agency without looking at certain
facts.
Apparently, the USA is judged from the successes or failures of telecentre
projects in South Africa. By the way, the issue is not whether the
telecentre projects have been a success or not.
What is important is that; the question of Internet access by the
disadvantaged and rural communities has been put on the agenda in South
Africa. The recently held Colloquium is a proof to that. Perhaps what we
need to look into is; how can universal access for ICT be achieved in South
Africa. We need to debate as to what extent has GSM addressed universal
access for voice telephony in South Africa. There are a lot of other issues
we need to concern ourselves with.
I would also like to share with you some information which, I hope, can
clarify certain issues. I am not trying to justify anything other that
sharing of information.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
The Universal Service Agency is a statutory body established by the
Telecommunications Act 1996 and mandated to promote universal service and
universal access through monitoring, recommendations to the Minister and
implementing projects that stimulate public awareness on benefits of
telecommunication services in rural and historically disadvantaged
communities.
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
Monitoring Function:
The Universal Service Agency is empowered to continuously survey and
evaluate the extent to which universal service and universal access has been
achieved in South Africa and to monitor the industry compliance with
universal service and universal access obligations.
Recommendations to the Minister Function:
The USA shall continuously make recommendations, after extensive
consultation with the public, to enable the Minister to determine what shall
constitute, from time to time, universal access and universal service to
telecommunication services by all areas and communities in South Africa.
Projects Implementation:
The USA is mandated to implement projects that stimulate public
awareness on benefits of telecommunications services to the communities in
under-serviced areas. This endeavor is part of the reconstruction and
development program contemplated in Section 3(a) of the Reconstruction and
Development Program Act 1994 (Act No. 7 of 1994), where such projects
contribute to the attainment of the goals of universal service and universal
access.
At the same time, this endeavor stimulate market expansion in under-serviced
areas with a buying power that cannot be ignored while ensuring that the gap
between cities and rural areas is narrowed.
DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE
The current definitions are based on commissioned research work
around universal service and access issues and workshops that involved
community-based organizations in various parts of the country.
Under-serviced areas:
An under-serviced area is any township, village, location and isolated
homestead which is considered to be a place where disadvantaged communities
or individuals reside and accessible public and private telephone services
are not readily available.
The basic standard, defining an area as under-serviced, will be: an area
where the percentage of households having a telephone is less than 12%.
Universal Access for Voice Telephony:
Is a working telephone available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
within 1 Km in rural areas and 200m in urban areas.
Universal Access for Information and Communication Technologies:
Is a minimum of one point per under-serviced area, with Internet
access.
Universal Service
A reliable connection, from any part of the country, to the
telecommunication network able to support voice, data and high speed
Internet access priced in such a way that most users in under-serviced areas
can afford it and are able to access emergency services free of charge.
These are provisional definitions subject to approval by the Minister as
stipulated in the Act No. 103 of 1996 S 59 (2) (a).
-----Original Message-----
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk [mailto:r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:19 PM
To: communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of
innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest,
management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it
infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
_______________________________________________
Communitysa mailing list
Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010219/901ffdec/attachment-0001.html
From peter at sn.apc.org Sun Feb 18 17:52:51 2001
From: peter at sn.apc.org (Peter Benjamin)
Date: Tue Apr 17 18:11:19 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] 3pi
Message-ID: <200102181302.PAA00826@brain.sn.apc.org>
Forwarded from amos maleka
3pi.com is a team of young people in South Africa have recently
registered a company. This company has been set up in response to the
problem regarding lack of access to technology, information and
facilities in many disadvantaged African communities. These problems
lead to many businesses, youth, women and other members of communities
not realising their full potential or being able to take advantage of
the opportunities available by access to technology and information.
3pi.com is a personal prepaid Internet concept designed to provide
services accessible by the ordinary person on the street in South
Africa, people like small and Medium businesses, students, home- based
businesses, and other potential Internet users.
This concept could help the disadvantaged communities, in schools,
malls and libraries and it could change the face of small business
computing in the world of Information Technology in South Africa. It
involves the establishment of a unique Service provider, online
services on a "One Stop shop" basis. In addition it uses a Smart card
that is rechargeable which makes it easy to access these services, in
a user friendly and secure environment.
The Objectives of the 3pi.com are:
+ To provide Internet services to previously disadvantaged businesses,
+ students, first time Internet users and the "silver surfer"
+ generation (this the older generation who are often technophobes,
+ but looking for an easy, convenient means to access the Internet and
+ communicate via e-mails.
+ To provide a stable, user-friendly platform for the users.
+ To offer all of these on an affordable subscription basis.
+ Rechargeable vouchers.
What 3pi.com offers
3pi.com is a services provider to small and home based businesses and
students who can't afford to purchase computers, people who want to
access the World Wide Web and the Internet, and to provide them with
the means to a secure environment to operate profitably and
effectively. As more information is placed On- line and scattered
throughout the Web, and as more businesses seek to conduct business on
the Web, it becomes more and more difficult for the small
businessperson, student or "silver surfer": particularly the
"first-timer" to find the information and services pertinent to them.
It is the function of the Centre to facilitate this process. The 3p.i
will have computers located in safe places like libraries, malls,
schools and public facilities that provide a One- Stop-Shop to
facilitate use by normal businesses, students, smaller corporate and
others.
By making use of the Centre's Internet environment, the user can be
assured that the partners and business associates with whom he deals
can be trusted. Using the facility also enables the formation of
consortia, supplier "families" and other on-line communities to meet
specific requirements. The Products and Services offered by the Centre
are not all unique. However, what makes them unique is how we have put
them together. Many other companies offer different parts of this
concept, but they always concentrate on big business and the already
advanced market places.
Why we think this Concept will Succeed?
There are no facilities and there is demand of internet. It will be
placed in safe areas. It will be user friendly. It will be affordable,
no bills and no contact. It will be accessible to a wide range of
people. It will be reliable as any internet and powerful. It will
reach the most marginalized especially in the rural, the disabled and
the women.
Conclusion
We are a team that is mostly dedicated in seeing this concept
succeed. For a long time communities have expressed the lack of
facilities and technology in their areas, and yet we know that they
have great obvious answers that put them in that position from
concered companies or organizations. We have introduced to you 3pi.com
the hope and solution for unskilled, semi-skilled, learners, business
person, unemployed and ordinary persons in the street. This is the
solutions and empowerment to Africans problems and we would like to
invite you to be the partner in developing this concept and become the
fast growing internet in Africa and the World.
Amos maleka
(Director)
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From Heloise at dbsa.org Thu Feb 8 14:48:02 2001
From: Heloise at dbsa.org (Heloise Emdon)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] Universal Service Fund
Message-ID: <405A3E1CFCE6454199B870708207A96D411702@dvbmdex1.dbsa.org>
Peter
I've been meaning to write and compliment you on this note. However, I would
like to take up with you (and Aki?) the discussion on the management of the
USF, as I do believe the DBSA can add value to it. However, the colloquium
is now history, the consultants are now writing, and I made a very last
minute proposal once it appeared the colloquium was moving in a particular
direction with this.
I believe the DBSA can, on an agency basis, should provide the type of
service required to appraise and disburse grant funds, and possibly even a
mix of grants with loans to fund the various universal service projects,
such as the last mile projects, etc.
Please could we take up the discussion at your convenience.
Best regards
Heloise
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Benjamin [mailto:peter@sn.apc.org]
Sent: 01 February 2001 03:01
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Public meeting 29 Jan write-up
Dear all,
This is the write-up of the public meeting on universal service &
access policy on Monday 29 January. Aki Stavrou is now writing up
the report on this for the colloquium on Friday.
Cheers,
Peter
===========================
Report on Public Meeting on Universal Service & Access Policy
Monday 29 January 2001, LINK Centre, P&DM, Wits University
[Attendance list with email at end]
There were short presentations on general universal access issues from
Peter Benjamin, and Aki Stavrou presented proposals on the future of
the USA. This report covers points from the discussion.
REVIEWING ACHIEVMENTS TO DATE
While there has been some success in extending access in the years
since the last Telecomms Act (1996), there are still huge disparities
between racial groups in South Africa - especially in terms of
Universal Service.
Quality standards were not strong in the original targets. This leads
to a problem of simply counting number for rollout, rather than really
assessing what impact this has had. Need to focus on quality and
affordability - not simply numerical rollout. In many rural areas
quality standards are not high, with infrequent repair and cardphones
with no cards to purchase locally. Also, the high rate of churn shows
that affordability is as important to think of as rollout.
There has been a great increase in cellphone usage recently. Pre-paid
has been successful for cellphones and should be further looked at for
fixed lines. Fixed line carries data more easily than cellphone. If
we are considering data access we need to focus on fixed lines
currently.
Other countries (such as Chile and Malaysia) have had a much greater
expansion in networks.
Telkom outsourcing and related job losses can have a negative impact
on the economy of SA.
NEW GOALS
Several people agreed that the focus of universal access policy should
be in rural areas to promote wider development.
We need to be clear of the problem we are trying to address: filling
in the gaps that the present regime have allowed; and / or to refocus
on overcoming the digital divide. Where there are specific issues to
be addressed, such as subsidising rural women, we need to conduct
clear research to define the problem and work out the best mechanisms
to address this.
Several people agreed that focusing on the sector was important for
the overall development of the country. Investment in transport &
telecommunications is very strong in stimulating wider economic
growth. Equity is important for growth, and telecomms is part of
this.
LOCAL LOOP & SUBSIDY
Affordability and prices is closely related to market structure. For
cost reduction through competition, monopoly and duopoly should be
broken. Competition is unlikely to increase service extension - it
will most likely focus on business and high-end users.
Internationally there is little competition in local service. There
should be some mechanism for subsidy to support wider use. Clear
cross-subsidisation will be required to extend affordability to many
groups. Rebalancing of tariffs will continue, raising local use
prices.
Tina James has coordinated a submission around telecomms co-ops
offering local loop services. For these local businesses (e.g. co-ops
or local government) to allow local loop services, then the licensing
framework will have to allow this, and not limit licenses only to a
few bigger national operators. However, others questioned the
definition of a co-op which could have various meanings, not all of
which are supportive of the disadvantaged.
FUND / PAY OR PLAY / OBLIGATIONS
There was not agreement on these points, though everyone agreed that
some form or obligation, supported projects or 'pay or play' was
needed. The sector should not be left simply to market forces.
However, agreed goals need to be worked out, and then a clear
mechanism developed to meet them. This system must be accountable and
transparent, with regular public reporting on what has been achieved.
The Universal Service Fund should not be administered by the same
people who are implementing projects from the fund. The USA should
not both manage the fund, and be an implementer - both a player and
the referee.
Need to have a form of subsidy to encourage network extension, with a
sliding scale for different areas. This subsidy can be used to reduce
rental charges for users, which should make the services more
affordable reducing churn.
Annual reviews are important, but license conditions for operators
cannot be changed this frequently or they will become annual disputes.
We need to be careful not to over-regulate and reduce the dynamism of
the economy, especially for SMMEs.
Telkom has been given much higher targets (1.7 million) compared to
the cellphone operators (under 30,000). Now that there are more
cellphones than fixed lines, should these targets be dramatically
revised? Within a few years, there will probably be 6 major operators
in SA (fixed and cellular). We need a structure of licensing,
obligations and tariff caps that calls upon them all to provide a
proper universal service / access mechanism. One view was than
operators should all run their own projects (all 'Play', no 'pay').
Also support for disabled users can be organised as part of the
license for operators and not through a separate agency.
MTN and Vodacom have licenses (clause 21) stating that government will
not put on more taxation to the companies. However, the community
service obligations of the cellular operators are up for
renegotiation.
A focus of subsidy should be rural women, especially women headed
households. These are the most marginalised, and have the best impact
on wider development.
'Free' services are coming: ABSA free email and British Council
announced offering email to schools. While the equipment is still
required, how does this effect universal access in SA?
There are many subsidy initiatives, such as the Global Service Trust
Fund and E-rate (for education services).
ROLE OF THE USA
Some people even questioned whether the USA should continue, seeing it
as weak so far. The USA has primarily set up telecentres, which are
not mandated in the Telecomms Act 1996.
However, most people saw that given the changes in the last few years,
there probably is a need for someone to perform functions to assist in
bridging the digital divide. Form should follow function, and we
should not be limited by the past.
Many speakers saw a role for an organisation like the USA to respond
to equity issues, redressing historic legacy, urban / rural divide in
the ICT / telecommunications sector. There is also a role to link
telecomms infrastructure to developmental impacts. Need to link to
other initiatives such as GCIS MPCCs, Integrated Rural Development
Strategy and Batho Pele. There is an important role in finding
community information needs, that could (possibly) be done through the
USA.
Many people stressed the need for research - into where there was low
levels of access, into new mechanisms for addressing these issues and
research into new technologies. Support is needed for university
innovation, venture capital, SMME support. Part of long term support
for universal service.
There are many projects and initiatives on Universal Access in the
country, with some successes, many failures but very little
co-ordination. A GIS / database needs to be developed showing where
people are who have no access to telephony / ICTs. This should be a
public document.
Regional and local involvement in telecentre provision - not all
central. The focus must be on sustainability and real impact - not
just on starting projects. Research is central to this. Many
telecentres are being planned without proper feasability studies.
The USA could be active in supporting and promoting 'Information
Rights'.
The USA must be quite focussed so that it does not take on too much.
LOCATION OF USA
There was a debate on the best organisational position for the USA.
Many felt that the USA would be stronger if it were based within the
regulator (ICASA), and that this would stop potentially damaging
overlap between the 2 organisations. Overlap of jurisdiction can be
exploited by operators, which can be done legally to delay
obligations.
A board of directors for the 'USA' was generally supported to bring
together various stakeholders to reduce political control and increase
wider input.
Monitoring of obligations and rollout should be central to regulation
of the sector, and done within a strengthened ICASA. Another view was
that regulation (ICASA) and coordination (potentially USA) should be
kept separate. The regulator should be responsible for all
subsidisation / tariffs issues, not the USA.
The competence of the regulator is a crucial question. It must be
capacitated to give proper structure to the economy. If it is weak
now with only a few operators, then it must be strengthened before the
sector becomes much more complex. One person said that accountability
is key - and it is sad that both DoC and ICASA are weak.
There needs to be a mechanism to direct where the obligations of
operators will go, to ensure full national coverage. ICASA is in a
better place to oblige the operators to go to certain places, but the
USA could conduct the research on where there are low levels of
service.
PRESENT:
Aki Stavrou Univ Natal-Durban astavrou@iafrica.com
Bas Kotterink IDRC b@solwey.com
Dominic Shofield CABSA dscabsa@mweb.co.za
Holly Luton-Nel Alexsan alexsan@iafrica.com
Gertrude Makhaya Wits Economic Dept gmakhaya@hotmail.com
Simon Roberts Wits Economic Dept 060sjr@mentor.edcm.wits.ac.za
Tito Ndibongo Globalstar SA tito.ndibongo@globalstar.co.za
Louis Makua Alcatel Altech lmakua@alcatel.altech.co.za
Mohummen Peer Telkom peerma@telkom.co.za
Allison Gillwald LINK, Wits gillwald.a@pdm.wits.ac.za
Mohudi Mothiba Vodacom mohudi.mothiba@vodacom.co.za
Elelwani Pahlana Telkom ndouem@telkom.co.za
Pete Lebepe Makwakwaila Telecentre 083 533 7560
Paul Johnson NYC Youth Info johnsonp@nyc.pwv.gov.za
Edmund Sechefo Singakwenza MPCC lsechefo@hotmail.com
Leonorah Khanyile InfoLit project khanyile.l@pdm.wits.ac.za
B Mokhele
botlenyana.mokhele@za.didata.com
R Singh Telkom singhrs@telkom.co.za
Trevor Nivi LINK, Wits trevornivi@hotmail.com
Ashraf Patel OSISA ashrafp@osiafrica.org
Mohamed Essa Class Consulting class@efunda.co.za
Karabo Motlana Telkom motlanbk@telkom.co.za
Thami Nxasana Telkom nxasantm@telkom.co.za
Andrew Modise Telkom modisma1@telkom.co.za
Tina James Tina James consulting tjames@intekom.co.za
Kate Wild IDRC kwild@idrc.org.za
Heloise Emden DBSA heloise@dbsa.org
Mark Burke ITSD Consulting burkem@itsd.co.za
Shawn Kariem ITSD Consulting kariems@itsd.co.za
Heather Schreiner Research Consultant d.schreiner@pixie.co.za
Antony Trowbridge Technikon SA atrow@usa.net
Paul West Technikon SA pgwest@pgw.org
Khumbulani Mkhize MTN mkhize_k@mtn.co.za
Katharina Pillay USA kathrina@usa.org.za
John Moore MTN moore_j@mtn.co.za
Arnold Pietersen CECS cecsgp@wn.apc.org
Josiah Ntsibande Intuthuko Projects lethu@iafrica.com
Velaphi Mtshali Khaya-Metro Info lethu@iafrica.com
Joshua Manamela USA 011 726 5241
Mandla Sithole USA mandla@usa.org.za
Anriette Esterhuysen APC, Sangonet anriette@apc.org
Charley Lewis COSATU charley@cosatu.org.za
Apologies
Marc Fulman Internet Solution marcf@is.co.za
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Mon Feb 12 16:19:17 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
In-Reply-To: <200101170834.KAA07954@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A87F0E5.1100.CF523F@localhost>
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest, management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From zamile at siza.co.za Thu Feb 8 16:22:41 2001
From: zamile at siza.co.za (Themba Vilakazi)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] used computer project
Message-ID: <001f01c091da$99359ea0$12c721c4@zamilemediclinic.co.za.mediclinic.co.za>
I am writing you from Scientific Resource Management Pty. LTD. (SRM). We are in the process of initiating a computer refurbishment business to address the technological exclusion of most of our people in Southern Africa. Worldwide there is a new environmental problem of computer hardware waste. Many of the machines put out of use are due to corporate upgrades motivated by the introduction of newer software. Many of the machines shelved or discarded are in working order or can be made so inexpensively and used to bridge the ever widening digital gap. Our plans include a refurbished brand name pentium 1 machine, fully equiped with a software suite such as MS 95 or Newdeal (www.newdealinc.com test software available on the net) with internet access for under R3,000.
My interest in communicating with you is to elicit from you comments and questions, and also to see if your organization might be interested or able to serve as part of our distribution network.
You can contact Themba Vilakazi at this e-mail address.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010208/f4962228/attachment-0002.html
From r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk Thu Feb 15 12:48:59 2001
From: r.t.williams at reading.ac.uk (r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <200101282017.WAA06824@brain.sn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost>
Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
only we allow initiative to bloom.
Roy.
On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
[Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
Mike
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
From mikej at wind.sn.apc.org Sat Feb 17 14:59:13 2001
From: mikej at wind.sn.apc.org (Mike Jensen)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] VOIP and other issues
In-Reply-To: <3A8BB41B.9983.2D802E@localhost> from "r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk" at Feb 15, 2001 10:48:59 AM
Message-ID: <200102171259.OAA03504@wind.sn.apc.org>
actually heloise wrote that text below:-), but there are many
examples like Roy's around now, and serious efforts to do this for
whole cities - see for eg. http://www.consume.net in SA a commercial
venture is trying it at : http://www.megawan.net
mike
> Mike's intorduction of wireless solutions needs to be explored
> further. St Albans School in Pretoria and the Mamelodi centre
> have been running a CIDS 2 Meg connection for some years. It is
> outside the regulatory framework, it is always on, it has very low
> maintenance costs, no line costs, and I was told it can be put into
> a cellular type network. (There was talk of its use in Maputo as
> well). The technology is not the issue. There is plenty to use, if
> only we allow initiative to bloom.
>
> Roy.
>
> On 28 Jan 2001, at 22:22, Peter Benjamin wrote:
>
> [Forwarded from Mike Jensen, mikej@sn.apc.org]
>
> So VOIP is one strategy, but to be holistic, we need to look at the
> cost of maintaining a connection, we need to look at the management
> capacity of the centres also. It appears to me that costs can be
> tackled from a policy point of view. For instance to ensure affordable
> local call costs for Internet access throughout the country, ie the
> cost of a local call even if you are far from a POP (apparently this
> is possible in SA, can't confirm). Yes it is true, I depend on it here
> in Port St Johns, and it's true for 17 other countries in Africa, (see
> http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/partial.html) but even when it is a
> local call, costs are prohibitive, small cybercafes in SA pay more
> than R2000/month on dialup calls, in Lesotho a small business that
> uses the net a lot will pay R6000/month in local calls ... why not
> deregulate terrestrial wireless-data, and international wireless data
> which would cut costs by at least 10 times using existing
> technologies. This could be a temporary measure because ultimately
> fibre will take over all the thicker routes.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Roy Williams
> Block 33, University of Reading,
> London Road, Reading,
> RG1 5 AQ
> +44 118 931-6317
>
> _______________________________________________
> Communitysa mailing list
> Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
> http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
>
From Patrick at usa.org.za Mon Feb 19 15:31:37 2001
From: Patrick at usa.org.za (Patrick Msomi)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
Message-ID: <31381BF9F786D311BE7D00902773AE88AE14@USASERVER>
Hallow Everybody,
It is with sadness that so much analysis and conclusions are drawn in regard
to issues around the Universal Service Agency without looking at certain
facts.
Apparently, the USA is judged from the successes or failures of telecentre
projects in South Africa. By the way, the issue is not whether the
telecentre projects have been a success or not.
What is important is that; the question of Internet access by the
disadvantaged and rural communities has been put on the agenda in South
Africa. The recently held Colloquium is a proof to that. Perhaps what we
need to look into is; how can universal access for ICT be achieved in South
Africa. We need to debate as to what extent has GSM addressed universal
access for voice telephony in South Africa. There are a lot of other issues
we need to concern ourselves with.
I would also like to share with you some information which, I hope, can
clarify certain issues. I am not trying to justify anything other that
sharing of information.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
The Universal Service Agency is a statutory body established by the
Telecommunications Act 1996 and mandated to promote universal service and
universal access through monitoring, recommendations to the Minister and
implementing projects that stimulate public awareness on benefits of
telecommunication services in rural and historically disadvantaged
communities.
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
Monitoring Function:
The Universal Service Agency is empowered to continuously survey and
evaluate the extent to which universal service and universal access has been
achieved in South Africa and to monitor the industry compliance with
universal service and universal access obligations.
Recommendations to the Minister Function:
The USA shall continuously make recommendations, after extensive
consultation with the public, to enable the Minister to determine what shall
constitute, from time to time, universal access and universal service to
telecommunication services by all areas and communities in South Africa.
Projects Implementation:
The USA is mandated to implement projects that stimulate public
awareness on benefits of telecommunications services to the communities in
under-serviced areas. This endeavor is part of the reconstruction and
development program contemplated in Section 3(a) of the Reconstruction and
Development Program Act 1994 (Act No. 7 of 1994), where such projects
contribute to the attainment of the goals of universal service and universal
access.
At the same time, this endeavor stimulate market expansion in under-serviced
areas with a buying power that cannot be ignored while ensuring that the gap
between cities and rural areas is narrowed.
DEFINITIONS OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE
The current definitions are based on commissioned research work
around universal service and access issues and workshops that involved
community-based organizations in various parts of the country.
Under-serviced areas:
An under-serviced area is any township, village, location and isolated
homestead which is considered to be a place where disadvantaged communities
or individuals reside and accessible public and private telephone services
are not readily available.
The basic standard, defining an area as under-serviced, will be: an area
where the percentage of households having a telephone is less than 12%.
Universal Access for Voice Telephony:
Is a working telephone available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
within 1 Km in rural areas and 200m in urban areas.
Universal Access for Information and Communication Technologies:
Is a minimum of one point per under-serviced area, with Internet
access.
Universal Service
A reliable connection, from any part of the country, to the
telecommunication network able to support voice, data and high speed
Internet access priced in such a way that most users in under-serviced areas
can afford it and are able to access emergency services free of charge.
These are provisional definitions subject to approval by the Minister as
stipulated in the Act No. 103 of 1996 S 59 (2) (a).
-----Original Message-----
From: r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk [mailto:r.t.williams@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:19 PM
To: communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYSA] Universal Service Agency discussion
>
> NEED FOR A USA?
The origen of the USA was good in principle, but poor in strategy,
structure, management, and staffing.
It mirrors in an unfortunate way the tragedy of the banning of the
first e-commerce portal (INFO, in Joburg) in the early 1980s, when
the Post Master General pulled out 256 lines the morning after the
launch of the most innovative proto-internet initiative, globally. The
mistake then (but what do we learn from History?) was that public
services/regulation should be separated from private intitiative (both
for profit and not for profit). That was written up in a paper at the
time.
What the USA did was to involve itself in the design and delivery of
innovation
as well as the service/regulatory issues. A conflict of interest,
management,
etc. Plain dumb would cover it.
The regulator has a legitimate and necessary role in facilitiating
policy and regulation in the public interest. It cannot involve itself in
implementation and providing services, which it then has to
research and regulate. And vice versa.
The regulator has a track record of sorts in research, policy,
facilitation. It should develop these areas of operation (they need
change and upgrading in the USA area, you are perfectly right),
and stay completely clear of implementation.
Most of these things should be "self-evident". But this is a good
time to restate them.
>
> QUESTION: In your view, is there a role for a separate USA now in
> South Africa?
No. There never was. Its regulatory and facilitator role should be
an integral part of the regulator. It should fall within the motivation
for the merging of the two regulators in the first place. Funding
telecentres should be split off, and ideally outsourced. State
departments are not innovation centres, and should not try to be.
The role of the State should be to provide the infrastructure and
regulatory framework for others to innovate. It does not have the
disposition to innovate, it will be in conflict with others if it does so,
and it is inappropriate for the state to take risks (which are a
necessary part of innovation).
>
>
> POSSIBLE ROLE OF A UNIVERSAL SERVICE AGENCY
>
> If it is decided that there should be a USA, what roles should it
> play? And how can it be structured so that it is a more effective
> organisation? There are different roles it could have:
>
> * Implementer of telecentres:
NO! The point is that it should not be a question of whether the
USA telecentre are efficient and effective or not. They should not
have been USA centres in the first place. See above. The State
would be better advised to spend its time revisiting the structure of
the unbundling of the Post Office and Telecoms, which leaves
telecentres in mid-air. Why does merging the regulators make
sense, at the same time as unbundling the old post office
structures?
> * Monitor
> There is a clear role to monitor the rollout obligations of the
> operators, though should this be done by the USA or the regulator
> (ICASA).
Of course. ICASA.
> * Research & advocacy
> Researching the current level of access and service, recommending to
> regulator, government. Writing articles for media. Developing new
> ideas on community access, linking SA to various international debates
> on these issues.
Research yes, but some of this can also be usefully outsourced.
Policy development. Maybe. It depends on the division of turf
between the Dept and the regulator.
> * Information centre / 'co-ordinate' Community ICT projects
> There are many projects, but not covering the country fully (many in
> Soweto, none in many rural areas). The USA could be a central point
> keeping track of these centres, with a Geographical Information System
> (GIS - a database on a map). Could be used to ensure that the
> community service obligations of the operators do not overlap with
> each other until there is full national coverage.
Yes. But it needs some muscle, and should be part of the
regulator, as the community service obligations leave much to be
desired. The regulator is better placed to monitor the efforts of the
State (or State owned) operators than the State.
> * Support agency for information projects
Interesting issue. If it is at the level of infrastructure (2Meg wireless
backbone, national optical backbone, POP subsidies etc) the
State must do it. (Under the heading big, boring and routine). If it
is at project, and innovation level, NO. That should be done by civil
society. (And, given the level of central party involvement in local
government appointements, NOT by "local" government either). The
closer "locally deployed" govt is to the central State, the more the
reason for a fourth tier of governance, namely civil society.
> > * Develop information services for centre
Ditto. This is vital, and needs to be done, but by another agency if it is
at the level of innovative projects, and at the level of the State if is it
infrastructure.
> * Universal Service Fund (USF) as seed funding
> Rather than spending the money in the USF itself, publish tenders for
> others to provide various services and centres (possibly using Least
> Subsidy Auction model). Encourage small entrepreneurs developing new
> ICT services (some money for innovation, starting new projects).
> Ensure contract management, clear evaluation and dissemination of
> results.
> Absolutely. Make that a good arms length.
> * Mobiliser for 'information rights'
No. Civil society (various non-govt bodies) is more appropriate.
>
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion, do any of these roles seem appropriate for
> a USA? (Or is this all too grandiose?)
Few.
> Any other ideas on what a USA should be doing?
Its policy and facilitator role should be an integrated, functional
role, with a realistic budget, within ICASA. The State should get
the infrastructure right, (across the PO and Telkom). Innovation
should be at arms length.
> There is a role for some organisation to support / be an umbrella for
> 'Digital Divide' issues in SA. Should this be the USA?
No. The state is too closely aligned with the private sector, and
incorporates "local" govt too closely within the central party
authority to take on this role. Civil society, with independent funds,
should do it. >
>
> STRUCTURE OF THE USA
>
> QUESTION: What structure would you suggest for the USA/
> How can we ensure more transparency / accountability?
> Should there be a board governing the USA (not just reporting to Dept
> of Communications)?
Scrap it and start again.
>
> * BRIDGE: (Building Resources of Information for Development, Growth
> & Empowerment / Employment)
gets my vote for a name, but frankly its not that important. USA
was a nice sound bite, but that didn't save it.
>
>
Roy.
Roy Williams
Block 33, University of Reading,
London Road, Reading,
RG1 5 AQ
+44 118 931-6317
_______________________________________________
Communitysa mailing list
Communitysa@lists.sn.apc.org
http://lists.sn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/communitysa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sn.apc.org/pipermail/communitysa/attachments/20010219/901ffdec/attachment-0002.html
From peter at sn.apc.org Sun Feb 18 17:52:51 2001
From: peter at sn.apc.org (Peter Benjamin)
Date: Wed May 23 10:56:48 2007
Subject: [Communitysa] 3pi
Message-ID: <200102181302.PAA00826@brain.sn.apc.org>
Forwarded from amos maleka
3pi.com is a team of young people in South Africa have recently
registered a company. This company has been set up in response to the
problem regarding lack of access to technology, information and
facilities in many disadvantaged African communities. These problems
lead to many businesses, youth, women and other members of communities
not realising their full potential or being able to take advantage of
the opportunities available by access to technology and information.
3pi.com is a personal prepaid Internet concept designed to provide
services accessible by the ordinary person on the street in South
Africa, people like small and Medium businesses, students, home- based
businesses, and other potential Internet users.
This concept could help the disadvantaged communities, in schools,
malls and libraries and it could change the face of small business
computing in the world of Information Technology in South Africa. It
involves the establishment of a unique Service provider, online
services on a "One Stop shop" basis. In addition it uses a Smart card
that is rechargeable which makes it easy to access these services, in
a user friendly and secure environment.
The Objectives of the 3pi.com are:
+ To provide Internet services to previously disadvantaged businesses,
+ students, first time Internet users and the "silver surfer"
+ generation (this the older generation who are often technophobes,
+ but looking for an easy, convenient means to access the Internet and
+ communicate via e-mails.
+ To provide a stable, user-friendly platform for the users.
+ To offer all of these on an affordable subscription basis.
+ Rechargeable vouchers.
What 3pi.com offers
3pi.com is a services provider to small and home based businesses and
students who can't afford to purchase computers, people who want to
access the World Wide Web and the Internet, and to provide them with
the means to a secure environment to operate profitably and
effectively. As more information is placed On- line and scattered
throughout the Web, and as more businesses seek to conduct business on
the Web, it becomes more and more difficult for the small
businessperson, student or "silver surfer": particularly the
"first-timer" to find the information and services pertinent to them.
It is the function of the Centre to facilitate this process. The 3p.i
will have computers located in safe places like libraries, malls,
schools and public facilities that provide a One- Stop-Shop to
facilitate use by normal businesses, students, smaller corporate and
others.
By making use of the Centre's Internet environment, the user can be
assured that the partners and business associates with whom he deals
can be trusted. Using the facility also enables the formation of
consortia, supplier "families" and other on-line communities to meet
specific requirements. The Products and Services offered by the Centre
are not all unique. However, what makes them unique is how we have put
them together. Many other companies offer different parts of this
concept, but they always concentrate on big business and the already
advanced market places.
Why we think this Concept will Succeed?
There are no facilities and there is demand of internet. It will be
placed in safe areas. It will be user friendly. It will be affordable,
no bills and no contact. It will be accessible to a wide range of
people. It will be reliable as any internet and powerful. It will
reach the most marginalized especially in the rural, the disabled and
the women.
Conclusion
We are a team that is mostly dedicated in seeing this concept
succeed. For a long time communities have expressed the lack of
facilities and technology in their areas, and yet we know that they
have great obvious answers that put them in that position from
concered companies or organizations. We have introduced to you 3pi.com
the hope and solution for unskilled, semi-skilled, learners, business
person, unemployed and ordinary persons in the street. This is the
solutions and empowerment to Africans problems and we would like to
invite you to be the partner in developing this concept and become the
fast growing internet in Africa and the World.
Amos maleka
(Director)
=====================
Peter Benjamin
LINK Centre, P&DM,
Wits University
Tel: +27 11 717 3583
Fax: +27 11 717 3910
Cell: +27 82 829 3353
Email: peter@sn.apc.org