Archive for the 'Telecom Policy' Category

Opening Spectrum Above 275GHz

Published
by
Steve Song
on 8 October 2008
in All Things Open, Telecom Policy and spectrum
. 0 Comments

As I am getting my head around spectrum issues, I have found Michael Marcus’s blog, Spectrum Talk, tremendously useful. On the weekend he posted a link to a consultation that Ofcom (the UK communications regulator) have launched consultation on the possibility of of making license-exempt the bandwidth between 275GHz and 3000GH.

Excerpted from Ofcom doc - click on image to download full PDF

Excerpted from Ofcom doc - click on image to download full PDF

The rationale for declaring this range of bandwidth a “commons” is that the propagation characteristics of this range of bandwidth are such that any device would have fairly limited line-of-sight range.  This range of bandwidth is prone to atmospheric loss and does not travel well through solid objects.  Thus, the chances of interference among devices is minimised.  Also, the large range of bandwidth that Ofcom are proposing to open up would also reduce the chances of interference.

The motivation for this proposal are two-fold.  On the one hand, opening this range of spectrum to the commons reduces the regulatory management overhead for Ofcom.  On the other hand, and for me more interestingly, Ofcom have explicitly recognised the potential for innovation in unlicensed spectrum.  Specifically, they say:

“By removing regulatory overheads, the release of the spectrum in the 275-3000 GHz may encourage innovation and the emergence of new applications of value to citizens and consumers. Potential new applications for this band include short range anti-collision radar devices, detection of skin cancer and other non destructive evaluation methods used in industrial processes. However, given that it is unclear at this stage which applications will be successful and when this will happen, it is difficult to estimate the economic benefits to citizens and consumers.”
(text bolding added by me)

Recognising a spectrum commons as a source of innovation, in my opinion, is a very important step for any regulator.  These are the kinds of discussions that need to start happening now in South Africa but equally in emerging markets in general.  Spectrum is a complex area that demands as much technical as economic expertise to understand how it may be most effectively used.

Opening Spectrum in South Africa

Published
by
Steve Song
on 29 September 2008
in All Things Open and Telecom Policy
. 0 Comments

It’s time to get down to business and start developing a civil society position on spectrum management in South Africa.  The key purpose of spectrum management is to maximise the value that society gains from the radio spectrum.  That has traditionally been done in a command-and-control manner treating spectrum as a completely finite, scarce resource.  But things are changing.

The recent ruling in South Africa which effectively opened up the telecoms market to full competition, now sadly being appealed by the Department of Communications (DoC), got me thinking about “what next”. Suppose that the DoC come to its senses and abandons the appeal or perhaps a sensible judge throws the appeal out, what next? The regulator (ICASA) have a huge number of issues to address ranging from interconnection to local loop unbundling. But for me, one issue stands out after the Altech ruling and that is spectrum management. For many service providers, having an i-ECNS license will not be very meaningful if they are unable to get access to spectrum.

Given that ICASA seem unlikely to address spectrum management for at least another year, thanks to other pressing priorities, now seems like the perfect time to mobilise debate within civil society on what principles we would like to see enshrined in spectrum regulation. Certainly, there are a few issues that come to mind.

Transparency

Given the level of cronyism that has characterised the SA telecoms market in the last 15 years, embedding transparency mechanisms into spectrum regulation is a highly attractive proposition but not one that is by any means a given. Building on Paul Collier’s premise that Open Standards might lead to better practice, it would be worth exploring what sorts of standards might be proposed to ICASA to ensure a fully transparent process in the allocation of spectrum.

Readiness for a Different World

As radio and computing technology continue to rapidly evolve, our ability to make more and more efficient use of spectrum increases.  Policy and regulation need to be developed so as to allow as many of the highest value users access as possible.  As technology will continually move this goalpost, regulation needs reflect this shifting environment.

Open Spectrum and Innovation

Unlicensed spectrum, in particular the 2.4 and 5Mhz bands have proven to be magnets for innovation.  Initially declared unlicensed because they were ‘garbage’ spectrum unsuitable for broadcast, they have been instrumental in enabling powerful and most importantly unpredictable innovations.  The ubiquity of WiFi in computing devices could not have happened were in not for the fact that everyone is permitted to experiment in this bandwidth.   Creating more open spectrum can only stimulate further innovation.  The Wireless Innovation Alliance championed by Google and Microsoft in the United States is an attempt to have more bandwidth set aside as open.  The debate in this area has been heated.  Now is the time to start looking at such issues in South Africa before they get captured by vested interests.

For those of you new to the “White Spaces” debate, here is a link that I picked up from Sascha Meinrath’s blog to a video produced by the People Production House in New York.  It’s a lovely introduction to the pro side of the white spaces debate.

If you’re interested in getting involved in such a debate in South Africa, I’d love to hear from you.

SA Telecoms Cool Wall

Published
by
Steve Song
on 2 September 2008
in Telecom Policy and World View
. 6 Comments

Inspired by Rudoph Van Den Burg’s riff on Jeremy Clarkson’s TopGear Cool Wall I thought a Cool Wall for the South African telecommunications and Internet community might be fun to do. For those who haven’t seen it, the TopGear Cool Wall ranks automobile coolness on a scale ranging from SubZero to Cool to UnCool to Seriously UnCool. Rudolph Van Den Berg has taken the idea and applied it to European and North American telcos. I think a little local application might be in order.  As with TopGear the rating is somewhat subjective and the list non-exhaustive and possibly downright erratic.

SubZero

Justice Norman Davis is totally sub-zero for the decisive ruling he handed down in the Altech court case.  File this one under Speaking Truth to Bureaucracy.

Altech deserves equally chilly kudos for having the guts to take this to the courts.

Seacom are absolutely cryogenic for being more or less transparent in their approach, for having an Open Access policy, for giving a great deal to TENET, and for looking as if they are actually going to deliver when they said they would.

Cool

Neotel are cool for stepping in to offer a landing station to Seacom when it looked like the Department of Communications was going to send that deal south.

Skyrove are cool because WiFi is still the most underrated technology in the Internet marketplace.  South Africa needs more Skyrove.

The City of Knysna and Uninet are cool for delivering municipal WiFi against the odds.

The City of Cape Town and the City of eThekweni are cool for having forward-looking municipal fibre strategies.

Dabba are cool because they are driving a bottom-up demand-driven telecoms low-cost voice revolution.

Google are cool for even thinking about building an undersea cable to South Africa

WebAfrica are cool for having one of the easiest to use ADSL client sign-up and management websites I have ever encountered.

Uncool

Vox Telecom are uncool for the way they tried to block the Altech case.  Just because they thought they were likely to get a piece of cake, they didn’t want to have to share nicely with others. Ditto for Internet Solutions and Smile Communications.

Nokia is uncool for removing WiFi from some of their phones

Seriously Uncool

The list here could be quite long.  I’ll pick just a couple.

The Minister of Communications is seriously uncool for failing to understand the telecommunications marketplace in a fairly profound way, and for the implications of that failure on everything.

Telkom is uncool for being one of the most litigious companies in South Africa.  They’ll happily tie anything up in the courts.  The old saying “a telco is a law firm with an antenna on top” was never more true.

As I say, the list is completely subjective.  Love to hear corrections, additions, rants, etc.

Telecoms in South Africa: Apres moi, le deluge

Published
by
Steve Song
on 29 August 2008
in Telecom Policy
. 1 Comment

In a landmark decision today, the High Court of South Africa ruled that everyone in possession of a Value Added Network Service (VANS) license was entitled to “self-provide”.  What this means is that every Internet Service Provider (ISP) in South Africa is entitled to compete with the likes of Telkom, Vodacom, MTN, and Neotel.  In one fell swoop, the market has gone from 4 players to conceivably over 600 players.

At the root of this change has been the dispute around how existing VANS licenses should be converted in the context of the “new” Electronic Communications Act of 2005.  The Minister of Communications has argued that only some VANS licenses should be converted to full “infrastructure” licenses which would allow companies with VANS licenses to build out their own infrastructure.   In essence, this was an attempt by the Minister to perpetuate the “managed liberalisation” process that began almost 14 years ago.

That attempt appears to have backfired on the Department of Communications and their Minister.  The Minister could have issued a general invitation for companies to apply for an infrastructure license (i-ECNS license) and considered each application on its own merits.  Instead, by attempting to influence the license conversion process which is the purview of the regulator (ICASA), they provoked a court challenge from one of the companies in the conversion process (Altech).

The court decision, handed down this morning, utterly rejected the validity of the Minister’s attempt to influence ICASA’s handling of the conversion process and completed validated the Altech’s contention that VANS should be able to self-provision.

Since, the Act states that all licenses must be converted on terms no less favourable than their existing terms, this means that ICASA is bound to grant infrastructure licenses to all 600 VANS licensees.  Great news for telecoms competition in South Africa!

Unfortunately this is just a battle won but not the war.  There are many other issues to be addressed.  For a start, the fees associated with the telecom infrastructure licenses.  Given that only a short time ago Neotel paid R100 million Rand for their license, I can see some drama brewing on what sort of annual fees should be charged to the newly converted licensees.  The ideal scenario in my opinion would be to have fees tied to revenue and only have the fees kick in after a certain threshold of revenue had been reached.  This would contribute to lowering the bar to market entry.

Another and perhaps more significant issue to be addressed is the allocation of spectrum.  There are lots of lessons learned from around the world.  Why can’t spectrum be auctioned in South Africa in a transparent and open manner.  Lack of transparency must surely be one of the biggest barriers to investment.

However, one battle at a time.  You can see the general expressions of joy from the South African community.    Arthur Goldstuck’s Oh Frabjous Day is worth reading as is the general outpouring of joy by likes of Dominic Cull and Ant Brooks (and a few hundred others) on the mybroadband.co.za discussion list.

Ellipsis have posted a copy of the judgement.  Can’t wait to see how the DoC and the Minister react.

The OLPC Effect

Published
by
Steve Song
on 4 August 2008
in Telecom Policy
. 1 Comment

he One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project comes in for a lot of criticism for being, among other things, “centralised and top-down”. Critics also argue that academia and philanthropy should not be interfering in areas where the market is clearly in a better place both to innovate and to sustain new technologies in the marketplace.

I think it is worth pointing out that even if the OLPC is a wrong-headed initiative, it has had the very important effect of attracting computer manufacturers into the low-cost laptop market. Since the announcement of the OLPC, there have been at least a dozen new low-cost laptops announced in the market, and some such as the Asus Eee PC seem to be selling in quantities which indicate that the low-cost laptop has come to stay. This is good news for developing countries.

Equally, the Eastern Africa Submarine Cable System (EASSy) project, which has sparked so much controversy around ownership and access models, appears to have unleashed a flurry of undersea cable initiatives. And while the EASSy project has ended up with as complicated an ownership framework as it is possible to imagine, the public debate around Open Access that it engendered arguably has been a spur for other cable initiatives such as SEACOM, to choose a transparent, Open Access ownership model.

The lesson: Sometimes doing the wrong thing with technology is better than doing nothing. Sometimes.

P.S.  The “OLPC effect” is a term I dreamt up for a commentary I was asked to write on a paper by Alberto Escudero-Pascual on Tools and Technologies for Equitable Access. Alberto was pretty much bang on in his paper so I had to think up something new.  :-) These are part of a series by the APC on Equitable Access.