Tag Archive for 'infrastructure'

Cape Town - City of Fibre

On Wednesday this week, the City of Cape Town made the final approval to launch its ground-breaking municipal Broadband Infrastructure Project. Over the next two years, the City of Cape Town will invest close to R300 million in creating a state of the art, fibre-optic network which will not only reduce the city’s telecommunications costs over time but also offer affordable communications infrastructure to anyone who needs it.

Critics may argue that the city should not be investing in an area that should be dealt with by the private sector but in the case of cities, the situation is a somewhat unique. Cities are already in the business of maintaining infrastructure. They build and maintain roads, sewers, water pipes, traffic signaling infrastructure, security monitoring equipment, the list goes on. One of the most significant costs in deploying fibre can be the cost of excavation and securing rights of way. The city already carries out excavation and has rights of way. As a result they can deploy fibre infrastructure at a far lower cost than a commercial company. Every time a municipal crew digs up a road, for whatever reason, is an opportunity to extend the municipal fibre network.

Having said that, this does not mean that cities should be turning into internet service providers or telecommunications operators. The City of Cape Town has wisely avoided this potential pitfall, which has been the undoing of a number of cities in the United States, by choosing to base their project on the City of Stockholm’s Stokab model:

The Stokab project was based on the view that the provision of an enormous broadband capacity would enable the city to position itself at the forefront of the telecommunications revolution.

The city envisaged the provision of advanced infrastructure would generate an educated workforce, a prosperous economy, and an attractive lifestyle. In addition, Stockholm did not want multiple competitors digging up its streets time and time again.

The City of Stockholm also recognised it would be far cheaper and more practical for operators to lease Stokab fibre, rather than each build their own backbone network

So this means that the Cape Town Broadband Infrastructure Project will do the trenching, install manholes, ducting, and fibre optic cables as well as build switching centres with appropriate IT-friendly infrastructure such as false floors, redundant electrical supplies, security systems, etc. The city will also carry out the operation and facilities management for the fibre network. But it won’t be offering services itself. It will simply be leasing excess capacity on its own network. This means that anyone can install their own switches and connect using the city’s fibre. Thus the city will be enabling the market as opposed to interfering with the market. Everyone will be able to connect on an Open Access basis.

Having said that, the city doesn’t need to justify its decision on the basis of providing access to others. Cape Town has over 500 municipal buildings and spends approximately R100 million a year on telecommunications costs. The project will break even in 6 years based on the city’s needs alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The city commissioned an economic impact study, carried out by Prof. Barry Standish of UCT, to better understand the potential of a municipal fibre network in Cape Town. The study projected that the project:

would have made a cumulative contribution to GDP of R5.7 billion by 2011/12 when the majority of the infrastructure development will be complete. This cumulative total increases to over R211 billion by 2026/27.

Municipal fibre networks have the potential to reduce operational costs for cities, increase competition and improve services in the telecom sector, attract businesses, facilitate telework and tele-enterprises, and be a critical link in a national fibreoptic backbone. Cape Town is poised to become the leading city on the continent in terms of high speed information infrastructure. Let’s hope many others follow their model.

ICASA: Death by Bureaucracy

“…broadband thrives on a mix of competition and active regulation, to ensure an open context.” This succinct summation comes from an Economist article from a couple of weeks ago entitled “Open up those highways“.

Contrast this with news yesterday that ICASA are apparently deliberately privileging incumbent telcos (Telkom, Vodacom, and MTN) by creating a two stage process in granting licenses for self-provisioning (the deployment of one’s own telecom infrastructure). Incumbent telcos are being granted electronic communications network services (ECNS) licenses while existing VANs (Value Added Networks) were only granted the right to purchase access from the incumbents. The bureaucratic-speak and legal waffling used to explain this decision are evidence that there is little sense of urgency at ICASA around the need for more competition and consumer choice in the telecom sector in South Africa.

By coincidence this is in stark contrast with with the Consultative Paper on the Implementation of a Unified Licensing Framework and New Market Structure released for comment earlier this week by the Communications Commission of Kenya. The document is a model of clarity and straightforwardness. Here are a few excerpts, a clear Open Access layer separation:

“The Commission further adopted in principle a unified licensing and regulatory model with the following as the main segments of the future market structure:

    • Network Facilities Provider (NFP) – who shall own and operate any form of communications infrastructure (based on satellite, terrestrial, mobile or fixed)
    • Applications Service Provider (ASP) – to provide all forms of services to end users using the network services of a facilities provider
    • Contents Services Provider (CSP) – to provide contents services such as broadcast (TV& Radio) material, and other information services and data processing services etc.

and

Cross-subsidization between the various license categories shall not be allowed. Firms with multiple licenses shall be required to structure their operations and submit distinct operational accounting returns to the Commission as part of their quarterly and annual compliance returns for auditing purposes.

and finally

With the exception of areas where there exist natural limitations say in spectrum availability, the number of licensee in all other areas will be determined by the market.

Reading this paper and the feedback included from the operators, you get a sense the Kenyan digerati have really got their act together.

African Undersea Cables

Mostly in order to keep them all straight in my head, I have compiled a list of African undersea cable initiatives and their features, investors, etc.

Seacom EASSy TEAMs Infraco/AWCC IWTGC
Cost (USD)
650 million 265 million 82 million 2 billion? 865 million
Length 13,700km 10,000km 4,500 km 13,000 km 14,000 km
Capacity
1.28 terabits/s 640 gigabit/s 40 gigabit/s 3.84 terabits/s 2.5 terabits / s?
Completion
June 2009 2009 April 2009 2010 Q4 2010
Ownership
USA 25%
SA 50%
Kenya 25%
African
Telecom
Operators 90%
Kenya Gov 20%
Private Investors 65%
UAE Eitelsat 15%
Infraco 26%
Private Investors 74%
US 100%?
Items in red have been updated. Last update: 9 May 2008

Investor detail:

Seacom (http://www.seacom.mu)

Industrial Promotion Services (25%), an arm of the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (USD 75 million)
(Kenya - founded by Prince Karim Aga Khan IV of Pakistan)

VenFin Limited (25%) - USD 75 million)

Herakles Telecom LLC (backed by Blackstone) (25%), New York-based lead company, no website (USD 75 million)

Convergence Partners (12,5%) - USD 37.5 million

Shanduka Group (12.5%) - USD 37.5 million

EASSy (http://www.eassy.org/)

EASSy is 90% African owned although that ownership is underwritten by a substantial investment by Development Financial Institutions (DFIs) including World Bank/IFC, EIB, AfDB, AFD, and DfW. Total DFI investment is apparently $70.7 million, with $18.2 million coming from IFC, 14.5 million from AfDB. This is a smaller amount than the originally advertised $120 million investment from DFIs.

South African investors in EASSY include Telkom South Africa ($18.9 million) , Neotel, and MTN.

There are 26 telco operators in total invested in EASSy.

An SPV created to facilitate. open access will be the biggest shareholder, with 46%.

In Jan 2008, VSNL announced an investment in EASSy

Teams

Currently, 85 per cent of the project is owned by the Government of Kenya and the rest by Etisalaat of the United Arab Emirates. The Gov’t of Kenya is looking for local investment in the cable. According to Business Day, Safaricom is a likely shareholder at 30 per cent with the government retaining a 20 per cent stake. The rest is up for investment by regional operators.

Uhurunet / Infraco

African telecom operators (45%), Nepad (30%), International investors (25%)

Confirmed and rumored investors:
• 5P Holdings (US)
• International Development Office of the government of Ras Al Khaimah (an emirate in the UAE)
• Pan-African Infrastructure Development Fund (PAIDF)
• Phelps Stokes Fund (American 501 (c)(3) nonprofit
• Sheikh Saoud of Qatar (rumored)
• South African ownership: Telkom, Neotel and MTN together own 27%

IWTGC

A US company founded by African and African-American group of telecom veterans. Financial backing from West African bank and