Tag Archives: Spectrum

Television White Spaces Spectrum in Africa The Story So Far in 2013

tv_white_space_africa2Last week I attended an event in Dakar entitled the TV White Spaces Africa Forum 2013.  It was an event organised and largely sponsored by Google in partnership with a number of other organisations including Microsoft, Internet Society Senegal, Afrinic, APC, and the Senegalese Ministry of Communication,  Telecommunications and the Digital Economy. TV White Spaces (TVWS) refer to an alternative approach to radio spectrum management that allows for the dynamic re-use of unused spectrum, particularly but not exclusively television spectrum.  In a subsequent post, I will attempt a plain-English explanation of why this is an important technical and regulatory innovation, particularly for countries that are struggling to provide comprehensive, affordable access to their people.

Google and Microsoft

After a welcome by Minister Cheikh Abiboulaye Dieye, I moderated the first session giving first a brief introduction to TVWS.  Much more interesting though were the two key presenters for the first session:  Kai Wulff  of Google and Paul Mitchell of Microsoft. To have Google and Microsoft on the same stage making common cause for affordable access through TV White Spaces spectrum is a bit of a dream come true for me.  For Microsoft and Google this is very much a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  They compete in search, mapping, mobiles and just about everything else but in this case Google and Microsoft share an enemy in the high cost of access in Africa.  Both stand to benefit from having more Africans affordably online and in this particular case, their corporate goals are fairly well-aligned with a development goal.  And on that front, standby for news in June of a new industry association on dynamic spectrum supported by both Google and Microsoft.

What stuck in my mind from this session was an interesting analogy shared by Kai Wulff who pointed out that in Africa, taxi drivers generally don’t fill up their tank completely but just enough to get where they need to go.  Similarly, pay-as-you-go airtime has allows for dynamic management of phone charges.  This is common knowledge but it was a nice insight that this conceptual framework might be applied to spectrum management.

Pilots and Trials

So what’s going on in Africa with TVWS?  A lot.  Both Google and Microsoft are sponsors of significant of trials in Africa; Google in South Africa and Microsoft in Kenya.  There are also independent efforts going on in Malawi.  Here’s an update on them.

South Africa

The Google-sponsored trial in the Western Cape of South Africa is a small success story in collaboration.  TVWS technology was initially instigated by an active civil society and by the Wireless Access Providers Association (WAPA).  After gaining the attention and then support of Google, other key players came on board.

  • TENET, the South African National Research and Education Network (NREN), offered to be the project manager for a TVWS trial;
  • ICASA, the South African communications regulator,  expressed its support for the trial;
  • CSIR, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, a parastatal research agency, offered to carry out the necessary spectrum measurements to provide the necessary evidence of non-interference that would pave the way towards regulation; and,
  • the e-Schools Network provided a local network of schools in need of affordable access to be connected through the trial.

Arno Hart, TENET’s project manager for the trial, presented the work of the trial so far.  So far 10 schools have been connected representing more than 6400 students.  So far the technology has met its most important goal which is demonstrating non-interference with television broadcasts.  Cape Town has more active terrestrial television broadcast channels than most place in South Africa so it was ideal for a trial of TVWS.  The throughput and latency of the connectivity is not quite the 10mbps over 8km that has been advertised but it was still respectable.  It is evident that TVWS technology is still evolving and performance improvements can be expected.

Arno’s talk had lots of interesting insights into TVWS such as the fact that the frequencies below an in-use television channel are more sensitive to interference in the frequency directly above the channel.  This is because the lower end of the television channel is a marker that helps define the wave form for the channel.  Interfering with this marker has a bigger impact on the television broadcast than interference at the top end of the channel.  Critical information like this will help shape the spectrum authentication database that will determine what television spectrum can be used for TVWS access and where.  You can read more about the trial on TENET’s website.

Kenya

The genesis of the TVWS pilot in Kenya is a little different.  It was inspired by one of the true pioneers of connectivity in Africa, Malcolm Brew.  Years ago Malcolm was the CTO of Bushnet Uganda, a company building HF radio links into rural Uganda and the DRC to deliver email into areas previously considered inaccessible except by satellite.  Having since moved back to the Isle of Bute in his native Scotland, Malcolm convinced British Telecom to run a TV White Spaces trial on the Isle.  Paul Henderson, chair of Indigo Telecom, a Kenya satellite services provider, happened to call Malcolm and was amazed by the quality of their Skype call over the TVWS connection.  He immediately saw the potential of TVWS for rural Kenya and, with the support of Microsoft and USAID, has rolled out a pilot in Nanyuki, Kenya.  You can read more about the pilot on Microsoft’s website.

While this pilot has gone ahead with a lot of international support, its internal support is a little more complex.  The pilot enjoys support from the Ministry of Information and Communications but it doesn’t appear that the communication regulator (CCK) are particularly involved in the trial.   I was disappointed not to see someone from CCK at the Dakar event.  Moving forward it will be essential to engage more closely with the regulator as they are crucial to the success of TVWS.

Malawi

Another very interesting trial is getting underway in Malawi.  Championed by Dr. Chomora Mikeka of the University of Malawi and Jonathan Pinifolo of the Malawi communications regulator (MACRA), they are carrying out background research in anticipation of setting up a pilot in a few months.  They have partnered with the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste who have a long history of supporting wireless research in African universities.

What I found interesting about their story so far was their innovative approach.  Among other things, they have developed a very low-cost spectrum analyser based on Open Hardware which has allowed them to carry out a spectrum survey at a fraction of the typical cost.  In listening to Dr. Mikeka, it was evident to me that Africa has the potential not just to be a leader in regulatory innovation around TVWS but a technology leader as well.

Others

And of course there is more going on.  Microsoft is supporting other pilots in Tanzania and soon in the Limpopo province in South Africa.  In Nigeria, a company called WaveTek has secured the West African distribution rights for Carlson Wireless and is on the verge of carrying out a trial.

Manufacturers and Wireless Standards

There are an array of competing standards around TVWS technology.  First there is the 802.22 standard also known as Wi-Far which has evolved out of the WiMax standards group.  Next there is the 802.11af standard also known as White-Fi which has evolved out of the WiFi standards group.  Then there is also the Weightless standard which has been put forward by Neul, one of the earliest developers of TVWS technology.  Neul developed its own Weightless standard because they originally designed their TVWS technology for machine to machine (M2M) communication.  As the demand for TVWS in rural broadband applications became more apparent, they adapted their Weightless standard for broadband use.  Finally there is the wild card in the mix, the TD-LTE standard for White Spaces being developed by Huawei.

Neul have licensed their technology to Carlson Wireless so currently all Carlson equipment also uses the Weightless standard.  Interesting to note that Neul are also releasing their own equipment shortly which will perhaps end up competing with Carlson.  The South African TVWS trial is using Carlson equipment as is the Malawi trial.  In Kenya, the TVWS pilot is being carried out with Adaptrum equipment.  Adaptrum currently use the 802.22 standard or something fairly close to that standard.

So which standard is likely to dominate?  That was what I hoped to find out more about at the event but I was disappointed.  Manufacturers were pretty vague on the topic.  When I asked the question, I didn’t get much more than “the market will decide”.  On the one hand letting the market decide is a good thing but on the other hand, the balkanisation of the standards community makes it hard to build momentum.

From what I can make out so far, 802.22 is designed for rural broadband but is not that well-loved by manufacturers because it is a complex standard to implement.  802.11af is simpler and easier to get to market but suffers some of the limitations of its WiFi parentage.  Weightless appears to have an early advantage but will other manufacturers really but into a standard so closely associated with one company?  Finally, TD-LTE doesn’t currently feature in any trials and is targeted at the mobile industry not the rural broadband industry but it would be a mistake to discount Huawei from any calculations in this arena.  I found it a bit hard to understand the presenter from Huawei but I believe a typical use case for TD-LTE White Spaces would be something like backhaul and coordination among femtocells.  While an interesting and possibly very efficient use of TVWS, the TD-LTE approach holds much less interest for me because it puts TVWS directly into the mobile operator supply chain as opposed to enabling entrepreneurship that could lead to more competition in the broadband marketplace.

White Spaces and the Authentication Database

Although it didn’t start out that way, TVWS technology is now inextricably connected with the concept of an authentication database.  Early proponents of TVWS argued for a spectrum-sensing approach to regulation where TVWS devices would regularly “sniff” the spectrum to see if it was in-use by the primary spectrum holder and dynamically switch out of any occupied spectrum. There was sufficient push-back from broadcasters on viability of spectrum sensing that an alternative had to be devised.  This alternative came in form of an authentication database that all TVWS devices are obliged to connect to in order to receive information about available spectrum in their area.

Andy Lee of Google gave a great presentation explaining the basics of how the authentication database works.  In short, the database combines information about spectrum in use with information about the geography of the region and performs a calculation to determine where current broadcasts reach and on what frequencies.  It then uses the inverse of that to establish what spectrum is free for use and where.

In Africa, even in urban areas, it is clear that there is a lot of unused television spectrum that could be re-purposed for TVWS rural broadband applications.

A lot of work has been done in the US and elsewhere to establish an open standard for TVWS databases. The Internet Engineering Task Force have developed the PAWS standard for accessing TVWS databases.  While different companies have developed TVWS database applications, Google and Telcordia among them, they all operate according to a common standard.  Thus it is possible to have more than one authentication database in a country.

In terms of regulation and TVWS databases, it is worth noting that there is one significant difference between US and UK regulation of TVWS.  In the UK, the power output of the TVWS device is not pre-determined but can be dynamically set via the database.  Thus if the database knows that the device is in a remote areas with few or no terrestrial television broadcasters, it can permit the TVWS to operate at a higher power output offering better range and throughput.

There was some discussion among the participants as to whether an authentication database was the best approach to TVWS for Africa.  Some people argued that this was importing unnecessary limitations from the US.  It is an interesting question.  On the one hand, I would like to see TVWS achieve the same kind of success that WiFi has through an unlicensed environment.  I fear that constraints such as an authentication database might limit the uptake of the technology.  On the other hand, variable power output (described above) which a database enables is a significant advantage.  In addition, an authentication database also offers a big security blanket to regulators who need not worry that they are opening Pandora’s Box because they ultimately are still in complete control of the spectrum.  This may prove to be a critical ingredient to speed adoption.

The Regulators

Most interesting of all was what the African communication regulators had to say.   Speaking at the event were representatives from the communication regulators in Senegal, Niger, Malawi, and South Africa.  In the audience, there was representation from communication regulators of Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Togo.  What was most striking for me was the wide range of perspectives on TVWS. Some regulators clearly saw the potential and were working to integrate TVWS into their strategic planning and others were frankly sceptical.  Of those who were doubtful of TVWS technology, a lot of the concern centred around the fact that television spectrum was already a subject of heated debate related to the Digital Switchover and the potential release of one or more IMT bands for mobile use.  The spectrum bands in question,  700MHz and 800MHz,  form the upper block of the UHF television band.  I have my own opinions about how this could be handled but it is clear that there is a lot of interest in television spectrum and, as a result, a lot of concern that it be handled appropriately.   It was proposed by some that TVWS should wait until the Digital Switchover was complete and firm agreements had been made on new IMT bands such as the 700MHz band.  In my opinion, making these issues dependent on each other robs TVWS technology of its primary innovation, the ability to continuously and dynamically adapt to a changing spectrum regulatory landscape.  One thing is clear to me and that is that more awareness raising and healthy debate of TVWS needed.

No discussion of regulators would be complete without mentioning the stand-out presentation from the UK regulator (OFCOM)’s head of spectrum, Prof H Nwana.  Prof Nwana’s roots are in Cameroon but at OFCOM he leads what is arguably the most progressive approach to dynamic spectrum regulation in the world.  His vision of the evolution of dynamic spectrum management is inspiring.

Summary

This is a watershed moment for Television White Spaces in Africa.  There is a lot going on.  With the backing of companies like Microsoft and Google, TVWS are getting recognition as a key part of the regulatory toolbox.  Manufacturing is starting to come on board but the process is a little slower than anyone had hoped.  TVWS equipment has yet to achieve its full mass market potential.  Equally the standards for TVWS are still evolving.  Expect to see one of these standards leap forwards in the next 24 months.  The tide of TVWS is at the flood and it is up to African governments, regulators, and entrepreneurs to decide whether to seize it or not.

All the presentations from the TV White Spaces Africa Forum 2013 are available online. Kudos to Google and all the other partners for making this extremely worthwhile event happen.  Finally, if I have missed nuances or missed the mark entirely on any of the above, please do correct me.

However things turn out, it is clear to me that we need a better understanding of the choices and their implications.  While most of my time is still taken up with Village Telco, I am very happy to say that I am now also affiliated with the Network Startup Resource Centre (NSRC), an organisation that has dedicated itself to building the capacity of Internet network operators around the globe . My role with them is to build understanding of the opportunity that shared spectrum technologies and policies represent.

 

How To Make The Digital Dividend Pay Out In Africa

Africa_DSO_spectrum_current

Current television spectrum allocation

Digital Divide, Digital Dividend, Digital Yadi-yadah.  You would be forgiven if the term Digital Dividend didn’t immediately resonate with you given the proliferation of all things “Digital” in recent years.  A quick reminder then.  The Digital Dividend refers to the spectrum that is freed up in the conversion from analogue television broadcasting to digital broadcasting, also referred to as the Digital Switch-over (DSO), a change that has largely already taken place in the industrialised world and is slowly gathering pace in Africa.  This involves deploying digital transmitters to replace the analogue ones and either new digital televisions or digital Set Top Boxes (STBs) for existing televisions.  But the fact that more channels may become available or that you can receive television channels optionally in high-definition is less exciting to me than what can be done with the spectrum that is freed up. How much spectrum is being freed up?  There is over 400MHz of television spectrum.

Digital broadcasting uses a fraction of the spectrum that analogue broadcasting does and in Africa, there are few enough analogue terrestrial television channels per country to begin with.  What is more, it turns out that television spectrum exists within a very attractive range of the frequencies. What makes a frequency attractive?  Propagation or the ability of a radio wave to go through obstacles.  The lower down you go down the spectrum, the longer the radio waves and the less they are inclined to bounce off solid objects.   That means that you can cover a larger area with a single transmitter and that means that the cost of building a communication network drops significantly.  There are trade-offs however.  Longer waves carry less information so you can’t pack as much data into the same channel but that is a very reasonable trade-off when it comes to planning rural networks where the cost of network deployment may be a bigger issue than ensuring >20MB/s download speeds. So the Digital Dividend spectrum is extremely appealing from an infrastructure cost-of-ownership perspective.  It is unfortunate then that most of the debate around the Digital Dividend has largely been held within the broadcast community.  Not that digital broadcasting isn’t important but the Digital Dividend is an extremely valuable resource that needs to be considered holistically in terms of its national strategic value.

At the World Radio Congress (WRC-12) last year, there was confirmation of 790-862MHz (popularly known as the 800MHz band) as a global IMT (mobile) band. There was also a move by some African countries to have the 694-790MHz band (popularly known as the 700MHz band) made available in Region 1 (Africa and Europe) on an accelerated basis, probably because there are lots of CDMA players already in the 800MHz band. 700MHz is likely to be confirmed as an IMT band for Region 1 at the WRC in 2015.  So that’s good news for mobile operators except that the release of the 700MHz and 800MHz bands is being treated as contingent on the completion of the DSO.  Given the delays that have plagued the DSO on the continent, this seems like a dangerous strategy.  Why can’t one or both of these two new IMT bands be cleared for use while the DSO is going on in the lower end of the television spectrum?  At the very least, preparatory work for release of this spectrum ought to be going on now.

Africa_DSO_spectrum_future2

What a future allocation of spectrum might look like.

But the situation is worse than just a disconnect between the broadcaster and mobile operators.  There is also the prospect of missing out on an alternative access technology that could make a real difference for rural access.  Television White Spaces technology has the potential to create a vibrant rural access industry in Africa.

Television white spaces refers to the guard bands left between analogue television broadcast channels in order to prevent interference. TV White Spaces technology is capable of serendipitously re-using that empty spectrum without interfering with existing television broadcast. The initial vision was that through spectrum sensing, the devices would automatically use whatever empty spectrum was available, as a secondary user. That means if a television signal suddenly turn on in a frequency being used by a TV White Spaces device, it would automatically cease using that frequency and find another empty frequency to use. The broadcast and wireless microphone industry in the U.S. were not satisfied with this solution and the concept of an geo-located authentication database was introduced whereby TV White Spaces devices would need to authenticate against a spectrum database to see what spectrum was available for use in the area it was being used. Very low power TV White Spaces devices are still allowed to use just spectrum sensing. In general TV White Spaces regulation in the US has been the victim of massive lobbying and the result is some extremely hamstrung regulation.

The UK has largely followed the US regulation with one significant improvement. The power output level of the devices is not fixed but can be dictated by the settings in the authentication database. This means that higher power output levels could be assigned in sparsely populated rural areas versus areas where there are many other spectrum users.

What is exciting about this technology?

  1. No spectrum license required or at least a very nominal one. This means new opportunities for small entrepreneurs to provide alternative access.
  2. Great propagation. A typical TV White Spaces link can go 8-10km without any effort and is not obstructed by trees, buildings, etc.
  3. Innovation. WiFi has gone from a niche spectrum for experiments to an industry that is expected to be worth over 6 billion dollars in 2015. ~70% of smartphone data traffic in the rich world goes over WiFi. This is what open spectrum offers. TV White Spaces has the potential to be another such industry because of the low barrier to entry.
  4. No spectrum re-farming required. Because TV White Spaces technology is designed for secondary use of spectrum, there is no need to move the primary spectrum holder. This is a quick and easy win. Conflicts can be easily resolved by the regulator thanks to the authentication database.

TV White Spaces are finally gaining traction however.  Google is sponsoring a pilot in South Africa and in Kenya, Microsoft are supporting a pilot in partnership with the Kenyan government and a satellite operator there.  Those are good signs but in general the discussion of the Digital Dividend has been trapped in bureaucratic silos.  There needs to be a broader acknowledgement of the strategic value of the Digital Dividend and a strategy that addresses it holistically.

Vodacom – Oh Really?

Vodacom Group CEO Pieter Uys seems like a nice guy.  I’ve never met him but you look at his picture and you think, here is a decent fellow.  Which makes it all the harder to credit his defence of Vodacom’s pricing.

He spoke recently at the launch of a World Wide Web Foundation and Vodafone sponsored report entitled ‘Making Broadband Accessible for All‘.  When questioned by ICASA General Manager of markets and competition, Pieter Grootes, about the significant disparity in pricing between Kenya and South Africa, a question hopefully inspired by this post, he had this to say:

“It’s not possible to have a call that lasts long in Kenya. And it’s not possible to have fast mobile broadband speeds at the same rate as SA. There’s a direct relationship between pricing and quality.”

He appears to be arguing that Vodacom has 9 times the call quality that Safaricom does and can thus justify charging 9 times what they charge.  Now call quality in Kenya may not be perfect but I think it would be very hard to come up with real evidence to support an order of magnitude quality difference between South Africa and Kenya.

More to the point, why does Vodacom get to choose what kind of call quality we have?  Why isn’t this something that the market establishes?  Why can’t people choose a cheaper, lower quality network or a more expensive, higher quality network? The answer is simple.  In South Africa, there is no market.  There is just an uneasy alliance of rent-seekers.  Just like in the world of professional wrestling there is a lot of bluster and talk of competition but when it comes to actually stepping up and squaring off with other mobile operators, the outcome is predetermined, the game fixed.

There are signs of hope though.  8ta’s recent dramatic drop in broadband charges is a possible sign of good things to come but the fact that it is only broadband that has been affected and that it is a temporary offer does not really represent the kind of tectonic shift in pricing needed, but you never know.  It might be the gust of wind that presages a storm.

Interestingly, at the same session, Uys found an ally in researcher Winfred Mfuh, who said that

“constructing and renting a base station can be three-times the cost in SA than that of Kenya, where there are a lot of price considerations.”

I accept that putting up infrastructure may be cheaper in Kenya than South Africa, however, I doubt it needs to be three times more expensive in South Africa.  Mobile operators in India have mastered the art of outsourcing infrastructure.  Vodacom’s infrastructure is expensive because they’ve never had real market pressure on them to optimise their costs.

This is not idle speculation.  South Africa’s expensive, uncompetitive telecommunications environment is well documented by researchers.  Something worth considering closely when considering how new spectrum should be auctioned.  A set-aside for new market entrants is a minimum consideration.  In Canada, incumbent operators fought tooth and nail to prevent Egyptian-owned Wind Mobile from getting access to spectrum in the AWS auction two years ago.  I see Wind Mobile now have the best mobile broadband prices in Canada.  What a surprise.

Africa and Television White Spaces

If you google “televisions white spaces”, you’ll see a small storm of news generated last week by the FCC’s finalising the rules for the use of television white spaces spectrum in the U.S. TV white spaces spectrum was first announced in Nov 2008 by the FCC but was bitterly protested broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers, among others that the devices would interfere with television broadcast and wireless microphone use alike.

So what are the television white spaces? Back when radio spectrum was first allocated for television broadcast in the early part of the 20th century, broadcast and broadcast reception technology was crude by today’s standards. In essence, broadband transmitters had to “shout” because the reception devices were a bit deaf. In order to cope with these loud services, regulators decided that gaps should be left in spectrum assignments as “guard” bands to prevent television signals from interfering with each other. These “guard” bands are also known as television white spaces because of the “white” noise signal that appears on a television in these unused bands. Aside: this makes sense but it really, really doesn’t resonate in South Africa where a call for “white spaces” just says all the wrong things. Sigh. Can’t we call them something else?

So anyway things have changed. Wireless technology has evolved a great deal and now devices can be designed that operate efficiently within these “guard” bands without interfering with television broadcast. The original idea was that the devices would be able to sense what television channels were in use and serendipitously use the empty “white spaces” wherever they were available.

The Nov 8 2008 policy decision has been hanging fire while the FCC have debated the various objections to white spaces spectrum use. On 23 Sep 2010 the FCC finally set down clear rules for white spaces operation. Instead of spectrum sensing, the FCC have decided that all television white spaces (TWS) devices must register online with a centrally managed database which tells TWS devices what spectrum they may use in the area that they are being activated. While this removes some of the serendipitous possibilities for innovation, it directly addresses the concerns of broadcasters that spectrum sensing technology was not sensitive enough to ensure an interference-free environment for broadcasters. The door was left open however for spectrum sensing in the future.

So why is TWS spectrum important?

  1. You don’t need a spectrum license! Or at the very least licensing is very, very lightweight. This means that you you can deploy TWS technology in a very similar manner to other unlicensed wireless technologies such as WiFi. This means more market entrants, more competition, and ultimately more service and better prices for consumers.
  2. You don’t need to re-farm spectrum! Re-farming spectrum which involves moving existing spectrum holders from one band to another band is notoriously painful and long-winded. Just look as the pain-in-the-behind that iBurst and Sentech’s spectrum holding in the 2.6GHz range has been for that process. TWS spectrum can re-use unused television spectrum without moving any existing spectrum holders.
  3. It’s lovely spectrum! Television spectrum is capable of penetrating obstacles such as trees and building much more easily than WiFi spectrum or WiMax for that matter. This means that it will be MUCH easier to deploy this technology and it can be deployed a lot more affordably. It is not without downsides. You don’t get as much throughput through TWS spectrum, probably more like 2Mb/s but frankly that is plenty for loads of applications.
  4. This is such an opportunity for Africa. Pundits are estimating that the TWS market may be worth 4 billion dollars in the U.S. This is a country that already has broadband and is packed with television broadcasters. Here in South Africa it would be hard to find a place where more than a half dozen television channels were in use. Likewise the need for affordable connectivity is so much greater. This is SUCH an opportunity!

So What Needs to Happen?

Blog about it. Tell your regulator. Tell some journalists. Tell your politicians. Bug Google and Microsoft who have been champions of this technology in the U.S. but mute about it in Africa. The Google Public Policy Blog trumpets this decision but no mention of it on the Google Africa Blog. <disclaimer>Sorry Google, I just want more from you on this continent. </disclaimer>

Right now manufacturers are gearing up for mass production of TWS devices. If we can put appropriate TWS regulation in place, we can seize the day as these devices become available.  Otherwise,  this opportunity will pass and mobile operators and broadcasters will lock down this space.

What Google Should Do In Africa – Preface

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series What Google Should Do In Africa

africa_googleThis is an introduction to a series of posts on what I think Google ought to be doing in Africa,  that is to say what I think they ought to be doing outside of their core business of selling advertising.  Why pick on Google?  For a few reasons:

  1. I want to see cheaper, faster, more pervasive access to telecoms in Africa.  This objective is good for Google for whom more access means more eyeballs for Google Ads.  Google understand network effects better than anyone.  If you haven’t already, read this fascinating interview with Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist.  Thus Google is a technology company that can do good in Africa while serving their own ends. This is in contrast to mobile operators that are still hell-bent on propping up their ever declining Average Revenue per User (ARPU) on the continent.
  2. Over and above their corporate self-interest, Google is a company that has expressed an explicit interest doing something useful in Africa.
  3. Google is already doing some amazing, potentially transformative things…. they just aren’t doing them in Africa.

And that is mostly want I want to talk about is the fact that Google has some remarkable initiatives which could bring about real change in Africa but they are NOT in Africa and I want to publicly ask why.  I’ve already asked why privately a few times but obviously I’ve been talking to the wrong people.  I don’t particularly expect anyone from the Google to read this but I feel the need to speak out anyway.  Here we go.