[governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR

[McTim]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK
<jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:
> Dear Ivar and members of the list
>
>
>> "The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the
>> pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband
>> infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by
>> the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of
>> precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital
>> needs for the population."
>> I completely disagree with this view for two reasons.
>
> Since you are quoting an extract of my mail, let me add a short comment on
> the reasons that inspired this sentence.
>
> It is not the principle of ICT/telecom infrastructure to be available and
> services to be used ... and paid for by people in DCs. This could even be a
> "right" :-) for some equality with rich countries and people living there.
> What I wanted to stress in my phrase is the huge amount of the COST for this
> to happen. And more particularly the extra investments paid for overlapping
> and duplicating infrastructure as well as redundent networks. Just two
> examples to illustrates this :

I think your main point is that these are mostly public funds spent on
these types of projects?  If so, you would be incorrect to assume
that.


> Example 1 : in 2012 there are 6 submarine cable systems along the West
> African coast (a seventh is planned and three others are envisaged). Half of
> the six would be largely sufficient in terms of traffic (even for the ten
> coming years), redundance and even competition. Extra cost generated by this
> situation : 1,6 billion dollars (only CAPEX).


Joke:  what’s an international fibre project? A person with a
power-point presentation who goes to conferences.

In other words, I doubt we will see all of the projects that have been
advertised actually finished.  Most of that CAPEX comes from the PS,
not governments, with the caveats that some few projects are PPPs.

> Example 2 : Kenya has 7 terrestrial networks the half of which carrying just
> a symbolic traffic. Three networks would largely satisfy the domestic needs
> for the ten years ahead. Extra cost is about 30 million (only CAPEX).

I guess I live in a parallel Kenya than the one you live in, as I
don't see 7 terrestial networks here.  Certainly in Nairobi folk have
put lots of glass in the ground and we do have 4 mobile operators that
cover large parts of the country (but certainly not all).  Most of the
terrestrial fiber (we have more fiber than copper at this point) is
again paid for by the PS, not the government.


> Another example : In African countries the mean number of mobile operators
> is between 4 to 8. In industriallized countries this figure is betwenn 2 and
> 4. Unless to say that here are huge amounts of resources spent for
> "ideological" reasons (competition, free market rule ...).


Again, these are mostly PS resources, which wouldn't be spent on
water, sanitation, public health, etc anyway!

> All this cost (plus the OPEX, plus the gifts to the shareholders) must be
> paid for : that is the reason why African mobile users must afford 50
> billion dollars per year (and this amount is strongly growing!).
>
> That is what I find particularly unworthy for people living in DCs and for
> the countries themselves. They have more basic needs that I mentioned in my
> mail (access to water and sanitation, access to electricity, to education,
> to health, to food) and therefore as many "rights" to question such a "cable
> glut", systematically welcomed by the "international constituencies", first
> of all the ITU !
>
> IMHO this it is also the duty of CS to stress such misappropriation of
> financial resources that generate ten thousands of deaths among people in
> DCs. FYI : the budget of FAO is equal to the cost of the useless surplus of
> submarine cables mentioned above.

Then this is not a failure of the market, but a failure of governments
to support FAO.

What is your alternative to a market based approach to building
Internet and telecoms infrastructure in LDCs?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t