[afnog] Challenges in the African Continent

[SM]

At 04:28 29-03-2009, Mark Tinka wrote:
>You must be kidding, right... there is always demand for
>more bandwidth, and a great deal of demand for the same in
>most African countries, particularly those currently not
>using any submarine infrastructure to reach the rest of the
>world.
>
>The issues limiting growth (not demand) are:
>
>a) lack of submarine infrastructure that lowers operators'
>    opex.
>
>b) insufficient high-speed national/regional infrastructure
>    that both operators and users alike can use.
>
>c) sky-high per-Mbps prices that leads to a barrier to
>    growth (not demand) for both operators and users.
>
>Those are the real problems...

I used demand as more than the desire for more bandwidth.  There is 
also the ability of the market.  I agree with your points about what 
limits growth.  The cost the ISP has to pass to the customer is much 
more as points A and B requires a sizable investment.  Either the 
market pays the price or else someone else has to step in to address point C.

>I guess what I was trying to say is regional comparisons may
>not be absolutely necessary. The issue the OP is stressing
>is, "why is HK better off"? He might as well be asking, "why
>is South Korea better off"? Or, "why is Finland better off"?

Agreed.

>The real question is, what is holding Africa up?

I'm been asking myself that question. :-)

>Agree, but like I said, we don't have to break it down into
>regions to get it. The issues faced by most African
>countries regarding Internet connectivity are well-
>understood. The question is, how do we fix them?

I'll comment about this below.

>Particularly more so as proliferation of submarine capacity
>into landlocked African countries will require the co-
>operation of several governments at a technical, economic
>and political level.

Agreed.

>This doesn't make any sense to me, and does not answer why
>Africa is lagging behind in terms of connectivity to the
>rest of the world.

The original message, if I understood correctly, was also about local 
connectivity.  There are two drivers that influence connectivity, 
consumers and content.

>And this is a good thing?

We can skip the copper generation.  We don't have an old 
infrastructure that is preventing the deployment of new 
technologies.  As an ISP, you get to define the market.

>I'm sorry, I really don't get your logic here. Growth in
>connectivity is generally seen as a good thing, across the
>board. Not even sure whether I need to explain this, and how
>the lack of growth is a "bad" thing for Africa.

I am not saying that lack of growth is good.  My point is that the 
evolution of the Internet over the years has been spurred by 
innovation which have driven demand for more connectivity.  When 
there is a void, there is scope for new business opportunities.

>Since when was keeping local traffic local bad for business?

I asked about the benefits of hosting locally.  If it is  cheaper to 
host in some other country, people will choose that.  There are 
already established facilities that have economy of scale as an advantage.

Coming back to your paragraph about the fix, I think that the big 
picture is not well understood by everyone or else we would hear more 
suggestions about how to fix the real issues.

At 04:58 29-03-2009, Mark Tinka wrote:
>A lot of ISP's in Africa have a bit of space in their
>buildings that host mostly a handful of routers, switches
>and a few customer-supporting production servers (mail, DNS,
>that sort of thing). Much of the remaining space could be
>used to host a couple of web servers (for instance), each in
>turn hosting a number of web sites (virtual hosts), e.t.c.
>
>Of course, as this grows, it would be necessary to consider
>a more purpose-built, neutral facility. However, we need to
>start somewhere - allow growth to be natural and understood.

That's a convincing argument.  If we have more concrete examples, 
like the one you gave,  it can foster growth to the benefit of both 
ISPs and customers.  You mentioned deregulation.  I think that there 
is over-regulation in some areas.  VoIP, for example, is the kind of 
technology that pushes us to keep local traffic local.  Instead of 
having service differentiation when it comes to what is being sent on 
the wire, leave VoIP, excluding termination to the PSTN, 
unregulated.  It will mean less revenue for the telco in the short 
term.  This pushes them to reinvent their business model (they will 
have to do it anyway) and they are better prepared for the 
future.  It also leaves the door open for local entrepreneurs to 
build new services.  For example, they can couple VoIP with a CRM solution.

WiFi was mentioned in this thread.  A coffee shop can attract more 
customers by offering free WiFi access.  This can have a positive 
effect on other areas of the economy.  If the existing regulation 
categorizes the shop as a service provider, it acts as a 
disincentive.  When I say over-regulation, I mean that if we have 
regulations too soon, we inhibit the growth of a technological sector.

As the market grows, it's easier to make a case for more national 
infrastructure.  Creating a spillover effect will help other 
countries in the region move forward.  If these countries get 
together, there is a larger market which means more revenue to offset 
the capital outlay for a submarine infrastructure.

Regards,
-sm