[afnog] Challenges in the African Continent

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 04:11:18 am SM wrote:

> Leasing satellite capacity requires less investment.

Yes, but this limits how much bandwidth operators can buy, 
as (increasing) opex is what really kills networks.

I posit that a number of African ISP's that have 5Mbps, 
10Mbps or 15Mbps for transit capacity, probably need at 
least 10x that. But they can't afford it because satellite 
pricing simply doesn't scale - it's good for smaller 
capacities, though. But then there's that "whole growth 
thing" all over again :-).

> It
> is also as an alternative way for some operators to enter
> the market.

Until the cables became/become a reality, it is/was the only 
way.

I'm sure operators will still hold on to some satellite 
capacity after the cables hit the coast, but expect those 
prices to come down (not nearly as close to submarine 
prices, though). In the end, especially as more submarine 
systems become available, I expect very little capacity on 
satellite anymore. But this will take a while, especially as 
national infrastructure continues to grow steadily.

> Submarine systems requires a huge investment.  Most
> operators cannot afford that on their own.

Which is why operators form consortia. This is true anywhere 
in the world (save for a few large operators who can go it 
alone).

> That's where
> governments can step in either to cover the capital
> expenditure or to create an environment to attract
> investors.

Or the consortia can sell submarine capacity on a non-
recurring basis. This, of course, depends, but buying 
capacity this way is advantageous to the owner - recurring 
charges are a killer.

> The technology provides cheaper and more
> bandwidth.  From a national point of view, it is better
> to invest in that kind of technology.

Agree.

> There is also the
> question of land-locked states.  Having a loop around the
> continent won't solve their problem unless the countries
> with landing stations adopt a cooperative stance.

Exactly - cable consortia would have to include landlocked 
countries, and their membership would call for inter-country 
co-operation with regard to access to the cable landing 
station.

It can't work any other way, and I believe this is the case.

> The language is one of the determinants in the content
> push.  Take China for example.  It's a market in itself
> because of that (and some other factors).  We had an
> Internet where English was the primary language.  We now
> have several commodities based around the Internet. 
> These commodities favor traffic concentration.  Local
> content is no match against that except if it's in other
> native languages.  There are still some services that can
> emerge from the region.

Right, but you need to remember that there are several 
countries in Africa that have several different tribes, each 
with their own language with little or no similarity to 
neighboring tribes.

In such cases, English has been embraced as an official 
trading language.

However, yes, content does need to cater for folk that 
couldn't care less about English or any other languages, but 
still need to be online. This may vary from country to 
country.

> Cable systems won't make a difference without the
> national infrastructure to support them.

Indeed.

For the East African region, I believe both Kenya and Uganda 
have been rolling out fibre connectivity to the border for 
their interconnect, as well as extending internal/national 
reach, primarily to areas that already have a higher 
concentration of Internet users.

Other companies have built out metro fibre around the major 
cities, and continue to do so. Perhaps someone from .tz can 
comment on the status there. I know Rwanda have a very 
aggressive ICT agenda; uncertain about Burundi.

The point is, work is on going, and it is understood that 
without a national backbone, fully harnessing the cable 
systems will be next to impossible.

> It is not
> economical to provide fast nation-wide access all at
> once.

Unless several different players are doing it, and covering 
separate areas. This is a function of regulation and 
business models, although there can't be too much fibre in 
the ground.

> Yes.  It's up the each country to decide whether it wants
> to keep these artificial barriers.  As long as such
> policies are in place, there won't be the competitive
> environment that can bring down the cost of bandwidth.

That's why it's not just a technology problem - 
comprehensive solutions need to be considered. There's 
interest at every level in the chain, good or bad.

> With a list like that, we could pack up before we even
> get started.  If the Jon and Jane on this list wait for
> all these problems to be addressed before getting
> creative, they will be subject to a wider technological
> disadvantage.

I'm not saying folk haven't started using their brains to do 
what they can with the little they have. I'm only saying 
that they can only go so far, and a little help is needed 
beyond that.

> Is the national regulator listening to the operator?  I
> know that some are.  If there isn't dialogue with the
> regulator, get the users to talk to them. :-)

This issue is specific to each economy. Not sure about the 
state of .mu, where the OP posted from.

> The egg is "show me the money".

Operators, individually, cannot build cable systems. A 
collaboration of operators and, perhaps, some government 
involvement, can be build cable systems.

And by the time they choose to, they will realise that 
there's pent-up demand, regardless of whether they are 
seeing the "moolah" now or not.

> Let's look at this differently.  Can the existing
> infrastructure be used for dial-up access?

Specific to countries, again - but I do believe that a 
number of economies will still be able to support dial-up, 
in the major cities, at least.

> If the answer
> is yes, then you have an option to connect to the ISP. 
> As usage grows, the ISP has an incentive to look into how
> to provide faster access.  If they don't do that, some
> other ISP will do it.

This stage has already been reached, but because the cost of 
installing and maintaining, say, ADSL equipment, is high in 
relation to the number of potential customers (due to reach 
of copper in the ground, long-haul fibre, e.t.c.), spread 
has not been wide.

Other solutions such as Kyocera's iBurst, and WiMax, are 
proving to be viable alternatives.

> You mentioned the TEAMS, SEACOM
> and EASSy cable systems.  If the ISP wants to be part of
> that, they have to see about how to sell the bandwidth. 
> Either the ISP takes steps for the infrastructure to be
> in place before the cable systems are operational...

In some markets, regulation has permitted operators to build 
their own infrastructure. It may not be as wide as what the 
incumbent has to offer, but it's a start.

In markets where competition is not allowed, there is little 
choice ISP's have.

> There will be a smart operator sees that as an
> opportunity and create what I would call an African
> solution.  That operator will likely be somebody close to
> the community they want to reach.  They could re-purpose
> existing technologies to create cheap and effective
> solutions.

These creative approaches have already been implemented, 
e.g., solar-powered wireless phone booths, solar-powered 
container-based Internet booths, remote portable satellite, 
e.t.c.

The scale is still small, and some projects may not have 
been sustainable, but it's a start.

> It's interesting to see how fast mobile networks are
> growing in Africa.  A mobile phone is more than a phone
> nowadays.  Internet access through mobile networks will
> be more than messaging.  Think of the localized content
> that can be provided.  People will also expect to reach
> their favorite sites.  That's another outlet to sell
> cable capacity to.

Indeed, but wireless carriers still also need to solve one 
of the biggest problems facing GSM networks carrying 3G 
services - backhaul - mostly so because most of the 
technology today is still ATM carried over inflexible 
STM-1/OC-3/E1/T1 technologies; very hard to scale 
economically.

The need for a national backbone cannot be discounted.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20090331/156aec8e/attachment-0001.bin>