The latest issue features an e-interview with LIRNEasia’s CEO Rohan Samarajiva, but it is not the only reason why we thought of highlighting the issue. The content is interesting and very readable. We publish two e-interviews from July 2010 issue here fully, as they are not available on public domain.

Apart from Samarajiva, This issue carried e-interviews with Alison Gillwald, Indra de Lanerolle, Christoph Stork and Muriuki Mureithi.

If you are interested in future issues please register at http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chakula

The need for competitive research for policy influence
e-interview with Alison Gillwald

—————————————————————————-
“High quality, rigorous research…is required to compete and complement with each other for policy influence… In mature economies researchers from multiple universities would be debating and refining the positions governments should be taking on everything from regulating next generation networks to demand stimulation for broadband.”
—————————————————————————-

Alison Gillwald is Executive Director of RIA. She is also Adjunct Professor at the UCT Graduate School of Business, Management of Infrastructure Reform and Regulation, and a member of CPRafrica’s organisation and selection committee.

CHAKULA: You have just held the CPRafrica conference in Cape Town. What are you hoping to achieve through the conference?

ALISON GILLWALD [AG]: There is almost no scholarly research being undertaken in the field of ICT policy and regulation on the continent. A Google scholar search on the subjects throws up around five scholars on the continent who are published in peer reviewed or accredited journals. It is this kind of high quality, rigorous research that is required to compete and complement with each other for policy influence. In mature economies researchers from multiple universities would be debating and refining the positions governments should be taking on everything from regulating next generation networks to demand stimulation for broadband. Although there are pockets of applied research being undertaken there is no tradition of critical intellectual engagement in this area on the continent. The purpose of CPRafrica is to provide a forum for nurturing and showcasing research in the area of ICT policy and regulation on the continent and enhancing its quality through rigorous academic review and debate. The conference is complemented by a young scholars programme to expose young scholars who may be excluded from such peer-review, paper-acceptance-only style conferences without such a category. Some of these are part of the IDRC- [International Development Research Centre] funded PhD programme to encourage doctoral research in ICT policy and regulation. The idea here is to build a cadre of policy intellectuals on the continent able to critically engage government on the basis of relevant research and contribute meaningfully to research and policy excellence. This will further enhance Africa’s standing in international research and governance fora, in which its participation has historically been suboptimal.

CHAKULA: Reviewing some of the papers presented at the conference, it strikes me that there are a couple of threads that are emerging. Two in particular stand out: the notion of “innovation” in the telecommunications space, and the challenges around convergence and policy when two distinct sectors with different ways of doing things are brought into conflict with each other. I also went back to Research ICT Africa’s 2008 M-banking policy paper, which raises similar themes, and I would like to use that as a starting point. First, on the issue of ‘innovation’. In the M-banking paper, the following assertion is made: “Policy-makers and regulators need to ensure that evolving systems serve the broader objectives of economic growth and development as well as protect consumer interests, while creating an environment that encourages and rewards innovation”. In what ways can policy inhibit or encourage innovation in the telecommunication’s sector?

AG: Indeed, providing certainty to investors and operators while retaining the levels of flexibility to enable innovation in a fast-changing environment is one of the most difficult balancing acts that policy-makers and regulators have to perform. I think the linkages and catalysts between technology, market and regulatory innovation are becoming clearer all the time. New technologies and service offerings have prized open markets and the entry into less policy and regulatory constrained markets has made taking certain technologies to market more viable. This has triggered further possibilities across historically distinct platforms, not only between broadcasting and telecommunications, but between fixed and mobile services and even entirely separate sectors such as telecommunications and banking. The challenges to the expansion of such services are really regulatory now rather than technological – and that is not to say that one does not want or need public interest regulation either in the telecommunications or banking sector, but it has to be done in new, innovative ways that enable to extension of these services to those who currently don’t enjoy them. Once these various forces are unleashed they are able to intersect and create new opportunities and innovative ways of doing things that have not been done before.

CHAKULA: Innovation here seems necessarily to be tied to market gain – the objective is to increase or capture market share. In both your M-banking paper, and the case study of the mobile operator One Network in Kenya, preconditions exists that facilitate innovation. With M-banking there are low-income earners who are ‘unbanked’ and who could benefit from some kind of low-cost transactional instrument, and with One Network, there is a significant level of cross-border traffic that makes a seamless network attractive.
AG: It is true that innovation is often driven by market forces and pursuit of profits, and, traditionally, with new technologies have focused on high-end markets. But much of the ICT innovation we are witnessing in developing markets is focused on what has been referred to as the ‘gold at the bottom of the pyramid’ – very profitable turn-over of high volumes of sometimes minuscule margins on products that, by breaking them up or making them available at cost, the masses at the bottom of the economic and social pyramid can enjoy things like pre-paid phone vouchers, or transferable airtime vouchers. And many of these products have been commercialised innovative practices by the poor in order to access and affordably use communications services – such as missed calls, multiple sim card usage that allows for same net rates, or ‘plastic roaming’.

CHAKULA: If we consider Indra de Lanerolle’s fascinating case study on the South African convergence scenario, we see two sectors (broadcast and telecommunications) in conflict with each other because policy decisions are made according to different frameworks: simply put, economic versus public interest. In fact, Indra does seem to suggest that these are in competition with each other, and resolves this in an interesting way. It feels hard to believe that ‘consumer interest’ is the same as ‘public interest’?

AG: I think with the shift from public utilities to competitive markets many of the public interest objectives of delivery and service are met through serving the consumer interest. Nevertheless there is public interest regulation that is required to improve wider and collective consumer welfare – to provide access to ‘uneconomic areas’ for example – though with new more cost-effective, rapidly deployable wireless services, this concept in markets that enable competitive entry is regularly not proving to be the case. But as long as we have the large number of poor that we do, we will need some level of social regulation – even though a lot of the current pent-up demand could be met with greater market efficiency (more competitive markets offering better prices). And then there are the more traditional content regulation issues either to restrict certain ‘harmful’ content or activities or to enable it, such as local content regulation. That too may be found to be highly profitable, but may need either protection or encouragement.

CHAKULA: Indra’s paper, like your M-banking policy paper, shows that regulating convergence is tricky because of the ‘convergence’ of two or even more sectors; whether broadcast/telecommunications or telecommunications/banking etc. What are some of the key challenges that policy-makers can expect to face in Africa?

AG: The key challenge for African regulators is that they are still trying to deal with legacy regulation around first and second-generation infrastructure and access. At the same time, if they do not want the agenda to be set for them in international fora, they need to deal with next-generation issues, not only of converged IP [internet protocol] networks and services and the next-generation regulation issues of network and service-neutral regimes, but of cross-cutting issues of electronic commerce frameworks, intellectual copyright rights, security and privacy issues, and so on. And you have to do it all or be left behind…

CHAKULA: One frustration is that when one reads a good paper that seems to offer a solution to a problem, one is also met with the feeling that those with decision-making powers are probably not going to read that paper, or seriously consider its arguments. Do you feel the same? If so, how do you think CPRafrica picks up on this challenge? Is it just a case of repeating issues until policy-makers take them on board?

AG: No. CPRafrica is one of several strategic strands towards having evidence-based ICT policy on the continent. This is about organic and indigenous knowledge creation and contribution, at the national level, at the level of regional association and continentally, and also about global engagement and influence. For too long have the solutions come from the developed world. Of course, there are lessons to be learnt and we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, but we also have different challenges and Africa has demonstrated remarkably innovative responses to these when they are informed by sound policy, effective regulation or thorough and appropriate business plans. The indicator research done by RIA and its analysis in order to assess policy and regulatory outcomes is fed into several initiatives, globally and locally. RIA provides the only comprehensive public domain demand-side data on ICT access and usage on the continent. This is used in national, regional and continental meetings on ICTs, and in the database and reports of multilateral agencies such as the OECD and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to better inform their understanding of developments in Africa. It is true that sometime decision-makers do not like to hear of the widespread policy and institutional failure on the continent, but many do – especially those that are rapidly improving and beginning to see the rewards of their reforms. This research is also used to develop training curricula that address the needs of policy and regulators in a developing country context. So, for example, as part of the global research and training collaborative LIRNE.net we conduct a professional development course on alternative regulatory strategies at the UCT Graduate School of Business Infrastructure Reform and Regulation Programme to build institutional capacity on the continent. So CPRafrica is just one arm of a multi-pronged strategy of research and education, institutional capacity building and technical assistance and dissemination and advocacy, through our website database, policy papers and workshop and public presentations.

CHAKULA: What is the way forward for the conference? Will there be more?

AG: Yes, in order to build and sustain this much-needed capacity we will have to find a way for CPRafrica to become an annual institution.

Related links:

M-Banking the Unbanked: RIA Policy Paper No. 4:

http://www.researchictafrica.net/new/images/uploads/RIA_Mobile-banking.pdf

CPRafrica conference details: http://www.researchictafrica.net/index.php/news/38-cprafrica-looking-back-at-a-decade-of-communications-reform-looking-forward-to-2020
//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

Innovation through competition: the budget telecom network model
e-interview with Rohan Samarajiva

Paper link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1564529

—————————————————————————-
“The status quo must be unbearable.”
—————————————————————————-

Rohan Samarajiva is the Chair and CEO of Lirnasia. His paper, “How the developing world may participate in the global Internet Economy: Innovation driven by competition” was presented at a workshop organised by the OECD and InfoDev in Paris, 10-11 September 2009.

CHAKULA: In your paper, you talk about the Budget Telecom Network Model (BTNM), which is brought about by competition allowing operators to reduce the transaction costs of low-end clients. This, as you point out, is different to the standard Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) model. How does it make the ARPU model redundant?

Rohan Samarajiva [RS]: ARPU is a short-hand that outside observers use to see if the firm is doing well, whether its prospects are good, etc. It is, like any indicator, imperfect. You get it by taking total revenue (preferably without extras like roaming) and dividing by number of subscribers. Of course no one really knows what a subscriber is any more, with even poor people holding up to five SIMs, foreigners having SIMs, no agreement on what an active SIM is and so on. You can get better results by looking at revenue per minute. Take total revenue (less roaming and other stuff) and divide by Average Minutes of Usage per User per Month (MOU). This is a better indicator. But investment analysts are still not used to this and it would require disclosing MOUs to calculate.

CHAKULA: Can ARPU be used as a business model?

[RS]: Operators do not actually do much with the ARPU. It is not a business model as such, just an indicator. But getting more from each subscriber (if this is known) is not a bad idea. Just that it does not predict whether the company will make money or not. The best indicator for that is EBITDA [Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization] margin. Sri Lanka in 2007 had an operator with LKR311 (approximately USD3 at the time) ARPU making close to 50% EBITDA margin. In the end, the success of a business model lies in whether it generates profit.

CHAKULA: What is your understanding of ‘innovation’ in the telecommunications space? You talk of “business innovation”, rather than, say, technological innovation?

[RS]: Tech innovation is important, but it is not the only thing. Pure tech innovation is done by manufacturers of network equipment and handsets. That is good. Business process innovations (e.g. lowering the costs of base stations through software) are done by operators. These include technical aspects, but are not limited to them. Shifting from one business model to another (discovering the latter) is also innovation, but it may or may not not have a tech aspect at all.

CHAKULA: What are the preconditions for innovation, do you think?

[RS]: The status quo must be unbearable. The BTNM innovation occurred when competition got so intense that there was no way to gain market share or even survive without doing something new.

CHAKULA: Does BTNM have implications for increased access to broadband internet for the majority of people on a continent like Africa?

[RS]: Yes. The latter part of the paper is entirely on the extension of BTNM to broadband. Some headlines are that operators must have enough money from voice that can be invested in the 3G plus networks. Once the overlay network is built out the operators have to offer low prices. Prepaid sachet pricing is best, where one buys packages of connectivity in minutes or in capacity. Here, because of lower transaction costs and prices there should be an influx of new customers. This is already on offer in Asia. Africa has to lower prices. Access will be over mobile networks, using dongles or built in modems, for laptops and other devices, including phones. ADSL will be a niche product. Wireless access is the future.

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

Abstracts should be submitted electronically at www[dot]cprsouth[dot]org on or before 25 April 2010. Full papers have to be submitted for final review by 01 August 2010.

Click here for more information on the conference and how to apply.

“The biggest contribution from research is not what is adopted, but what is adopted,” says Bill Melody, founding director of World Dialog on Regulation for Network Economies.

“Harmful policies that are avoided with the information generated from research.”

R K Arnold the head of the executive secretariat of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India says all its recommendation is based on extensive but decisions are not

“We used a (LirneAsia) research on a tax and the government reduced the tax. In infrastructure sharing we drawn heavily on your research,” Arnold said.

“But whether the decision makers use it at the top depends on a very fluid situation.”

In many countries government were heavily taxing telecom services. LirneAsia itself intervened in Sri Lanka to stop a levy from hurting the poorest users.

IDRC, a body that is funding research bodies says evidence has to be pushed to decision makers for people to benefit.

“Research can play a very critical role in specificity and timing,” says Stephen McGurk, IDRC India.

“To be heard requires persistence and timing.”

But is this optimism justified? Are cheap and portable devices like mobile phones and PDAs enough to make a real social and economic difference? Will these technologies draw Africa to and beyond the tipping point where development becomes self-sustainable? Or does more work need to be done?

Alison Gillwald welcomes the huge strides made in African telecommunications, but warns that the extension of networks and services in recent years has been “sub-optimal.”

Gillwald directs Research ICT Africa (RIA), a continent-wide partnership of specialists dedicated to building ICT policy and regulatory research capacity. The network, launched with seed funding from Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), is
hosted by The EDGE Institute in Johannesburg.

African telecommunications, says Gillwald, have been undermined by many countries’ own policies, governance arrangements, and market structures, and by the absence of institutional capacity and regulatory competence. The continent lags behind the rest of the globe in four key areas: access, quality of services, pricing, and regulatory environment.

Africans, in other words, remain disconnected from one another and from the wider world. As Gillwald puts it, “I don’t think we can talk about the ‘democratization of technology’ because we don’t have the essential ingredients.”

Full interview is here.

Exactly seven years from yesterday (still today to some), early in the morning on September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. The hijackers flew two of the airliners, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center. Another group of hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, whose ultimate target was either the United States Capitol or White House, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The rest, as we say, is history.

What 9/11 was to the West, ‘the’ tsunami was to the South. Caught unaware, more than 225,000 lives in eleven countries were lost on that fateful Boxing Day of 2004 by a tsunami caused as a result of an earthquake with that reached 9.1 in the Richter scale, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand were the hardest hit.

The two were different. The tsunami was a natural disaster and 9/11 was man-made. 9/11 events took 3,000 lives – and tsunami nearly 75 times of that. The tsunami did not create a recession as in the aftermath of 9/11 though the misery that it caused to millions of families and individuals in Asia was immeasurable.

They were similar. Both were universal tragedies that had an impact far beyond national boundaries. Both were turning points of modern human history. Both made the entire world stand still with utter shock and grief.

Then the inevitable questions: Can we let these repeat? Can Homo sapiens think of their common future in the blue planet if they are not ready to face the increasing threat from disasters – be they natural or man-made? What can WE do? What can I do?

What LIRNEasia did can be best presented in the words of International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in one of their electronic newsletters entitled ‘Research that matters’:

IDRC’s lead research partner was LIRNEasia, a non-profit organization that aims to improve the lives of Asia’s people by using information and communication technologies (ICTs). LIRNEasia has had considerable experience on the use of ICTs in disaster situations. The project also drew upon the extensive networking resources of Sarvodaya, a large village-based self-help movement in Sri Lanka, and upon the disaster communication expertise of Buddhi Weerasinghe of TVE Asia Pacific, Peter Anderson of Simon Fraser University, and Gordon Gow of the University of Alberta, among other partners.

The pilot study had two broad objectives. First, it sought to evaluate the suitability of various configurations of five technical systems, each with unique capabilities, for reaching Sri Lankan local leaders in an emergency: (a) a stand-alone “remote alarm device” incorporating a radio, siren, and flashing lights; (b) versatile Java-enabled mobile phones set up to receive text alerts in English, Sinhala, and Tamil; (c) “addressable” satellite radio sets capable of remote activation and of issuing targeted messages to vulnerable areas; (d) a warning system based on Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite technology that delivers pop-up screen alerts to personal computers; and (e) conventional fixed wireless telephones linked to the public network.

These options were tested for reliability under varying conditions, reaction time, bidirectionality (so that alerts can be confirmed and false warnings minimized), and degree of integration into daily life.

This last-mile system aims to complement and “amplify” the Sri Lankan government’s national alerting function, rather than to issue official public warnings. Project leaders hope that if they can demonstrate an efficient lastmile mechanism, the government will adopt it.

This goal may be advanced by pressure from Sri Lanka’s coastal villagers themselves. The project’s training exercises heightened their awareness of the importance of disaster preparedness, and many communities have demanded that such programs be continued and expanded. Many of the Sarvodaya villages have started emergency response committees to strengthen local disaster resilience.

Meanwhile, the technology and the training have been tested in an actual emergency situation. In September 2007 an earthquake triggered a government order for coastal areas to evacuate ahead of a possible tsunami. Most villages did so, but at least one community — thanks to links with the Colombo hub by satellite radio and Java-enabled phones — decided instead to monitor the situation. The emergency response coordinators observed the ocean before mobilizing the people to flee. In the end, the tsunami did not happen. The government order had been an overreaction, and so the system served to avoid a costly and needless evacuation.

This multi-faceted research endeavour has drawn attention to the many technical and people-centred problems that must be confronted if such hazard alert systems are to work.

(Full document can be downloaded from here or available at the IDRC site here.)

We know that research per se will not prevent the recurrence of 9/11 or a tsunami disaster. Still, we believe will help by allowing us to be more prepared. We are happy that we completed this research. And we are happy that our efforts have been recognized.

Rohan Samarajiva: International Development Research Centre

Rohan Samarajiva, executive director of LIRNEasia, describes how its pioneering research work is helping make communities more resilient in the face of disasters like tsunamis and cyclones.

Powered by ScribeFire.

LIRNEasia’s first book, ICT Infrastructure in Emerging Asia: Policy and Regulatory Roadblocks, edited by Rohan Samarajiva and Ayesha Zainudeen will be launched on December 16 2007.

The Chief guests at the event will be Shri K.Sridhara, Member (Technology) & Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & IT, and Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Professor of the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Madras.

The book looks at the policy and regulatory barriers to the expansion of information and communication technology infrastructure in emerging markets, based on Asian experience and is co-published by SAGE Publications and the International Development Research Centre. More information available at http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/ict-infrastructure-in-emerging-asia/

When it comes to using phones, the film says, people at the bottom of the income pyramid are no different from anyone else; they value the enhanced personal security, including emergency communications, and social networking benefits. Increasingly, poor people are not content with just using public phones or shared access phones (belonging friends or family). They see a utility and social value of having their own phones.

These insights emerged from LIRNEasia’s large representative sample survey of telephone use at BOP in India, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The survey conducted by ACNielsen, a multinational market research company, confirmed some known trends, whilst challenging conventional wisdom on several fronts. According to LIRNEasia Lead Economist Dr. Harsha de Silva, the findings completely debunked the myth that 50 per cent of people had never used a telephone.

Part 1

Scroll down for Part 2

The survey also found that men and women use phones pretty much the same way at the bottom of the pyramid. Says Ayesha Zainudeen, Senior Researcher, LIRNEasia: “There are almost no differences between men and women — except in the case of Pakistan, where you have the cultural factors playing in.”

The survey, supported by Canada’s International Development Research Centre, IDRC, has been well received by telecom operators and industry regulators across Asia.
 
The film features an interview with the head of Sri Lanka’s leading mobile phone company, Dialog Telekom, who acknowledges using survey findings to further customise products to suit aspirations at the bottom of the pyramid.                                                                              

The film will be premiered at the Third Global Knowledge Conference (GK3) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 11 to 13 December 2007. It will be part of an interactive quiz that LIRNEasia and TVE Asia Pacific will jointly present during the global event, expected to attract 2,000 participants.                                                                                                  

Focusing on the theme “Emerging People, Emerging Markets, Emerging Technologies”, GK3 will connect those in governments, business, civil society and academia engaged in using ICT tools for meeting the real world’s needs — to reduce poverty, increase incomes, create safer communities, create sustainable societies and support youth enterprise, etc.
                                                                                                                                                           The interactive quiz will be conducted by TVEAP Director Nalaka Gunawardene, who counts many years of experience in broadcast quiz shows. He will be joined by LIRNEasia’s research staff to provide the live audience with interesting insights into the wide-ranging survey.

The telecom industry believes that the next billion phone subscribers will come mostly from the emerging markets. Therefore, understanding tele-use at the bottom of the pyramid becomes very important.

As with all TVEAP films, Teleuse@BOP will be available to broadcast, civil society and educational users without a license fee.

Both LIRNEasia and TVE Asia Pacific are members of the Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP), conveners of the GK3 platform.

Part 2

The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Internship programme is for candidates who have shown interest in the creation and utilisation of knowledge from an international perspective and provides hands-on learning experiences in research programme management. Candidates can be Canadians, permanent residents, or citizens of developing countries, who are either currently registered in a Master’s Programme or have completed a Master’s Degree. The 14 awards provide exposure to research for international development through a programme of training in research management and grant administration under the guidance of IDRC programme staff.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The forum will bring together National Regulatory Agencies (NRAs), National Statistical Organizations (NSOs) and leading operators from the SAARC and ASEAN countries, and will focus on assessing telecommunications regulatory performance and establishing a sustainable system for measuring and benchmarking ICT sector indicators in developing Asia.

For more information about this event, email asia@lirne.net

This conference funded by the International Development Research Centre – Canada,  is being organized in support of the growing community of researchers and practitioners conducting research on the social, cultural, psychological, economic, political, and other transformations brought about by information and communications technologies (ICT) in the Asia-Pacific region.

The conference provides a forum for discussing life in the information society. Over 75 papers will be presented by researchers from different countries and disciplines on the usage and effects of ICTs on culture and society. Further, it is relevant to bring together people doing work on the impact of ICTs in the South, where the context presents new challenges and implications.

The conference will showcase an diverse set of panels comprising outstanding papers from around the world who are investigating the diverse impact of ICTs on people, work and communities in the Asia Pacific.  The conference
panels include:

• ICTs & Politics/Democratization/Social Movements

• ICTs & Political Mobilization

• ICTs & Online Relationships

• Mobile Phone Relationship

• E-Learning

• E-Governance

• M-Commerce

• ICTs & Rural Development/Agricultural Communities

• ICTs & Identities

• Digital Divide

• Technology Adoption

• Bridging Access

• ICTs & Work

• Call Center Work

• Virtual Organizations

• ICT Policy/Privacy/Legal Issues

• ICTs & Gender

The Conference expects to bring together 300 representatives from the academe, government, ICT industry, ICT-related societies, private sector and other development institutions from over 25 countries.  With this, the conference organizers expect that a lively exchange of ideas on the diverse aspects of ICT research will be generated.

The conference fee covers the conference materials, lunch, snacks and beverages:

• $150 (for  participants from economically developed nations (per capita income over $10,000 US)

• $100 for participants from economically developing nations (per capita income less than $10,000US) and students

The registration forms together with the tentative conference agenda can be downloaded above.    

NOTE: This conference is being organised by the Philippine ICT Researchers Network through the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) of the University of the Philippines. Please contact  Ms. Cheryll Soriano of the Conference Secretariat at research.ict(at)gmail.com  for all inquiries

The way to go
The Hindu Businessline, October 23, 2006
By Ambar Singh Roy

[...]Founded in September 2004, LIRNEasia (Learning Initiatives on Reforms for Network Economies) was initially focused on India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Indonesia.

This year, LIRNEasia’s research footprint has been extended to the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan.

Says Prof Rohan Samarajiva, Executive Director of LIRNEasia: “The Asia-Pacific is a leading region in ICT, both in manufacture and use. However, there are stark contrasts between the developed and emerging parts. LIRNEasia seeks to identify the institutional constraints on the effective use of ICTs to improve the lives of the people of Asia.

The organisation wants to work collaboratively with multiple stakeholders to catalyse changes conducive to greater participation by users and suppliers.” LIRNEasia’s team comprises 10 researchers from eight countries even as most of its programmes are funded by the International Development Research Centre of Canada.[...]

You can read the other two articles here:

• India tops in bridging digital divide

• Philippines is ‘SMS capital’ of the world 

Download Call for Papers

The Philippine ICT Researchers Network through the National College of Public Administration and Governance of the University of the Philippines is hosting an international conference on “Living the Information Society: The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on People, Work and Communities in Asia.” This conference will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, Makati City on April 23-24, 2007. The event is also co-sponsored by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

The workshop brought together representatives of National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), National Statistical Organizations (NSOs) and operators from Afghanistan, Bangaldesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka along with the foremost authorities on the subject from the ITU, OECD, and the US National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI). With nearly 60 participants from 16 countries, the Workshop was also attended by telecom researchers from the Asian region.

The three day workshop was intended to elicit the cooperation of representatives from NRAs, NSOs and industry associations from the regional countries in establishing a sustainable system for measuring and benchmarking ICT sector input and output indicators for South Asia that can be extended to developing Asia.

Download the workshop materials HERE

Download the complete programme HERE

Download the workshop report from HERE

1 March 2006

Welcome and Introduction
Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia | Download Speech |

Keynote Address
Pradip Baijal, Chairman, TRAI | Download Speech |

2 March, 2006

Improving Sector Performance through indicators and benchmarking
Sam Paltridge, OECD | Download Presentation |

Panel on International good practices
Sam Paltridge, OECD | Download Presentation |
Lilia Perez-Chavolla, NRRI | Download Presentation |
Tim Kelly, ITU | Download Presentation |

What needs measuring in Developing Asia
Sriganesh Lokanathan & Ayesha Zainudeen, LIRNEasia | Download Presentation |

TRAI’s experience with gathering and publishing indicators
Rajendra Singh, Secretary, TRAI | Download Presentation |

Socio-Economic Indicators on ICTs
Laveesh Bhandari, Indicus Analytics | Download Presentation |

3 March, 2006

Ensuring quality of Indicators
Tim Kelly, ITU | Download Presentation |

Operator Perspectives
S.C. Khanna , Association of Unified Telecom Providers of India (AUSPI)

e-indicators
Sam Paltridge, OECD | Download Presentation |

Investment, Employment & Value Chain Benefits
Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia | Download Presentation |
Gaurav Singh, NASSCOM

Next Steps
D.P.S. Seth, Member, TRAI
Rajendra Singh, Secretary, TRAI