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.

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

Recent International Telecommunication Union (ITU) data reveals that the success of India’s telecom revolution is restricted to mobile voice with very little to showcase in fixed line and internet access, or high-speed broadband. For a country that is the global IT and ITeS capital or the world’s back office, its own internet penetration remains one of the lowest in the world. Forecasts are equally uninspiring, projecting high-speed internet access to remain abysmal till 2012.

Internet broadband penetration will limp along to eventually reach a measly 3.9 connections for every 100 citizens by 2012. Even though internet users may be multiple times higher, actual broadband penetration will not exceed 18.1 million at the beginning of the next decade. In contrast, mobile telephony will add as many as 350 million subscribers during this five-year period to end at roughly 615 million by mid 2012.

These forecasts fall short of the government’s conservative target of 20 million high-speed internet subscribers by 2010-end. India’s broadband penetration is roughly 4.5 million subscribers. Even with a 300% growth rate over the next five years, the sector will fall short of the 50 million mark by 2012.

Read the full story in The Times of India here.

Hamadoun Touré, ITU Secretary-General, said the figure is cited in the United Nations agency’s regional report entitled “African Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2008: At a Crossroads,” which he presented at the opening of the ITU Telecom Africa trade fair here on Monday.

A UN press release quoted Toure as saying, “Today, the African ICT industry is an exciting place to be. Market liberalization continues and most countries have established regulatory bodies to ensure a fair, competitive and enabling environment.”

The report indicated that there were more than 250 million mobile subscribers on the continent at the start of 2008.

After Global Agreement, Companies May Bid Higher at Wireless Auction in U.S. – New York Times

Because the conference elicited a global consensus, that confidence should extend worldwide. The conference said that countries could use the 700-megahertz slice for wireless broadband services like cellphones, mobile TV and WiMax, although at each country’s time of choosing.

The conclusions of the conference, which operates under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, carry the weight of an international treaty.

“Most people in the industry believe this will be very important going forward in terms of supplying new services and new technologies to consumers around the world,” said Richard Russell, who led the 150-member United States delegation, which included government and industry representatives.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The United Nations telecommunications agency in Geneva gave the upstart technology called WiMax a vote of approval, providing a sizable victory for Intel and something of a defeat for competing technologies from Qualcomm and Ericsson.

The International Telecommunication Union’s radio assembly agreed late Thursday to include WiMax, a wireless technology that allows Internet and other data connections across much broader areas than Wi-Fi, as part of what is called the third-generation family of mobile standards.

That endorsement opens the way for many of the union’s member countries to devote a part of the public radio spectrum to WiMax, and receivers for it could be built into laptop computers, phones, music players and other portable devices.

Powered by ScribeFire.

http://www.lbo.lk/fullstory.php?newsID=2020236857&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=24 
 
March 08 (LBO) – Indonesia, like Sri Lanka, sends its women to foreign lands to work as housemaids. The numbers may be larger, though the proportion is smaller. 
 
Telecom networks are expanding fast in both countries, Indonesia faster. The telecom sector is attracting massive investments in both countries as operators scramble to meet the burgeoning demand.

Generally, politicians and officials responsible for a sector are happy when it grows. Therefore, I was surprised to hear several senior telecom officials in Indonesia express concern about lowered gold sales supposedly caused by excessive use of calling cards by expatriate housemaids.

I could understand concern from those in charge of gold sales, but this was telecom.

I thought this was an Indonesian peculiarity, until I heard it in a different form from a Sri Lankan journalist. “The westerners had given us phones,” he said, “but not taught us how to use them: our people are wasting their money on phone calls.”

“What is waste,” I asked. I did not receive an answer.

Beneath both statements lay a concern about “wrong” uses of technology by people lacking the good judgment that the speaker was endowed with. But let us see what the evidence is on how poor people use phones.

How do people actually use telephones?

LIRNEasia recently conducted a five-country sample survey, involving almost 9,000 respondents, of how people at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) use information and communication technologies (ICTs). AC Nielsen affiliates in the five countries conducted the field research in July-August 2006.

This study, which used quantitative methods including a diary in which people recorded each call made in a two-week period including purpose, duration, and cost, provides unique insights on teleuse at the bottom of the pyramid, defined as the two lowest (D and E) socio-economic classification (SEC) groups in each of the five countries.

In Sri Lanka, the study accurately represents teleuse by 4 million Sri Lankans, ages 18-60 in SEC D and E, with a margin of error less than 3 percent.

Ninety two percent of those approached had used a telephone in the past three months. Of the users at the BOP in Sri Lanka, 41 percent owned the phone they had used. The others relied on friends, relatives, neighbors, and communication bureaus.

Both numbers are unexpectedly high. An overwhelming majority of people in these countries (that include a substantial part of South Asia, the largest concentration of poor people in the world), are familiar with the telephone. This allows one to infer that many of the world’s people are indeed familiar with, and have used, telephones.

This is a sea change from the claim made just eight years ago that half the world’s people have never made or received a phone call by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in a speech at an International Telecommunication Union event. (Read Speech)

The number that owned mobile phones or had a fixed phone within the house in Sri Lanka (41 per cent) was also high; in India, the comparable number was 19 per cent.

As recently as in 2004, the Central Bank’s consumer finance survey showed that 25 percent of the households had some kind of phone, fixed or mobile. The LIRNEasia survey shows that, just two years later, 41 per cent of the poorest households had some kind of phone in the house, indicating that the percentage of households with phones overall has to be even higher.

Sixty five percent of those at the BOP in Sri Lanka could reach a telephone within five minutes. Over 95 percent could reach a phone within one hour.

These people used the phone sparingly: 13 outgoing calls a month on average and 10 incoming. Obviously, those who owned a phone made/received more calls than those who had to go to a neighbor’s house or a communication bureau for that purpose.

Their calls were of short duration, 80 percent being less than three minutes long.

The principal purpose of calls for 65 percent of users at the BOP was to keep in touch with friends and family. Except in Thailand (29 percent), very few at the bottom of the pyramid used the phone for explicit business or instrumental purposes. In Sri Lanka, only eight percent reported this as the principal purpose.

Of course, the task of differentiating a call to friends and family from a business call in a not-fully monetized economy is not an easy one. Unlike in developed countries where roles are clearly demarcated and the division of labor is sharply defined, in countries like Sri Lanka, especially at the bottom of the pyramid, the roles are intermixed.

For example, maintaining good relations with one’s brother-in-law may be no different at the BOP than making a call to one’s insurance agent, because in a society lacking insurance, the reliance has to be on friends and family.

Compared to other South Asian BOP teleusers, the Sri Lankans made more international calls, explainable both by the large number of expatriate workers and the low international call prices. Four percent of the calls made at the Sri Lankan BOP were international, just below the Philippines (six percent)

A 2005 study conducted during the window of opportunity created by the MOU in 2002-2004, showed that the inhabitants of Jaffna were the heaviest users of international calls among the four districts (Badulla, Colombo, Hambantota and Jaffna) surveyed.

Seventy five percent of Jaffna mobile users made calls to family and friends abroad. Fifty five percent of public-phone users in Jaffna called abroad.

Teleusers at the BOP used a variety of cost-saving techniques. Sixty percent use texting (SMS) though the levels of use are less than in the SMS capital of the world, the Philippines, where everyone texts and almost everyone texts at least once a day.

In 2006, calling off-peak and missed calls (ringcuts) were among the most popular cost-minimizing strategies at the Sri Lankan BOP, used by 40 percent and 35 percent users respectively.

When asked the reasons for owning a phone, the highest weight was given to its utility in an emergency, 4.58 on a scale of 5. The phone was seen as improving the efficiency of day-to-day lives, 3.98 on a scale of 5.

However, the value assigned to allowing one to make money or save was the lowest in Sri Lanka (3.19/5 as against 3.97/5 for India, for example), possibly an artifact of the RPP [Receiving Party Pays] regime that remains only in Sri Lanka among the countries surveyed.

Only one per cent at the BOP used the Internet. Seventy percent had heard of the Internet but never used it, a much higher number than India (28 percent).

So this is the portrait of teleuse at the BOP. These people appear to be using the phone most frugally and intelligently, though they do spend a higher proportion of their limited income on telecom services.

So what could be the concern about gold and waste?

Obviously, the rapid growth of telecom is pulling time (attention) and money away from other industries. But why do officials in one case and a journalist in the other think that money and time spent on telecom is misdirected?

It could be that the critics consider telephone calls, lacking tangibility, as ephemeral and lacking in value. But they should just look at the Stock Market and the entertainment industries: ephemeral products, but a great deal of value changing hands.

It may not be the phone that is drawing their ire, but the users. In the “bad old days” of government-owned integrated monopoly, one had to be somebody to get a phone; either you knew the right people or had a lot of money.

This is no longer the case with over 5 million mobiles in use and almost 2 million households connected; nobodies are using mobile phones think the self-appointed somebodies. The phone is no longer a factor that differentiates somebodies from nobodies.

The objection to phones could be a remnant of paternalistic thinking. Perhaps the thinking goes that a call from a mother in the Middle East to the children left behind is not the best use of limited Dirhams. Better to use that money to buy gold to bring home and bury in the garden for use in a time of need.

These people have obviously not heard of consumer sovereignty. The poor, as much as the rich, have a right to spend their money as they see fit.

The fact remains that the BOP in the Asia Pacific (South Asia in particular) is teaching the whole world about the value of connectivity. They are talking and texting more for less, forcing the adoption of new business models that allow profits to be made with very low average revenues per user.

In India, a mobile is used for over 400 minutes a month (incoming and outgoing) and generates around USD 7 in monthly revenue. In Sri Lanka the equivalent numbers are 200 minutes and USD 6.

In the rich countries represented in the OECD, the minutes of use per month is as low as 65, for a much higher payment. And yet, the companies in emerging Asia are investing massively and making more than respectable profits.

Globalization and mismanagement of national economies are making all people more mobile. Even those at the bottom of the pyramid have been compelled to abandon their settled ways and migrate to distant parts, within and outside their countries. Telecom provides an invaluable link with loved ones in this turbulent time. 

Relationships are more valuable than gold. They are built and sustained by talk, on the phone and in person. Talk of this kind is definitely not a waste. 
 
 
 

What’s in an ‘i’? Internet governance – Technology & Media – International Herald Tribune

When David Gross heard last month that the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, wanted to lower-case the word Internet as a matter of official policy, he did not know whether to be alarmed or amused.

“We immediately thought, ‘Gee, what’s up with that?’” Gross, the coordinator for international communications and information policy at the U.S. State Department, said by telephone from Washington last week. “Who made the decision and on what basis? We didn’t have a clue if this was something insignificant or significant.”

But some others among the 2,100 participants at the union’s highest-level strategy meeting, which convened for three weeks in November in Antalya, Turkey, were more certain. They saw the move as the latest in a long-running effort by the organization to control the Internet, this time through a subtle yet symbolic imprint on the most powerful communications and commercial tool of the 21st century.

Figure 1:

Goswami, lead researcher on LIRNEasia’s Indonesia ICT sector and regulatory performance study, chaired a session that included keynote presentations by Dr Sofyan Djalil, the Indonesian Minister of ICTs. Samarajiva’s session on universal access included keynotes by the Vice President of China Unicom, Dr Zhengmao Li, and Tom Philllips, the Head of Regulatory Affairs at the GSM Association.

LIRNEasia has an ongoing research program that covers India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, in addition to capacity building work across the entire Asia Pacific. The invitations to chair the said sessions demonstrated the high recognition that LIRNEasia has achieved in the two years of its existence. Samarajiva and Goswami are the only representatives from non-profit research organizations invited as session chairs, outside the US, the UK and the host country.

Samarajiva was an invited speaker at previous Forums– Telecom Asia 2004 (Busan, Korea), Telecom Asia 2002 (Hong Kong), Telecom Africa 2001 (Johannesburg) and Telecom World 1999 (Geneva)—, and chaired the ITU expert workshop on fixed-mobile interconnection in 2000 and served on the ITU Secretary General’s Expert Group on International Telecommunication Regulations, 1999-2000.

The 2007 course is designed to enhance the strategic thinking of a select group of senior decision makers in the telecom and related sectors in the Asia Pacific and elsewhere. The focus will be on the most current strategic issues.

The faculty includes:
Prof. William Melody (course convener; designed and led the previous Telecom Reform courses); Prof. Rohan Samarajiva (course convener;designed and led the previous Telecom Reform courses); Dr. Tim Kelly, Head of the Strategy and Policy Unit of the International Telecommunication Union; Mr. Rajendra Singh, of the World Bank, also Former Secretary, TRAI; and Dr. Harsha de Silva, Lead Economist at LIRNEasia.

Mr. Yusuf Annuar Yaacob (Chief Executive Officer of TM International Sdn Bhd. [Telekom Malaysia], a leading investor in the South and South East Asian region) will deliver the keynote at the opening session.

M.H Au (Director General of Telecom, Hong Kong China) will deliver the keynote speech at the course banquet on 1 March.

A day and a half will be set apart for discussing cutting-edge research on sector and regulatory performance commissioned as part of the 2006-07 World Dialogue on Regulation at the Expert Forum on March 2nd and 3rd.

This will be the 11th LIRNE.NET executive training course on telecom regulation, and the second to be offered in the Asia Pacific by LIRNEasia and CONNECTasia Forum Pte. Ltd. Previous LIRNE.NET courses have been offered in Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean. This course builds on the successful course held in Singapore in September 2005, with attendees from 18 countries.

Registration ends: January 10th, 2007 (early bird) or February 9th, 2007 (regular; extended due to some seats coming open at the last minute)

More information…

Materials on the Workshop on ICT Indicators, New Delhi 

Complete programme on the Workshop on ICT Indicators, New Delhi 

Speeches and Presentations on the Workshop on ICT Indicators, New Delhi 

Report on the Workshop on ICT Indicators, New Delhi