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.

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

The cuts will likely please fixed operator BT and small mobile operator 3, who both teamed on a campaign to get the rate either cut or dropped entirely. Smaller mobile operators tend to pay more in mobile termination rates as their users are likely to spend more time communicating with other networks than their own. The UK’s larger operators – Vodafone, O2, Orange and T-Mobile – face losing out on up to £1 billion in revenue according to reports. Ian Scales of Telecom TV demands, “Why not take it to zero?”  But the Guardian is skeptic, “This is only a proposal from Ofcom so there will be an awful lot of lobbying from the four big networks, not least of the potential Conservative government, to reduce the severity of the price cuts.”

At least some have first assumed it a practical joke, but Daily Mirror online confirmed President did send a New Year wish to all mobile users today. Using romanised Sinhala President wrote “Kiwu paridi obata NIDAHAS, NIVAHAL RATAK laba dunnemi. Idiri anagathaya sarwapparakarayenma Wasanawantha Wewa! SUBA NAWA WASARAK WEWA! Mahinda Rajapaksa” (As promised I delivered you an independent and free country. May your future be a success. Happy New Year!)

At the cost of LKR 1 per SMS message, this might have cost approximately USD 150,000 – equivalent to publishing roughly 75 full-page colour advertisements in national newspapers.

Sender’s number was hidden so the millions of mobile users, now constitute at least half of the population, could not return the greetings.

Had Cell Broadcasting (CB) been available in Sri Lanka, President would not have to use SMS – which is relatively too cumbersome for both the sender and receiver. CB would have been more economical too. Given that it uses a different band and sends messages together, it wouldn’t have congested the networks and the cost would have been certainly less than USD 150,000. As CB, unlike SMS differentiates users President could have even used a romanised Tamil message in Northern Province.

LIRNEasia have been a promoter of CB – mainly for, but not limited to early warning. It can be used effectively for other commercial and non commercial messages. Rohan Samarajiva highlighted some of its advantages over SMS in his short presentation in ‘Beyond the typical Early Warning Systems’ session at LIRNEasia at 5 conference. Download the presentation slides for more details.

April, 2008

October, 2009

I took the first photo. That was in April 2008 in an informal telecenter visit. The second one appeared in a Sinhala blog recently.

Mangedara Nenasala telecenter at Thulhiriya (less than 2 km from MAS Holdings) is one of the hundreds of defunct Nenasala telecenters. During better times it provided services such as utility bill payments and computer training. Now it remains closed since the operator, who was never paid for his services, left for better opportunities.

The findings of the telecenter operator survey done by LIRNEasia at a workshop organised by Sarvodaya in October 2008 will be useful to understand why Nenasalas fail. (Sample was not representative, but large enough to get a general idea about the telecenter operations in Sri Lanka.)

Do telecenters in Sri Lanka make money? Yes. They report an average monthly income of Rs. 22,119. (=USD 201) This is associated with a relatively large standard deviation of Rs. 21,714 (= USD 197) indicating a variation within a wide range. This means a large number of telecenters are running at a loss.

Providing Internet services ranked only third among telecenter income components (16%). The key sources of income are education and training (43%) and providing fax, photocopy and printing series (21%). They also make money from VoIP (4.5%), utility bill payments (2.5%) telephone calls (2.5%) selling other goods (2%) and VCD/DVD rentals (1%).

Do telecenters make a profit? Yes, but perhaps may not in real terms. They record a monthly average profit of Rs. 6,735 (=USD 61) with a large standard deviation of Rs. 9,504 (=USD 86). This indicates the loss incurred by some of them. This is again without considering the cost of the communication link. (The monthly average cost of a 2 Mbps business broadband connection is USD 46 in Colombo. This might be slightly high in rural areas.)

Telecenters operators are rewarded in different ways. Only 33% are salaried. 22% receive a share of profits. 13% receive an allowanced based on performance. 32% receive no personal income.

Presentation began by looking at the potential for M-money.

Why should we use m-money?

Improving efficiency: Improve services, financial services. BOP a target.

BOP (migrants) relies on various forms of remittances

Looking at Filipinos, 9% of BOP had a relative living abroad, and 13% in another part of the country, so there is a vested interest in m-money.

At present about 5% is going through informal channels according to the Filipino central bank. According to respondents about 80% sent through banks.

Workers need access to bank accounts in both the remitting and remitted country for remittances through banks. This is a limitation. M-money may not necessarily need an account in the remitting country.

Filipino workers generally prefere formal channels. Todays presentation will focus on m-money channels such as smart money of g-cash.

ADB: Transaction costs about 2.5%-3.5% of remittances.

For local remittances: Pawn shops used. Roughly remits around Php 500-1000. These are potential targets for m-money.

RS: How does the Pawn shops work? Pawn shops have a wide network, usually works through a call or SMS. A transaction number will be given to the person sending the money. The number will be given to the person who is due to receive the money. Identification is required for acquiring the cash. This is with regards to local remittances.

HG: Do the pawn shops work together, or is there a network that belong to one company. There is one network which has about 12,000 pawn shops.

Vasana: Are they licenced? EA: They are regulated by the central bank to a certain extend.

Central bank regulation is due to Anti Terrorism laws. Pawn shops charge a higher rate of interest. Technology is a catalyst for changing remittance landscape.

M-banking is one component of electronic money according to Circular 649 of Filipino Central Bank. M-Money is E-money stored in a mobile.

Electronic money defined as stored value or pre-paid payment mechanisms.

RS: can money loaded to the a pre-paid mobile account be refunded? EA: It is one of the issues which is going through regulatory process now.

3 modes of e-money issuers in Philippines: Bank (Smart money), Non bank financial institution recognised by BSP (Central Bank), Non bank registered with BSP as a money transfer agent (Example, GLOBE)

Registration is easier with Globe. Can do through SMS.

Looking at potential of M-money at the BOP the following method was used:
Method of access, Material access, skills access, Usage access

Method of access
Using LIRNEasia survey data, re-method of access, 566% of those who didnt use it said didnt know how to use it. According to focus group discussions, even though they were aware, they needed proof of efficiency, price.

With e-loading, familiarity with the Roman script is an advantage. If a person is familiar with transferring e-loads then using m-money will be easier.

Trust issues, Central bank looking at some of the issues. Security mechanisms such as PIN codes. At present Php 100,000 is the limit for any type of e-money. Same for M-money. Even if you have four m-money accounts, the total should be 100,000.

Material Access:
Only 13% of BOP have access to Bank accounts

On avearge there were 1.36 mobiles per household. More access to a mobile phones so there fore more potential for m-money.

Identification documents and physical access to cash in are seen as barriers to M-banking.

Individuals can get there m-money (Gcash) out from ATMs and cash in cash out venues. Therefore accessibility is an issue. There are already some Pawn shops being used as cash in cash out venues.

Can register from a distance but need to go to the bank to cash in. No identification cards in Philippines. Propoer identification is a problem in the Philippines.

Skills Access
40% of those surveyed in the LINREasia survey are familiar with e-loading.

99% of surveyed mobile users use SMS.

Filipinos top up small values at shorter time frames. Use to exchanging mobile top ups. This is consistent with remittance patterns.  Comparatively, Filipinos send money often in smaller amounts

GCASH and Smart are accepted as forms of payment in Philippines, but this maybe more common among the more affluent users.

GLOBE (2006): Transacting USD 117 Million on average.

SMART (2006) Transacting USD 257,200 average daily transactions.

HG: How much is charged for Transactions? EA: Basic of SMS cost, plus 1% of transaction cost or minimum of Php 10.

HG: Transmission takes one or multiple SMS? EA: Have to confirm but it maybe a minimum of 2 SMSs.

Challenges and Policy issues:

1) Developing mental access: Increasing awareness, better financial advantages.

2) Developing Material access: Making services that work with the kinds of phones used by BOP, making cash in/cash out more accessible.
Regulating GCASH and SMART:

100% reserve requirement

HG: 100% reserve requirement for just e-money or any transfer? EA: Thats for e-money.

HG: Is there a time limit on the money put in the e-money account? a 100% RR is very high. EA: They do not work as banks. Money is earned through transactions.

Policy Issues:
Security of the systems

prevention of fraud

Interoperability

Tracking users

Increasing access

RS: Comparisson with M-Pesa in Kenya will be useful.

HG: Comaprison with the regular banking transactions will also be useful.

Last week two Chinese nationals were arrested while the authorities busted a bypass den at Islamabad. They have been allegedly the partner of an “influential Pakistani” in this illegal venture. It claims to have caused an estimated six billion rupees (US$74 million) loss to the exchequer. The news followed by a lively debate is going on.

Meanwhile, the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (ISPAK) has rejected a regulatory decree to deploy necessary countermeasures to block the VoIP traffic. Their argument and a loud debate can be viewed here

How was the telecom market affected? In the same report, a figure shows how the subscriber base increased over time. However, the rate of growth declined in recent quarters. In 2007, the rate of growth was 9.9 percent; 2008 ended with a minus 0.3 percent growth. The average revenue per user went from USD 3.1 in the last quarter of 2007 to USD 2.58 during the last quarter of 2008.

Similarly in Sri Lanka, government has seen the mobile industry as an easy source of revenue through taxes and levies. There may be lessons for Sri Lanka from the counter-productive outcomes of Pakistan’s efforts to milk the golden mobile goose.

LIRNEasia’s T@BOP3 study conducted in 6 Asian countries indicated that only 38 percent of households at the bottom of the pyramid in Pakistan have access to mobile phones. There are consumers waiting to adopt mobile phones. Shouldn’t the government make efforts to make them available to them? Getting more people connected and taking a reasonable share of their payments as tax would be more productive than imposing taxes that bar them from becoming customers and deprive the government of tax revenues.

The PTA is to be applauded for doing these kinds of analyses. One hopes that the government of Pakistan will take remedial action to get telecom growth back on track. One hopes that other regulatory agencies will conduct and publish similar studies.

Multiple dishes is a common sight at many Nenasalas – the ‘telecentres’ set up under the e-Sri Lanka program, funded by the World Bank. Some of them are huge – with diameters little less than 2m. Having not done a design recently, I cannot tell the prices offhand, but I do know they are expensive – one such dish (with equipment) costs few times more than the aggregate cost of the PCs and peripherals in the centre.

Why a telecenter is equipped with multiple dishes?

The reason is, sadly, poor planning. ICTA, the implementation agency changes the communication services provider frequently. Few years have elapsed since the services from the initial provider have been discontinued, but he has never bothered to remove the dishes. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. The capital expenditure has been fully included within the Rs. 90 million (US$ 900,000) amount charged to provide VSAT services to then 200 odd Nenasalas for a period of one year.

The sadder part is even with such a substantial expense these centres are not provided broadband. What they receive is 128 kbps – something not too different from dial-up.

That is when some of these centers are already within the 3G coverage areas. Out of the three above two centers receive 3G signals. Not too great, but adequate for a telecenter and certainly better than a 128 kbps link.

We will be glad to learn what Udaya Gammanpila, ex-Chairman Central Environmental Authority, (who was once worried about used mobile phones creating an e-waste issue) thinks about the environmental damage created by these non-functional dishes, even if we ignore the huge sunk cost.

His latest holler, as reported by ‘The Catalyst’ – the newsletter of the Information and Communication Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA), the apex body of ICTs that spearhead the e-Sri Lanka program, funded by the World Bank, goes as follows:

“At a time when the ‘world funding bodies’ proposed the setting of Internet cafes in cities of Sri Lanka in a manner that would only cater only to the rich elite, President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided that Nenasalas or wisdom outlets should be setup instead island-wide to cater to the poor rural folk.”

We are certain the World Bank’s ability to speak for itself, but feel the need to set the record straight especially for the benefit of those who are unaware of the history of e-Sri Lanka program.

Firstly, Mr. Minister, Cyber cafes are not for rich elite, who now have their own laptops with HSPA connections. Cyber cafes are for the poor, who cannot afford their own PCs, and right now serve millions in countries like Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. In most of the Asian societies cyber cafes – surely not the donor supported telecenters – are the key means of Internet access by the poor.

Secondly Mr. Minister, World Bank or any other Development Agency for that matter, has never promoted the idea of net access for the rich. No matter what the flaws in the approach, their priority has always been rural areas typically not served by the market. If you care to check the original e-Sri Lanka document, you will find there have never been any suggestions to setup telecenters for rich Colombo elite. On the contrary, the Nenasalas within center Colombo, was introduced only after 2004.

Thirdly, Mr. Minister, the idea of having Vishva Gnana Kendras (VGKs) – as the forerunner was known – was to have more financially viable tele-centers, which could stand on their own feet, instead creating a donor funded unsustainable model. The fallacy of Nenasala model is yet to be discovered at the point of the end of donor funding. For example, according to Niranjan Meegammana, a consultant to ICTA, sixteen Nenasalas in Uva province (Girandurukotte, Balagolla, Talakumbura, Kabillegama, Parahettiya, Hali Ela, Maspanna, Divurumpola, Wekumbura, Badalkumbura, Therulla, Siyambalanduwa, Ethimale, Suriya-ara and Kiri Vehera) earns less than USD 50 per month – too little to cover even their operating costs. How these Nenasalas will continue without donor funding is a question awaiting an answer.

Fourthly, Mr. Minister, not all Nenasalas cater to the poor. Having visited them personally we can name few Nenasala’s which never opens their door to the poor but used only by the rich incumbent priests of the temples – against the wishes of the donors.

The truth can be very different from what the voters wants to hear.

Murthy talked for 40 minutes, and delivered the gems, for anybody to pick. Develop infrastructure; Build HR or import if not enough; Encourage foreign investment; Avoid fat government; Give confidence to private sector; Nurture venture capitalists: Change labour laws; Provide equal opportunities for both genders; Ensure peace, political stability and correct fiscal environment because they are the key to the growth of IT and ITES industries and don’t be scared to innovate. That was the txt ver.

For most IT professionals in the audience, the speech might have sounded strangely familiar. No surprise. It was the same wisdom the speaker shared with almost the same crowd in 2003, as IT advisor to then Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe – who unfortunately wasn’t there in the audience today to confirm. (We are told Murthy was appointed, or rather re-appointed, IT advisor yesterday, this time to President Mahinda Rajapakse.)

Will it be too blunt to ask whether Sri Lankan software industry needs the very guidance, six years later?

Perhaps it does, like that naughty boy who never listen to his teachers. SLASSCOM Chairman Ranjit Fernando repeatedly reminded, in global terms, Sri Lanka’s IT industry is still at its infancy. Not sure what Central Bank would say. In 2003, combined IT and ITES industry in Sri Lanka was USD 80 million. For 2007, Central Bank didn’t give a figure. Industry estimates it between USD 100 -150 million. Some development but might not be as impressive as the ‘Hindu rate of growth’ across Palk Strait. According to Murthy, the USD 60 billion Indian IT/ITES industry now provides 250,000 direct and 300,000 indirect employment opportunities. Fernando wants to increase the 11,000 IT jobs in Sri Lanka today to 100,000 within three years, by following the Indian example. Extremely ambitious plan, in a time of global recession.

Peter De Almeida, of N-Able has different views. We tried, he says, but missed the bus. Why try repeating the same? Why not try differently? Perhaps he has a point. It was Einstein who reportedly defined insanity as repeating the same experiment and expecting different results.

When I first met Isuru Seneviratne in late 90s (in cyberspace) he was a twelve year old student. Life was not always sympathetic to this eldest of a family of three. Flickr still has a photo showing young Isuru and his sister assisting their parents in poultry. His father was a famer – then the only breadwinner of the family. Most farmers do not have a fixed income. Isuru’s father made less than USD 75 per month on average, but in some months nothing. Growing up in a village surrounded by thick jungle, 40 km to nearest town, and has never seen a telephone, it looked like Isuru had his fate already written. One way avoid following parents’ footsteps to agriculture was joining security forces. There is a thirty year old ongoing war in Sri Lanka and most village boys find forces attractive. Isuru did neither.

Ten years later, Isuru leads the first rural BPO in the island. It has eleven seats and expanding fast. The barrier to expansion is the difficulty in finding staff and training and not the lack of jobs (They have enough) Today Isuru and his sister (an operator) together earn USD 300 fixed monthly income. Not comparable with the salaries of the urban call center agents, but with low cost of it is far more than it sounds. In addition to supporting his younger brother’s education, Isuru also has bought a motor bicycle, a dream his father could never make true. At 22 years, he is also the bread winner of the family.

Download the full article at i4d.

Obama stated his intention to invest in these areas during the presidential debates in September and came back to the issue in a December address that he issued as president-elect, but over the weekend he added concrete goals to the plan.

But on one aspect of the recovery plan — expanding broadband access — he offered no concrete goals and a supporting document issued by the White House doesn’t mention the word “broadband” once..

The broadband expansion is part of the infrastructure portion of the plan that will also invest in the road network, mass transit, ports and emergency communications system for law enforcement.

“It means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located,” he said without offering any goals.

Read the full story in PC World here.

There aren’t a lot of details yet on how that $6 billion would be given out, but it doesn’t seem to encompass the tax breaks phone and cable companies were lobbying for. Even so, the wireless industry was cheering Thursday morning because a summary of the spending released by House Democrats calls for the money to be used on “broadband and wireless grants.”

Wireless companies were concerned that the money would be earmarked for cable and phone companies providing fiber to the home.

On Wednesday, an Obama adviser who’s been in charge of the broadband stimulus package indicated that industry and tech expectations about the broadband part of the package had gotten a bit out of control.

“The broadband piece of the Obama agenda is not going to be done solely in the economic recovery package,” said Blair Levin, a telecom analyst and former FCC chief of staff who’s been advising the campaign on how to structure its broadband plan. He was speaking at a tech conference on Capitol Hill.

Read the full article in Wall Street Journal here.

Indonesia limits foreign ownership in the telecommunication sector to a maximum of 65 percent for mobile phone operators and 49 percent for fixed-line operators.

Two tender offers would begin concurrently in Indonesia and the United States at 7,388 rupiahs ($0.661) per share and would expire on Feb. 18, Qtel said.

“The Indonesian government has determined that Qtel’s total ownership will be limited to 65 percent of Indosat,” Qtel said in a statement.

“Guided by this ruling, Qtel is thus offering to acquire an additional stake of up to approximately 24.19 percent of Indosat, after taking into account its existing 40.81 percent indirect stake in Indosat,” Qtel said.

Qtel bought a stake in Indosat, the country’s second largest mobile phone operator, from Singapore Technology Telemedia for $1.35 billion in June, increasing its ownership of the company to 40.81 percent from around 10 percent.

Indonesia’s communications minister specified last year Qtel should not control more than 65 percent of Indosat and that it had to separate its mobile and fixed-line business in two years.

Read the full story in Reuters here.