Re: [ISOC_KE] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Hi Brian, You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform. Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few? Best Regards On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
They are here. Let them respond. As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve. James On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation" Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now let me make some noise. I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job" along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment into the PKI project....disgusting.... Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise you, zero change in the plans/design... On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> wrote:
They are here. Let them respond.
As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve.
James
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com
wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (3)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Brian Munyao Longwe -
James Mbugua