the i-witnesses

Africa gets connected

At long last the World Bank has approved a US$164.5 million package to connect East and Southern Africa to the global broadband infrastructure – which will enable cheaper access to the internet and international phonecalls.

The total cost of the project is estimated to be US$424 million. The Bank's money is currently limited to connecting Burundi, Madagascar and Kenya, although "other eligible countries in East and Southern Africa can join future phases of the program on a readiness basis".

The region is the one remaining part of the world to be connected to the fibre optic network that many of us take for granted, with 20 countries relying on expensive satellite technology. This means their citizens have to fork out much more to communicate with each other: they pay around US$92 to spend 20 hours online compared to the world average of US$40.

It’s about time Africa got connected, particularly given the recent announcement of Kenya’s withdrawal from the EASSy project. I wonder if the release of these new funds might persuade Kenya to reconsider.

East Africa’s cable system not so EASSy after all

The East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) – an ambitious but controversial multi-million dollar project to wire a huge swathe of Africa – has been renamed the ‘NEPAD Broadband Infrastructure Network’. It seems the name-change was prompted by Kenya – a key partner in EASSy – dropping out of the scheme.

So what does this mean for the project’s future? According to South Africa’s communications minister, Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, the Network will be African-led with limited involvement of ‘foreigners’. It will now be financed by three subsidiary companies (so-called Special Purpose Vehicles), each one managed by different stakeholders:

•         government for fixed lines
•         government and private sector for private telecommunication networks
•         foreign-owned telcommunications operators for under-sea cable systems

This ‘club’ model (which allows players to invest exclusively in certain areas) is a significant step away from the ‘open access’ approach (whereby telecom companies, internet providers, government etc could invest openly in EASSy) that had been advocated by international institutions like the World Bank and some civil society organisations.

The response to this shake-up has not been entirely positive. CIPESA’s Anthony Mugeere raises concerns about NEPAD’s “bureaucratic protocol issues” and the likelihood that it will slow down the whole process.

Matsepe-Casaburri is quoted as saying: "We wanted to avoid the club-type situation we have had with the (Telkom) SAT-3 undersea cable, but this did not sit well with a number of other countries and institutions." It appears that she chose not to elaborate on her comment when she realised that the media were present.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a great deal of faith when a communications minister clams up in front of journalists!