Proposed tighter OTT regulations in Africa: Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

A news report by IT Web Africa (http://www.itwebafrica.com/ict-and-governance/523-africa/236983-africa-to-propose-tighter-ott-regulation-at-global-meeting, African Telecommunications Union (ATU) “proposes what it describes as 'the coordination of action in favour of regulation of OTT (Over-The-Top) services at regional and global.levels. ATU says OTT operators do not invest in the development of the telecommunication infrastructures of developing countries, but create value over the top of networks of telephone operators without paying them financial compensation."
ATU’s proposal (which is a collation of views of African member states) will be.presented inthe World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-16) taking place in Tunisia.

ATU’s proposal (which is a collation of views of African member states) will be.presented in the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-16) taking place in Tunisia.

What ATU and its member states are saying is that free services we get through WhatsApp, Google Hangouts, Skype and their like are denying MTN, Airtel, Safaricom, Glo, Etisalat and their fellow companies the revenue that ought to be accruing to them. One implication of this is that if ATU fails to get the OTT providers to be paying telephone operators, telephone operators may be permitted to charge increased fees for their services. Another implication is that if OTT providers start paying to deliver the Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services, they may be compelled to begin charging users of the services. Either way, very many Africans will be affected negatively.

While we feel for traditional telecom operators as they are being shortchanged by OTT services in terms of revenue, we should bear in mind the openness of the Internet and the freedom and justness it guarantees for millions of Africans.  We should also remember that residents of African countries have their choices to make regarding what they use/consume in relation to their income and socio-political needs, and our governments have a duty to enlarge the space for such choices.

It’s more critically worth noting that WhatsApp, Skype, Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger and their siblings are increasingly being used in education throughout Africa and are making more student engagement and improved learning possible. More Africans who hitherto had little access to education are now embracing quality education in various forms at various levels through these free services. 

All these demand high level caution as we propose meaningful regulations that will govern OTT services in Africa, so that we don’t rob Peter to pay Paul. I wish ATU and all African delegates to World Telecommunication Standardisation Assembly (WTSA-16)  thoughtful presentations and deliberations.

Acknowledgement:

I thank Myles Freedman for drawing my attention to the news through Extensia's Weekly Telecom and ICT Headlines (http://extensia-ltd.com/) he usually sends to my e-mail box.

ALLIANCE FOR AFFORDABLE INTERNET'S AFFORDABILITY REPORT 2015/16: How affordable is affordable?

In its committed campaign for affordable universal access to the Internet, Alliance for for Affordable Internet (A4AI) gave the following definition of affordability: "To benefit from and use the Internet in a meaningful way, it is much more realistic to assess affordability based on the price of a 1GB mobile broadband prepaid plan." (A4AI. Affordability Report 2015/16, p.38). While this will still exclude so many unconnected people, it is better than the alliance's recommendation, in its best practices document, of 5% of monthly income (which is United Nations' Broadband Commission's prescription).

In any case, my  thought is that the word “affordable” is vague. With billions of adults and youth presently earning below 1USD a day, always struggling with ill-health and almost fully dependants, is Internet access to be affordable to whom? The basic dictionary definition of affordable is: “not too expensive” or “so possible to buy”. Access to the Internet to be “not too expensive” means it’s already expensive, and for it to be “so possible to buy” to everybody implies it should be at a price everybody (both the rich and the poor) can pay. What is expensive to Mr. or Ms. A may not be expensive to Mr. or Ms. B. I know A4AI isn’t, in its sincerity, advocating for expensive access, but neither Broadband Commission's definition of "affordable" with the price target of 5% of monthly income nor A4AI's present definition will make the Internet affordable to very many people. 

On the other hand, advocating or working hard for a price everybody can pay may result in reasonable confusion and worry. This is because while 5% of monthly income can enable billions more people to come online (according to A4AI's best practices document), the price of 1GB (as A4AI lately recommended), or 1% of monthly income (as some advocates are recommending), can still keep billions offline.  

For example, in Nigeria, <90USD Nigerian minimum wage  applies mainly to Federal government workers. Many State governments don’t honour it and pay less than that. It’s not enforceable in the private sector where many Nigerians earn less than 10,000 Nigerian Naira (<50USD) per month. Still there exist numerous people who aren’t in formal employment and do petty things from which they get, inconsistently, less than 30USD per month. Each of these people needs ≥37.65USD per month for food alone (eating minimally good meals only two times a day). When you add other basic costs: clothing, lighting, cooking fuel, medical, etc., where will 1% Internet cost come from? The least a mobile phone service provider in Nigeria charges foe 1GB online data is 500 Nigerian Naira, which is 2.5USD. This is expensive for millions of Nigerians. Globally, there are very many people in similar condition.

So, how can people with the least income have access to the Internet for us to achieve universal access? This will be the focus of another post.