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.

ICT Enhanced Learning in Higher Education

All over the world, teacher-centred pedagogy is prominent. Teachers talk and students are directed to listen. The assumption is that learners are empty or are just passive observers. Yet, in explaining the way learners get, organise and apply knowledge and skills; behavioural, constructivist, developmental and social learning theories and practices reveal that teacher-centred approach to delivering subject contents is impotent for producing the calibre of graduates the twenty-first century society and beyond need. 
 

In summary, these theories point to the following:

(1) Learners should be active participants in planning and evaluating what they learn;

(2) Learners are most interested in subjects that are immediately relevant to personal life and employment;

(3) Learners learn better when they are exposed to solving real life problems than when they are exposed only to theoretical course contents;

(4) Knowledge is constructed from experiences;

(5) Learners prefer learning new contents based on their existing knowledge and experiences to learning completely strange contents.

All the five statements place the learner at the centre of the instructional method that must enable twenty-first century students to acquire needed skills, including two advanced skills stipulated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 2007. The two advanced skills are the skill of expert thinking and the skill of complex communication. Expert thinking is the ability to solve problems that lack explicit rules-based solutions, unlike algebra. The skill of complex communication is the ability to make effective oral and written arguments, eliciting information from others. These two skills are embedded in information, visual, and technological literacy which are rarely acquired through teacher-centred pedagogy.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have always strived to justify their existence as centres of excellence. To earn this justification, HEIs have a duty to guide students to adequately acquire information, visual, and technological literacy. This requires a shift to student-centred, project-based teaching and collaborative learning in all programmes. Can ICTs help at all to achieve this? Which particular ICTs can be used successfully, and how can they be deployed? http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1868

You Mean MIS (Management Information System)?

Management Information System (MIS)

Very many definitions of MIS have appeared in literature. Sirpal (2011, p. 6) of Delhi University Computer Centre wrote: “MIS refers broadly to a computer-based system that provides managers with the tools for organizing, evaluating and efficiently running their departments.” To Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (2007, p. 1) MIS is “the organisation of the basic operating systems…so that they provide the information that managers at all levels need”. Geerders (2004) said that it was integrated data sources and information systems which met the particular needs and requirements of planning and decision-making. Earlier definitions included those of Oz (2002), Aktas (1987), Hicks (1987), Murdick 1986) and Stoner (1982).

These definitions are intelligent and describe MIS as playing an essential role in the life of an organization. In practice, however, what is found is just a watermark of the various conceptualizations. MIS is really more than what many people think it is.

In many organizations in developing countries (specifically in Africa), the overall purpose of MIS is often lost in the thought that it is all about computer operations.  Such MIS—predominant in the universities—exists solely for keeping databases and ensuring that Ethernet and/or wireless computer networks are functioning for steady Internet connection to enable staff to do online searches and to receive and send e-mail.  For example, by an assessment, done by Nigeria’s National Universities Commission, of performances of MIS operations in Nigerian universities, 71.4% of the institutions scored from 50% to 100%, and the remaining 28.6% scored 20% - 37.5%.  This evaluation, which gives the impression that MIS in Nigerian universities is very good, was based chiefly on the types of computers owned, their peripherals and networking and the capture of students and staff data using Nigerian Universities Management Information System (NUMIS) software. Data processing and analysis and information production and communication—which are central MIS functions—were not considered.  Also these computer operations focused MISs, to a large extent, manage Web sites and portals and repair computers throughout the organization. 

The truth remains that generally “information system does not have to include electronic equipment” (Oz 2002, p. 15), although for a long time now, to aid fast data processing and information delivery, computer and its networks have been a key component of information systems. Indeed, computers and computer-designed databases are necessary in today’s MIS, but, like in Rolls-Royce before 1998 (Yusuf et al, 2004), if managers do not have access consistently to accurate data they require to make goal-oriented decisions and to assess performance, those resources constitute a big waste.

At present, many existing MISs are either not actually a MIS or inadequate. Also a large number of medium-sized and large organizations do not own a MIS. A real MIS is "any setup in an organization which, based on identified and perceived needs, collects, collates, stores, retrieves, analyzes and processes data cost-effectively into structured, accurate and relevant information and delivers the information promptly to managers to help them to plan, make decisions, control, monitor and evaluate effectively to achieve the strategic goals of all operations of the organization" (Njoku, 2013, p. ). The organization’s managers and information system/information technology staff must work together to carefully plan for provision and harmonious functioning of the essential components of a MIS.

REFERENCES

Aktas, A. Z. (1987). Structural analysis and design of information systems. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (2007). Introducing management information systems in universities. London: Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service.

Geerders, P. (2004). Management information systems. Netherlands: CTA.

Hicks. J. O., Jr. (1987). Management information systems: A user perspective. 2nd ed. Minnesota West: St. Paul.

Murdick, R. G. (1986). MIS concepts and design. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

National Universities Commission (2006). Management information system for Nigerian universities. Abuja, Nigeria: National Universities Commission.

Njoku, C. P. U. (2013). Establishing and Managing Management Information Systems in Developing Countries. International Journal of Knowledge and Research in Management and E-Commerce, 3(4), 19-30.

Oz, E. (2002). Management information systems. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Course Technology. 

Sirpal, S. (2011). MIS concepts and design. New Delhi, India: Delhi University.

Stoner, J. A. F. (1982). Management. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 

Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A., & Abthorpe, M. S. (2004). Enterprise information systems project implementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce. International journal of production economics 87, 251–266.