Broadband WiFi in Developing Countries
From A2K Wiki
Contents |
Panelists
Speakers
- Susan Crawford - Associate Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York
- Willie Currie - Program Manager, Communications and Information Policy, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Satish Jha - Co-Chair, World IT Forum (WITFOR)
- Kaili Kan - Professor & Director, Policy & Development Institute of Information Industries, Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications (BUPT)
- Caio Pereira - Lecturer at FGV-Sao Paulo Law School
Moderator
- Diana Korsakaite - Deputy Director of the Communications Regulatory Authority, Lithuania
A2K2 Conference Organizer
- Laura DeNardis - Knight Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
Panel Description
The Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement includes questions about how information and communication technology (ICT) architectures both reflect and facilitate the ability of communities and individuals to produce, access, share, and use information. The international development community has placed emphasis on the promise of broadband technologies like Wi-Max, GSM, and Wi-Fi to deliver critical communication infrastructures expeditiously and cost effectively. In the West, these technologies are usually considered access mechanisms, yet in developing countries, they have the potential to serve as low-cost, multimedia backbone infrastructures leapfrogging over traditional land-based fiber and copper backbones. Community initiatives are eschewing the cost and complexity of deploying traditional wired infrastructures in favor of wireless broadband projects, but often face barriers not grounded in technology but in economic, institutional, and legal realms. For example, impediments to wireless broadband deployment include legacy regulations, resistance by incumbent telecommunications providers, restrictive intellectual property arrangements, and institutional and cultural barriers to participation in wireless standards development. To what extent can government policies ameliorate these problems and accelerate wireless broadband deployment? What is the appropriate role for private industry? What even counts as a successful broadband wireless infrastructure when meaningful access requires more than technical architecture alone? This international panel of policy-makers, scholars, and activists has four broad objectives:
• Assess the promises and limitations of wireless broadband architectures in the developing world.
• Share real-world case studies of wireless broadband projects.
• Examine possible roles for governments, communities, vendors, NGOs, and international development agencies.
• Attempt to situate the promise of broadband wireless within the larger conceptual framework of the A2K movement.
The following are some questions this panel might consider:
- How do (or how should) wireless broadband initiatives in developing countries tie into the broader context of the A2K movement?
- What are the most promising technological alternatives for multimedia broadband wireless in developing countries - 3G, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, mobile VoIP? Will numerous alternatives facilitate or impede interoperability and access?
- Are there unique institutional and regulatory considerations for wireless broadband versus other ICT infrastructures?
- Do the intellectual property arrangements underlying wireless standards (e.g. number of patents; proprietary versus open standards) sufficiently enable a level playing field for innovation and economic competitiveness among developing country entrepreneurs?
- What are the opportunities and constraints for community-developed wireless projects and what is the appropriate role of governments and private industry in promoting these initiatives?
Speaker Presentation Slides
Remote Questions for Panelists
What are the panelists' opinions on wireless mesh networks and Freifunk? (anon.)
Notes
Diana Korsakaite
The panel appropriately follows the Mobilizing Governments plenary panel. The aim of the panel is to define the roles of governments, communities, and NGOs in deploying networks and ensuring the access to knowledge in the developing countries. Diana introduced the five panelists, including Kaili Kan, Susan Crawford, Willie Curie, Satish Jha, and Caio Pereira.
Kaila Kan
Wireless proliferating throughout the world over the last two years: 40 cities by the end of 2005, 400 cities by mid-2006; Especially in the Asia-Pacific region: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Mexico, etc. Goals include social development: municipal infrastructure (“5th Utility”); Social welfare: narrow the digital divide; NOT for profit: free-of-charge preferred The driving force is municipal governments, not telcos. Current wireless city models are financed, built, owned and operated by: • Municipal government agencies • Private industry • Government contracted private corporation (monopoly) • “Grass-root” communes Possible models: One model is financed, built and operated by municipalities: Pros: Best implements government goals (free-of-charge possible) Cons: Burden for the government: financial, operational and legal (equality of service?) No public participation No market mechanism, bureaucracy Rigid planning lacks flexibility
Another model involves financed, built and operated by private industry: Pros: No burden for government; Market mechanism reacts quickly to demand Cons: Deviate from government goals: for profit; Potential spectrum shortage for full competition; Need to regulate: licensing, tariffing, universal service, etc. A third model involves financed, built and operated by government contracted private monopoly. Pros: Possible to implement government goals; conflict between government and corporate goals, difficulties in regulating a monopoly; lack of market dynamics
Model four is financed, built and operated by “grass-root” communes. Pros: mobilizes public participation; best serves social interest (free-of-charge possible); no burden for government; Cons: During early stage: hard to reach “critical mass” for rapid expansion.
Described the Wireless Beijing Commune. Wireless cities are changing the world.
Willie Currie
Topic: Local to the global: Wireless Broadband in Africa Current submarine cable systems are around Africa, but there is a missing link on the East Coast of Africa. The cost of access to the cable is high, creating an unbearable monopoly. Around 2003, govts around the east side of Africa started discussing open access models. A consortium was formed among the usually government monopolies and telcos. There is minimal access to broadband networks in Africa and national background networks have limited reach. But there are growing mobile networks (mostly 2G, some GPRS & 3G – South Africa)
By June of 2006, there was agreement about a protocol, but negotiations were slow and some countries decided to go it alone. 12 out of 23 countries signed the protocol. The consortium of telecom providers have taken advantage of this confusion to sign a deal with Alcatel and implement the cable.
Fixed line/submarine development involves international cable wars. This is stimulating demand for wireless broadband networks. There is concern that all the attention is on the submarine cable and regional backhaul networks and that inadequate attention is being paid to stimulating local demand for wireless broadband networks A range of initiatives focus on local access: IDRC’s First Mile First Inch UNDP research on community networks Wireless networks at local level, e.g. Fantsuam Foundation, Nigeria
There is innovation at the local level with community driven development projects.
Business drivers include the assumption that VoIP can provide the main revenue stream and that community enterprises are self-sustaining.
Caio Pereira
Title of Presentation: Opportunities and Challenges in Brazil Many are talking about the promise of wireless broadband in the developing world. It promises to leapfrog, to bridge the last mile, to share instead of own spectrum, and to be cheaper. But, there are many hurdles also. Wires are still important and complimentary not substitutes. There is legacy regulation to deal with, multiple complex partnerships involved, and complex political economies.
A large part of the Brazilian population does not have Internet access. Those who do have access are active users. The circuit switched/public switched telephone network has been stagnating while mobile growth has exploded. There is some growth in 2.5G and 3G cellular, experiments with Wi-Fi and V-SAT for public provisioning, and early struggles for implementing WiMax.
What Brazil is seeing is great integration of mobile and Internet use. There is a convergence of network standards such as IEEE 802.xx, and cellular networks like GSM and CDMA. Both land line telcos and mobile telcos are seeing this integration.
Regarding WiMax,the 2.5 GHz is important but there was legacy allocation of this band to pay television providers in the country. A valuable asset was allocated to an obsolete use. There was an attempt for WiMax auctions in 2006.
There is a delicate political economy of WiMax. Telcos have an interest in the new technology because they need to move to new technologies. Mobile providers also see this technology as a possibility but have invested a lot in 3G. Communities see possible expansion of access through partnerships and governments are interested in leapfrogging with large political dividends. Who will do it first and who will benefit the most.
Question and Answer
Question: Regarding the failed WiMax auction in Brazil, what was the auction like and what happened? What were the terms of the case?
Question: Technologically, everything is possible, but how do you overcome institutional elements? How can initiatives be sustainable at a community level?
Question: Is safety is a problem in community models?
Susan Crawford
Three points: How spectrum policy can facilitate wireless plans How new devices can open up opportunities Importance of complexity
"Interference is a metaphor that paints an old limitation of technology as a fact of nature." David P. Reed
Although there is a very exciting spectrum policy task force, not much has changed since then.
If anything, we're behind where we were when that report came out. 70 percent of broadcast is unused but not available. Michael Calabrese has been doing wonderful work on spectrum policy. What we lack in the United States is government permission.
Coexistence means e.g. cordless phone and a wifi card Cooperation means self-organizing to form ad hoc network Better for innovation With licensed/exclusive spectrum, owners of property won’t go for innovation unless it fits their revenue models
Two case studies: one is the possible open access rules for 700 MHz auction after analog broadcast television opens up. Only a little bit is unlicensed. There's nothing unlicensed under 900? MHz. There will be some "whitespaces" left open and those should perhaps be made open on an unlicensed basis. Caveats are often about interference and "planes falling from the sky."
Recently some tech companies provided a software defined radio prototype to the government.
Communications should be about communications, not about the prerequisites of the phone companies.
If devices are smart enough, command/control over spectrum isn’t necessary. “Cognitive software defined radio” Radio’s physical layer behavior primarily defined in software Demo now in U.S. FCC’s hands low power spectrum sensing dynamic frequency selection (vacate and select) power control (adjust transmission power based on signal strength) transmission efficiency Pros better use of spectrum open architecture, multiple vendors removes need for some functions now included in spectrum management Cons power consumption in handsets genie out of the bottle (but can be upgraded)
Way forward for flexibility in use of spectrum: SDR In developing countries, absence of “classic” systems may speed introduction Like one-laptop-per-child, one low-power sensitive handheld...
Satish Jha
India has announced “Broadband For All” in two years. It did not succeed in: Water for all; Power for all; Education for all; Health for all..
Will “Broadband For All” actually happen? It just May indeed.
In telephony, the rate of growth was 2-3 percent per year. Mobile telephones changed the world for developing countries. Indian mobile experience is similar to what was witnessed elsewhere in the developing world as well.. its growth rate was manifold that of the POTS. Internet did not grow at the same pace because it did not have major operators like cell phones in it. The policy issues were not thrashed out yet. But it has followed closely the growth path of mobile.
In 2Q 2005, the USA was the country with the largest total number of broadband subscribers (38.2 m), followed by China (30.8 m), Japan (20.6 million), and South Korea (12.3 m). China, however, was the leading country in the number of DSL subscribers (21.2m) The regional distribution of global broadband connectivity is unbalanced.
And now broadband wireless is poised to be the next disruptive technology. Its going to make technology to access internet available to 100 times more people in just two years. Technically people will have access, at zero marginal cost, in two years.
Does that mean that the average Indian will access the internet? Almost certainly not. However, they will have an opportunity to access it and "network access" will not be the prime reason for their inability to be part of the net world. They will have other several reasons to blame for their inability to access the global knowledge pool. But "network" may not be the reason for it anymore.
Policy is the biggest impediment. There are conflicts and debates from all sides, but those in the middle of the debate are interested in economics and the politics of power.
Other obstacles include the following: High prices and low market maturity Absence of competitive pricing and dynamic broadband market Banning of Voice over IP services in many countries Bundling of other services with Internet access The scope of Universal Access is confined to basic, conventional ICT services Universal Access to broadband - unstated in national policies Low installed base
Can broadband wireless improve A2k? WiMax seems to have the most promise, but many open issues.
Resources and papers
Articles
WiMax.com, WiMAX's Promise for Developing Countries (2005)
Ravi Jain, The Mobile Web in Developing Countries(2006)
Francisco Proenza, The Road to Broadband Development in Developing Countries Is through Competition Driven by Wireless and Internet Telephony (2007)
The Wireless Internet Institute The Wireless Internet Opportunity for Developing Countries (2003)
3G Forum, Promise of WiMAX to Deliver Quick, Economic Broadband in Developing Countries (2005)
International Institute for Communication & Development (IICD) Connectivity in the Community - Experiences from Bolivia (2006)
Books
- "Wireless Networking in the Developing World: A practical guide to planning and building low-cost telecommunications infrastructure." ISBN: 1-4116-7837-0 Online and on-demand-printed edition available at http://www.wndw.net.
- Voip info
Web Resources
IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access Standards, http://ieee802.org/16/
Open Spectrum Foundation, http://www.openspectrum.info/ (see the individual "country" pages)
WiMax Forum, http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/
Wi-Fi Alliance, http://wi-fi.org/
GSM Association, http://www.gsmworld.com/index.shtml
ITU/BDT Regional Seminar on Broadband Wireless Access for Rural and Remote Areas for Africa, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/documents/Yaounde2006/Yaounde_FinalProgram.html (2006)
