This third  “What Google Should Do In Africa” post could be subtitled “Grow some balls”.  Why, oh why, is it that Google, so unafraid to tackle telco and broadcast market behemoths in the United States, behaves like a timid NGO in Africa?

Although this post has been in the queue for a while, the timing now could not be better as two days ago Google launched innovative new SMS-based services in Uganda in partnership with the Grameen Foundation and MTN.  This provoked a response from Katrin Verclas (@mobileactive) in which she queried the apparently high costs of the premium SMS charges being levied.  This was riposted by Erik Hersman (@whiteafrican) who rephrased Katrin’s post as the question “If you provide services to the poor, should you make a profit?”.

For me the problem is not whether the poor should pay for services.  I don’t think anyone engaged in this discussion believe the poor shouldn’t pay for services that are of value to them.  It is not even whether they should pay a premium rate for services.  The problem for me is the base rate itself of SMS charges.  Google and Grameen have correctly identified the tremendous potential power of SMS as a technology that can effectively provide data services to the poor.  However, this transformative technology, whose marginal cost of deployment is effectively zero, is being throttled by mobile operators charging a disproportionately high price for the service.  Mobile operators in Africa still embrace the economics of scarcity.

In his post, Erik makes a provocative statement.  He says,

If there’s a problem with collusion and price fixing in an industry (like there sometimes seems to be with SMS services in a country), that’s something beyond the scope of individuals and needs to be tackled separately by regulation.

If only it were that simple.  Telecoms regulation in Africa is in a parlous state.  With few exceptions (Nigeria being a notable one) communications regulators in Africa are under-resourced and often insufficiently independent from governments who maintain a substantial investment stake in the incumbent fixed-line and mobile operators.

So what happens in practice?  Regulators often start out well.  They issue a call for public input on issue X,  be it interconnection, local-loop unbundling, carrier pre-select, spectrum licensing or what have you.  Who responds to these calls for input?  Right now in most African countries the only organisations effectively lobbying the regulator are fixed-line incumbents and mobile operators…. with PREDICTABLE RESULTS.  The old joke about a telecom company being a law firm with an antenna stuck on top is actually not that funny in Africa. Incumbent operators are experts at both influencing policy and regulation development and at stalling any efforts to reform unfair practices.

For the rest of us, lawyers are notoriously expensive and there are few civil society organisations with the resources to actually draft the kind of input that regulators need in order for there to be a balanced debate.  There is a desperate need for organisations like Google who have a vested interest in seeing more data traffic to help lobby for more competition, for lower barriers to entrepreneurship in the telecom sector, and for cheaper access for all.

So when I see the company that wagered billions in the 700MHz spectrum auction in the U.S. to effectively arm-wrestle Verizon into OpenAccess conditions, the company that has made countless submissions to the FCC to lobby for unlicensed access to television white spaces spectrum, announce that they have “partnered” with a single mobile operator in Uganda to deliver SMS services, you will understand me if I seem a little let down.  The new SMS services for Uganda ARE innovative and I believe they have been well-conceived.  Kudos to the Grameen Foundation for developing them and to Google for supporting them.  Am I wrong to want more from one of the most innovative companies in the world?

Imagine the innovation in services that might be unleashed if SMSes were priced so that Africans didn’t have to think twice about sending them.  Imagine the economics of abundance being applied to the telecoms sector in Africa.  Sadly, voices calling for this on the continent are not nearly loud enough.  Google, which represents that principle so well, disappoints by failing to stand up for it.

It’s not sexy, it’s not whizz-bang, but it is true that Google could have a more profound effect in Africa by hiring a few lawyers, lobbyists, etc who can help level the playing field for the regulators on the continent than a dozen SMS services.

Ironically, Chris Anderson’s new book that explores the economics of abundance quotes Google CEO Eric Schmidt on the cover. Schmidt says:

“With the cost of distribution relentlessly driving towards zero, Chris Anderson, has once again identified the next big thing”

If he really believes that, why not Africa too?

Post from: Many Possibilities

Related posts:

1. WGSDIA – Launch Google Voice in Africa
2. WGSDIA – Support Open Spectrum
3. Mobiles in Africa – We Need The Eggs

This the second installment in a series of posts in which I have the hubris to reflect upon What Google Should Do In Africa (#WGSDIA). There is some context for this post in the preface to the series.

Imagine that you are a smart entrepreneurial African geek who has recognised that the huge opportunity of providing low-cost voice and Internet access in Africa.  You put together some new but remarkably inexpensive WiFi equipment from a company like Ubiquiti and set up a wireless mesh network in your community.  You backhaul it to the Internet with an ADSL line if your lucky enough to be near one or with a wireless backhaul to your most obliging ISP.  So far so good.  But what you discover with your community is that while there is a small and slowly growing demand for Internet access, the real demand is still for affordable voice.  So you offer free voice services over your wireless mesh and the community loves it because, after all, the majority of phone calls are local anyway.

The community is very excited about this and the love the service but they want more.  They want to be able to receive calls from mobile networks and the Publicly Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and they want to be able to make calls out as well.  They want to have real phone numbers that people can call them on from anywhere.  Now things become more challenging.  In South Africa, in order to be allocated a block of phone numbers, you need an Electronic Communication Services (ECS) license from the regulator.  This is not too big a deal and requires only modest sums of money and slightly larger amounts of patience.  Having achieved that you now have to negotiate interconnects with the major operators.  This IS a big deal.  The operators each require a million Rand (approx 125,000 USD) as a bank guarantee to create the interconnect.  Some of them still require extremely expensive carrier-grade equipment in order to connect.  Worst of all, some of them either flat-out refuse to interconnect (which is against the law but some operators are a law unto themselves) or bureaucratively render the process so slow that they might as well have refused.

Here the entrepreneur runs into a brick wall that requires both deep pockets and deep patience to resolve.

Cut over to Mountain View.  On March 11th of this year, Google launched GoogleVoice, a service which offers you a single phone number which will ring all of your phones.  In addition, Google Voice offers free calling and texting in the continental U.S. as well as voicemail, conference calling, voicemail via email, the list goes on.  Google Voice is essentially a re-branding and upgrade of Grand Central which launched was founded in 2005 and acquired by Google in mid-2007.  Currently Google Voice is in private beta for existing Grand Central users.

For the present, this is a niche service in North America that will appeal more  to geeks and early-adopter technophiles because most people in North America already enjoy reasonably advanced and inexpensive phone services.  So why pitch Google Voice in Africa?

Consider the opportunity.  One could launch Google Voice but do it slightly differently.  Launch the existing service which might appeal to anyone with existing broadband but also launch it as an API for entrpreneurs.  Then all the small entrepreneur needs to do is find a way to get connected to the Internet and Google Voice can provide upstream services.  They could allocate phone numbers to the entrepreneur (or he/she could bring their own) but most importantly GoogleVoice could manage the interconnections with the mobile operators and the PSTN.   Obviously anyone selling voice services would still need an ECS license but that is a comparatively tiny hurdle to overcome.

Full disclosure:  this sort of service would tie in perfectly with the development Village Telco and the Mesh Potato currently being supported by the Shuttleworth Foundation.

I believe the launch of Google Voice in the U.S. signals a sea change in the telecoms sector around the world. Most significantly it points to the inevitable future of all voice services being Internet services. Creating a flat IP-based infrastructure for phone calls in Africa could begin to break down the mobile operator walled gardens and open up the possibility of operator-neutral value-added services in Africa.

So What Should Google Do About Google Voice in Africa?

I would pick a country in Africa where getting a communication network and/or services license is not too onerous and in which providing access on unlicensed WiFi spectrum is not illegal.   Thanks to the Altech decision last year, South Africa is currently a good place to do this but it could be Kenya, Nigeria or somewhere else.  Setting up something like GoogleVoice would require some work but probably much easier to pick a company like Dabba who are doing most of this already and work with them to evolve and adapt an African Google Voice.

Post from: Many Possibilities

Related posts:

1. What Google Should Do In Africa – Preface
2. Theory of Change: The Village Telco
3. WGSDIA – Support Open Spectrum

This the first installment of a series of posts in which I have the hubris to reflect upon What Google Should Do In Africa (#WGSDIA).  There is some context for this post in the preface to the series.

The single biggest barrier to pervasive affordable communication infrastructure in Africa is the policy and regulatory environments that inhibit the entry of new market competitors and fail to curb the excesses of existing operators with significant market power.

Things are getting better but slowly.  Incumbent monopolies have all but disappeared (although monopolistic behaviour has not disappeared.)  Most African countries have between two and five operators in the market.  Sadly this has not led to significant competition in most African countries.  One of the key reasons things are moving so slowly is that getting into the telecoms business is both expensive and difficult.  Expensive because incumbents usually control the local loop meaning that substantial investment to create alternative infrastructure is required.  Wireless spectrum represents an potentially much less expensive alternative but it is treated as a scarce resource by most regulators and is often allocated in a non-transparent manner.

The world of wireless spectrum is changing rapidly.  The dramatic drop in the cost of wireless technologies combined with the remarkable increases in sophistication and performance mean that there is an opportunity for small and medium size entrepreneurs to shake up the telecom sector if they can gain access to telecom and spectrum licenses.  Most people have heard of Moore’s Law which states that the number of transistors you can fit on a square inch of silicon doubles roughly every 18 months but not many have come across Cooper’s Law, coined by Martin Cooper, the man credited with inventing the mobile phone.  Cooper’s Law states that the amount of information that can be transmitted over a given amount of radio spectrum doubles every 30 months and has done for the last 100 years.

Unfortunately most spectrum policies reflect the level of spectrum efficiency that existed in the 1930s.  Given the increasing importance of access as an enabler for everything from business to government to education to adolescent dating, the need to break down barriers to access becomes ever more important.  Lack of access to spectrum is emerging as one of the key barriers to affordable access.

In the United States, there is a growing lobby to make more spectrum available on an unlicensed basis.  Few would argue that existing unlicensed (WiFi) spectrum has brought about an unexpected revolution in access.  Every laptop and netbook and increasingly many mobile phones have WiFi chips built in and more and more we simply expect airports, hotels, cafes, railway stations, libraries, etc to have WiFi access available.   This revolution in access would not have been possible were it not for the barrier-free environment set aside in the unlicensed ISM spectrum bands.  This revolution was achieved in tiny and comparatively unattractive regions of the wireless spectrum.  Imagine what might be achieved is more unlicensed spectrum were made available.

About seven years ago in the U.S., a small lobby group, mostly from civil society began to lobby for more access to unlicensed spectrum.  In particular, they lobbied for shared secondary access to television spectrum.  Around the world, the manner in which television spectrum is assigned reflects a 1930s technology paradigm.  Broadcasters are only allowed to use every other channel in a given area.  The remaining channels are kept as guard bands between the broadcast channels to ensure that no interference occurs between broadcasters.  These empty guard bands are also referred to as “white spaces”.  Wireless technology has now evolved to the point where a wireless device designed for use in the television spectrum can sense whether a channel is in use and dynamically search and switch to an empty channel.  This technology, known as cognitive radio, opens up tremendous possibilities for using existing spectrum to deliver affordable connectivity.  Television spectrum is particularly attractive because it can travel further and is less impeded by obstacles than higher frequency spectrum where WiFi spectrum resides.  This means that these devices can deliver a couple of Mb/s over  tens of kilometres.  All of this could happen without having to re-allocate spectrum.  Simply allowing secondary use of television spectrum would open up this opportunity.

This group might not have succeeded if they had not managed to catalyse the interest and support of some very large corporations.  These included Google, Microsoft, Motorola, and others.  These companies saw both the social and economic importance of ubiquitous affordable access and engaged in both research and advocacy to bring about regulatory change to support TV White Spaces.

Google has played a significant role in promotion of unlicensed access to Television White Spaces spectrum in the United States.  At the eComm conference in March of 2009, Google’s Telecom and Media Counsel in Washington, Rick Whitt, described his objective at Google as “first to create new wireless-based broadband platforms, where that is possible. Second, it’s to open up the existing platforms. Third, it is to make more efficient use of the spectrum.”

Google have actually gone so far as to have their staff appear in videos promoting their FreeTheAirwaves campaign.

If this technology is important to a comparatively wealthy and well-connected America where the airwaves are chock-a-block with television stations, think how transformative it might be on the African continent where there is less terrestrial broadcast television spectrum in use, meaning more bandwidth for television white spaces devices; and where the need for affordable rural connectivity solutions is arguably more significant than in the U.S.

In countries like South Africa where the incumbent operators are experts at stalling the regulator in order to maintain the status quo, it would be great to have a company like Google (and others) working on the side of opening up access and competition.  Television White Spaces would make a good start.

On the 10th of June, 2009, the Shuttleworth Foundation joined forces with the Wireless Access Providers Association (WAPA) to form the Open Spectrum Alliance of South Africa.  The aim of the Open Spectrum Alliance is to create a dialogue among civil society, industry, and policy makers to explore more creative and efficient uses of spectrum to increase affordable access for all.

So What Should Google Do About Open Spectrum in Africa?

Imagine for a moment that I am in position to make these decisions.  I would hire an radio frequency (RF) engineer to be based in either Nairobi or Johannesburg with the remit of looking at national spectrum plans and commenting on spectrum policy from a technical perspective.  The engineer would have broad scope for commenting on technological opportunities and obstacles in Africa and also be responsible for technical input into regulatory submissions by Google. I would then hire a telecom lawyer to work in each of Google’s two largest offices in sub-Saharan Africa, Kenya and South Africa.  The lawyers would have the remit of reviewing and commenting on telecom policy with a particular emphasis on spectrum policy.

Next I would partner with groups like the Open Spectrum Alliance in South Africa (well, of course I would) but also with research institutions that have done ground-breaking research into the impact of mobile phone infrastructure on economic growth but who may need some nudging to look at the bigger picture of the economic cost of not making smart broadband investment decisions on the continent.

Finally, I would spend a little money on an African media campaign to make the potential benefits of TV White Spaces spectrum better known to politicians and the public at large.

Total cost to Google:  < 500K USD per year

Benefits:  While Google would reap the long term benefits of more eyeballs and more customers, it would also enjoy the shorter term PR benefits of being regarded as a force for positive change in Africa.

Post from: Many Possibilities

Related posts:

1. WGSDIA – Launch Google Voice in Africa
2. Opening Spectrum in South Africa
3. WiFi on Steroids Approved in U.S.

This is an introduction to a series of posts on what I think Google ought to be doing in Africa,  that is to say what I think they ought to be doing outside of their core business of selling advertising.  Why pick on Google?  For a few reasons:

1. I want to see cheaper, faster, more pervasive access to telecoms in Africa.  This objective is good for Google for whom more access means more eyeballs for Google Ads.  Google understand network effects better than anyone.  If you haven’t already, read this fascinating interview with Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist.  Thus Google is a technology company that can do good in Africa while serving their own ends. This is in contrast to mobile operators that are still hell-bent on propping up their ever declining Average Revenue per User (ARPU) on the continent.
2. Over and above their corporate self-interest, Google is a company that has expressed an explicit interest doing something useful in Africa.
3. Google is already doing some amazing, potentially transformative things…. they just aren’t doing them in Africa.

And that is mostly want I want to talk about is the fact that Google has some remarkable initiatives which could bring about real change in Africa but they are NOT in Africa and I want to publicly ask why.  I’ve already asked why privately a few times but obviously I’ve been talking to the wrong people.  I don’t particularly expect anyone from the Google to read this but I feel the need to speak out anyway.  Here we go.

Post from: Many Possibilities

Related posts:

1. WGSDIA – Launch Google Voice in Africa
2. WGSDIA – Support Open Spectrum
3. WGSDIA – Lobby For Cheaper SMS Charges

And then when the global credit crisis reared its ugly head, I thought we would see some of the cables quietly disappear.  But no, the planned capacity just keeps going up.

Well, not entirely true.  MainOne annouced last week that they had secured 66 million USD in financing for their initiative but what they failed to highlight (and which is still not reflected on their website) is that they have scaled back their aspirations from a 14,000km cable to South Africa back to a 7,000km cable to Lagos.

That change would have put West Africa, as far as Lagos, at the peak of planned capacity with over 8 terabits/s compared to less than 7 terabits/s planned to reach South Africa and about 4 terabits/s headed for East Africa.  But with France Telecom’s announcement two days ago that they are extending their ACE cable to South Africa and that it’s planned capacity was 1.92 terabits/s, that put South Africa back in front with planned capacity now looking like about 8.5 terabits/s.

Given that the whole of South Africa now uses less than 120 Gb/s, big changes are on the way starting with the Seacom cable lighting up in about two weeks time.  Don’t expect instant discounts though.  ISPSs will be cutting over and testing from July on into September.  I think the first big price changes will start to occur in late September, early October.

Post from: Many Possibilities

Related posts:

1. Undersea Cables Update
2. Undersea Cables Update
3. GLO-1 Added to Undersea Cables