Comments on: OPEN ACCESS EASSy http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/ Ranting on Africa CAN Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:53:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: gennick http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/comment-page-1/#comment-222 gennick Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:40:42 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/#comment-222 hello i think it's a nice blog. please look at this echanger e-gold to wmz. http://panegold-wmz.net hello i think it’s a nice blog. please look at this echanger e-gold to wmz.
http://panegold-wmz.net

]]> By: Steve Ntwiga Mugiri » Archives » feed the addiction: East African fiber and telecoms, The case for contamination, “Line Rider” and more . . . http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Steve Ntwiga Mugiri » Archives » feed the addiction: East African fiber and telecoms, The case for contamination, “Line Rider” and more . . . Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:08:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/#comment-8 [...]  + Balancing Act is carrying a story on an initiative by the Kenyan Government to get another link to the internet backbone. The big news in this is that the project will be open to public subscriptions which is a very good thing as it implies that it will not leave the government saddled with a huge debt. [...] [...]  + Balancing Act is carrying a story on an initiative by the Kenyan Government to get another link to the internet backbone. The big news in this is that the project will be open to public subscriptions which is a very good thing as it implies that it will not leave the government saddled with a huge debt. [...]

]]> By: Africa CAN » OPEN ACCESS SAT3 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Africa CAN » OPEN ACCESS SAT3 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:10:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/#comment-4 [...] Since publishing the Open Access EASSy paper @ blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy (you must read it to understand this paper), I have being challenged on the viability of Open Access to SAT3 and questioned on the need to institute the same standrards for both cables though we all know that SAT3 is already established and EASSy is yet to be. In this thesis I make an attempt at upholding the same Open Access structure and principles of EASSy to SAT3 – this is possible because both cables lie in the same realm but the context of their execusion are different. This is ONLY possible because of the window of opportunity presented by the end of exclusivity by the historic operators on SAT3 in April 2007 so I also suggest a process approach. [...] [...] Since publishing the Open Access EASSy paper @ blogs.law.harvard.edu (you must read it to understand this paper), I have being challenged on the viability of Open Access to SAT3 and questioned on the need to institute the same standrards for both cables though we all know that SAT3 is already established and EASSy is yet to be. In this thesis I make an attempt at upholding the same Open Access structure and principles of EASSy to SAT3 – this is possible because both cables lie in the same realm but the context of their execusion are different. This is ONLY possible because of the window of opportunity presented by the end of exclusivity by the historic operators on SAT3 in April 2007 so I also suggest a process approach. [...]

]]> By: Eric Osiakwan http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Eric Osiakwan Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:00:29 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/#comment-3 Will, our proposition actually minimises the risk of loosing money in terms of the multi-skaeholder approach with government guaranteed bonds being traded on the Stock markets, except i dont understand what you mean by "the risk of loosing money" or the stock market disciple. This approach is similar to Level3 as pointed out to me by Stuart Gannes of the DV Program. The expereince with SAT3 indicates that corruption, discriminate purchasing, favorutism and nepotism lies in "ownership of the cable guaranting ability to sell capacity to service providers and end users (retail)". My latest piece on the subject where i apply the same Open Access structure, principles and process to SAT3 would be public this week and in that i cite Ghana as an example. More on national engagements later but my next effort would look either at the regulatory policy issues raised by Open Access as it applies to the two cable and then i would like to something on pricing and or cost of the cables in terms of cheaper bandwdith. Am sure these 2 would conclude the ground rules then we can look at the national mechanism which am sure would be more murky waters. My proposal is we dont need to create ANY Barriers for investors, we rather need to trade the stocks of the cables on the exchange and allow the discipline of the stock market to work it out like anywhere else. This helps to balance the public interest of low cost access which would guarantee volumes and ensure that though we cover the bottom of the pyramid we are able to get some fortune there as expressly indicated by C.K Prahalad. Will, our proposition actually minimises the risk of loosing money in terms of the multi-skaeholder approach with government guaranteed bonds being traded on the Stock markets, except i dont understand what you mean by “the risk of loosing money” or the stock market disciple. This approach is similar to Level3 as pointed out to me by Stuart Gannes of the DV Program.

The expereince with SAT3 indicates that corruption, discriminate purchasing, favorutism and nepotism lies in “ownership of the cable guaranting ability to sell capacity to service providers and end users (retail)”.

My latest piece on the subject where i apply the same Open Access structure, principles and process to SAT3 would be public this week and in that i cite Ghana as an example. More on national engagements later but my next effort would look either at the regulatory policy issues raised by Open Access as it applies to the two cable and then i would like to something on pricing and or cost of the cables in terms of cheaper bandwdith. Am sure these 2 would conclude the ground rules then we can look at the national mechanism which am sure would be more murky waters.

My proposal is we dont need to create ANY Barriers for investors, we rather need to trade the stocks of the cables on the exchange and allow the discipline of the stock market to work it out like anywhere else. This helps to balance the public interest of low cost access which would guarantee volumes and ensure that though we cover the bottom of the pyramid we are able to get some fortune there as expressly indicated by C.K Prahalad.

]]> By: William Foster, PhD http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/comment-page-1/#comment-2 William Foster, PhD Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:59:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/2006/10/20/open-access-eassy/#comment-2 Eric: You are to be commended for your intellectual leadership in developing a funding mechansims and ownership regime for EASSy. I am still not clear on how tariffs will be established for EASSy transit and by who. We do want investors to make a fair return, but do they bear the risk of loosing money. Also, it seems that you do not want ownership of the cable to guarantee ability to sell capacity to end users (retail). I look forward to your development of your "open access" model as it applies both to EASSy and to national backbones and how you find a way of mediating between investors need for barriers to entry so as to invest and the publics need for low cost communications. Best wishes, Will Eric:

You are to be commended for your intellectual leadership in developing a funding mechansims and ownership regime for EASSy. I am still not clear on how tariffs will be established for EASSy transit and by who.

We do want investors to make a fair return, but do they bear the risk of loosing money.

Also, it seems that you do not want ownership of the cable to guarantee ability to sell capacity to end users (retail).

I look forward to your development of your “open access” model as it applies both to EASSy and to national backbones and how you find a way of mediating between investors need for barriers to entry so as to invest and the publics need for low cost communications.

Best wishes,
Will

]]>