I found this link today and I am busily contacting all of these for more information. I want to look at two specific projects in Nigeria.

1. A broadband cybercafé feasibility study
2. A wireless internet project for a rural chiefdom area (or local government area) to see if we can encourage the bringing in of XO (or other) laptops.

Great link Ben - thanks! I am noting down the info I found there about Kenya, my particular country of interest.

Jon I wonder if you read Erik Hersman's blog White African Erik really posts some great stuff and his blog is an entry into the tech scene in Kenya. That said, I was searching around his posts to try to find relevant ones...of course the one in the back of my mind hasn't come up yet. This post has a map of satellite coverage in Africa, but lots of his posts are relevant to this discussion in one way or another. From Eric's posts he linked to Startups in Kenya which is really great source about telecentres in Kenya, but I guess that link should be on another page...

Thanks for the links, John. The Safaricom's Bambanet product seems a little too good to be true, since I cannot find any prices within a significant multiple of their price. It also is very hard to find on their web-site, so I am confirming whether it is still available.

On a slightly different subject, I just received this prompted email from an internet provider in Ukraine, regarding satellite coverage in Africa. I hope they don't mind me passing it across to all:)

1. Hughes and Gilat are the largest players with DirecWay, HX, PES, Starband, Spacenet, and other services. The thing to keep in mind about these guys is that their solutions were designed for credit card approvals and lottery ticket sales. They were designed for transaction-oriented services - occasional short transmissions, and they do an excellent job of this. What you see is an attempt to shoe-horn their technology into the IP WAN business when it was never designed for it - and it does a poor to mediocre job of this. They have long latency (3 second transaction time was part of the original design criteria), horrible jitter which kills VoIP or requires large jitter buffers that store the voice for an extra second or two to remove the jitter, and their data service is inefficient and sluggish. There have been some improvements in the newest HX DVB-S2 based solution from Hughes but it remains running on old an inefficient uplink technology which renders all the additional bells and whistles rather useless, despite advertisement says they can support VoIP.

2. DVB/RCS and similar systems from companies like Viasat Linkstar, LinkStar-S2, Shiron, Tachyon, Vipersat and others. These systems are an improvement over the Hughes/Gilat stuff, but they have done little to improve the uplink technology. Jitter continues to be a big problem for these products. They do not support voice well; they take up to 10 seconds to allocate CIR bandwidth (when they support it), pings are longer and more inconsistent, etc. The hardware prices are usually pretty good, but the service prices tend to be higher because of the inefficiency. Because of this many of the network operators who sell these services tend to oversubscribe their networks too much, which creates poor performance. The business model is designed so that you can only make money with large oversubscribed networks, rather than smaller customized networks like iDirect.

3. iDirect - This is the first system that was designed from the ground up to support IP in a WAN environment. The real differentiator is that they use router technology, rather than modem technology. While some of the other Hughes, Gilat, DVB/RCS, etc. guys will have some rudimentary routing capability on their VSAT terminals, the fact is that they are based on modem technology. They don't have the concept of router queues, so the only way they know to ask for more bandwidth is when they've already started to drop packets on the floor because their buffers have overflowed. This is highly inefficient. The iDirect solution uses router technology, and let's face it, when you think of IP and the Internet, you think of Cisco routers. You have to have router technology to offer good service for IP in a WAN environment. I could go into all the other features and functions that iDirect provides that the other guys don't, but most of this is spelled out pretty well on our web site. The real test is the user perception, and users love the iDirect technology for it's crisp, snappy response and toll-quality VoIP support. It's a bit more expensive than lower end systems mentioned above but at the end you get a reliable Internet access with an option to use VoIP, webcams and similar realtime traffic applications. It's very important to mention that not all iDirect network operators are the same, and many keep running highly oversubscribed networks on top of this platform without offering any dedicated bandwidth or QoS facilities. This makes their prices cheap and attractive, but the service quality is far inferior to what a real iDirect network should be.

4. SCPC/SCPC, DVB(S2)/SCPC or Frame Relay systems - these are solutions designed to carry 100% dedicated bandwidth in both directions, and if you have an application that is almost 100% voice and you have 20, 30, 50 or more voice lines, then this is the way to go. It's quite expensive because it's completely dedicated, unshared bandwidth, but sometimes that's what's needed. In a data application or mixed voice/data networks, a shared bandwidth solution is more efficient and costs much less. It's like the difference between Frame Relay and a dedicated private T-1 line (not an Internet T-1 which is oversubscribed and shared - a private T-1 between two points, with no one sharing service but those two locations). You can think of SCPC as a dedicated T-1 line.

I really don't understand these technicalities, but I thought people looking at this thread might do and I did notice that they had some very good advice on systems to avoid.

They are also hinting at the issue of VOIP and I feel quite strongly that we should be encouraging Skype to Skype in Africa, considering the poor service given by mobile phones and the potential savings to be mmade - anyone any thoughts on this?

Both excellent posts, Jon and Ben - thanks for contributing. This is just the kind of exchange that I hoped would emerge!

Ben, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to encourage comms innovators like Skype to include Africa - I wonder how we might work to achieve this.

One option, although it takes you down a slightly different path, is FOSS (free-and-open-source-software) tools like ekiga, a VOIP application, that supports both the SIP and H.323 conferencing protocols, and runs on linux.

I'm preparing a laptop for donation to a Kenyan charity, and my plan is to include (and encourage them to try using) ekiga.

News! The laptop is going to Kenya soon (without ekiga, this time, unfortunately, but with both dialup and broadband capability) next week.

I hope to stay in touch with its bearer, both about the general situation and about the state of net access there.

Can I ask which provider in Kenya, Jon?

Hi Ben - I don't know yet, I'll have to wait until the person arrives and arranges it. It may vary, she will be traveling to several locations.

Recent blog entry on the over-all topic... in terms of connectivity, people need to learn that we can build the networks ourselves, cooperatively, and that there is value in taking ownership.

http://wrythings.net/2008/01/25/ let-us-now-network-ourselves-the -world/

Thanks Michael - I have to agree whole-heartedly with the blogger's post.

Interesting to know about the community wireless summit in DC in May.

To clarify - that was my blog entry :)

Oops - sorry, thanks for the clarification, Michael. Kudos!

on thread's question,there seems to be 2 views:

it will be enough if the poorest are connected by mobile phones

there is no substitute for access to full-screen telcentres - even if communally operated -

which view do you hold? or another

Net access in Thailand.

When I first came here in 1998 access was horrible and slow.

Now...

• Normal home access is very affordable.
• Hi-speed land line is about 500 baht a month, unlimited use where the lines are available - mainly in Bangkok and some larger cities.
• I currently have a high-speed satellite connection that runs about 2200 baht a month.
• With a USB modem that you buy for about 1500 baht, you can access using the mobile phone network for 500 baht a month unlimited. This may be a better option than the satellite now. I need to check it out.
• There are internet cafes EVERYWHERE ... cost for high speed is about 15-20 baht an hour.
• For some reason that I haven't figured out, high-speed wireless is about 40 baht an hour.
• There is internet available by mobile but the only person I have seen use it is the Abbot I was working with at Mae Usu. He accessed email with it.

With that said, the national average income is still reported to be 7,000 baht a month. It is substantially higher than that in Bangkok and where I was in Tak Province on the Burma border, the average income goes to more like 6,000 baht a year . Even there though, the students have access to the internet in school.

I would find it useful if someone could make a rough guide to what is is practical to do and not do by speed- eg how fast a connection do you think is needed before youtube is watchable

is it correct to say that email is the only tool that connects the worldwide if we mean by that connectying the slowest access user

The rainy season has arrived very early here. That means that my satellite connection gets way to slow to handle video and I have been trying for the last 5 minutes to send an email.

I think Linda has answered Chris. At dial-up connection speeds in Eastern Europe one needs to set 'remove graphics' on web based email clients, which get more graphic every day. It's possible to watch video at 56k, given a short clip and a lot of patience, and funds if only an internet cafe.

512k would be a reasonable level to aim for, holding in mind that contention too plays a part.

one of the points I hope we are "collaboratively" unearthing is that if any charity or philanthropist-net (o-net included) believes they have a useful worldwide message to share, then if they do resort to videos they should bother to pay the extra one thousandth of production costs to put up a text transcript - for most of the online world in need this is the only way they can hsare in the dialogue, and even for those able to see video transcripts asnd videos are very differnet learning experiences in terms of what collaboration actions network round them

• this is just media 101 -in the 30 years or so that I have ersearched how communications actually do or do not comunalise purpose, truth, goodwill and other righ stuff- one reason why it comes as a shock to hear such common sense is that ad agencies find video media far more profitable (and indeed arguably when it comes to written scripts - those youth/women etc in the crisis can develop much more relevant scripts than someone sitting in madison avenue or sorrell's farm street

OK....

I am sorry... that stated...

If you are so concerned, Chris, with people being able to share useful messages on the net, please listen carefully.

• Don't make your point with dozens of YouTube and Google videos.
• Don't post huge images that take forever to load. And if you are going to waste my time and bandwidth with huge images, make them pictures that are worth 1,000 words so that you save the 1,000 words rather than use another 1,000 to explain them. (Or even worse, assume that they are self-explanatory when many make little to no sense)
• Try stepping back and listening to some of the people rather than assuming you have the answers and everyone is attacking you. I have followed almost every post you have made for over 2 years. I keep thinking that I should be able to understand. I am not stupid. When I have understood you, I have tried to help. I even tried to explain to you how functionally ineffective your posts where you make 100's of reserved spaces that you at least plan to go back in and edit are. If you have gone back in and edited those threads with an encyclopedia, I don't know because edits do show as current activity on a thread.
• Don't go in and edit the initial post in a thread because once comments have been made to it, it makes everyone look like idiots because what was there originally is not visible.

I suspect that you are headed in the same general direction as most everyone here but for me, the path you are taking is too confusing for me to follow and nothing I say to you seems to encourage you to join us or even slow down enough to explain the path you are on so that we can understand it.

And while I am ranting, will you please tell me what this post has to do with the thread it was posted in? I felt so sorry for Tony. And I will tell you that I have considered negging it enough to fold it but I am hoping that you will take care of it on your own.

Now that I am in the boonies, I have limited connectivity compared to what I had in Bangkok (not limited at all compared to people in other places like Africa). It frustrates me beyond reason to find myself reading all of your posts that point to other things and offer little of yourself and when I ask for clarification, to be ridiculed.

If you slow down and talk with the people here rather than at us, you might find help. Communicate with us. When we get enough courage to tell you that we don't understand, it should be telling you that we are at least trying to listen to you. Most people I know quit listening to people talking to walls after they have realized that talking to them falls on deaf ears.

</rant>

Chris, I think Linda is offering candid and very good advice overall. Also, I have to agree I also felt the Tony/wdydwyd post you made was so wildly off-topic I felt bad for Tony as well (and hope you consider deleting it and moving it to another thread more related within Ned.

Also, I think a lot of the thread(s) with 100's of reserved spaces could likely work much, much better in a single workspace...also in that environment I think others would more likely contribute/collaborate as well. And that workspace could then be linked to a single discussion thread for people to talk.

Linda,

Thank you for your mention of Tony's thread. I got really excited when I saw that Tony had posted at Ned (yay Tony!!!!) and when I came back the following day to post myself, saw what had been written by Chris, the tone of it and the length and just logged out.

I am at a point where the mention of Yunus's name is making me switch off...........and I was once such an interested fan of his work and philosophy.

Anyhow - thank you for your post. I suspect it reflects the feelings of many Ned members.

Cheers, Gayle

Going back to the issue of bandwidth, there's something I forgot to mention about this as a barrier. When we started on the idea of affordable internet access several years ago, it was bandwidth above all which determined costs. I calculated, that my colleague in Ukraine for example would need to pay $4000/month for the bandwidth available to me for about $45.

Mexico I understand it one of the most expensive countries in the world for internet service, along with having the world's richest man, with a fortune in telecoms. I can guess that data transfer costs are what denies multitudes access to information.

Not just in the developing world either, in the UK we discovered large documents as PDF which were only available online. At the time there was no ADSL in my area, so I was effectively excluded from information from my own government.

Going right back to the beginning in my colleagues advocacy about the information age, this was a fundamental point, that information exclusion was to be the new catalyst of poverty.

http://p-ced.com/History/tabid/5 8/Default.aspx

Now there's something else, which isn't to do with bandwidth costs, that I found remarkable. A new service claiming to be able to sanitise the internet of defamatory comment.

http://www.reputationdefender.co m/myreputation

That's all very well, for the kind of thing we saw demonstrated here not long ago. But what else could be removed for a fee if this became a precedent for cleaning up what didn't appeal? Where would our citizen activism and reporting be, if say the Junta in Burma could erase comment about it's activities, not just locally but over the entire web?

Food for thought?

That website makes me very curious...does this mean that someone will hack a website for $29.95? Are they going to spit the $9,95 with me to remove the damning information? .... very curious...

I think it means they are going to harass the ISP Linda. Which should be interesting when they tango with Google and even more interesting getting something removed from web archives.

I expect a lot of cases to be "we can't" and after all if it's a blog, easy enough to start again with another name.

oh dear oh dear oh dear

nobody would love it more than me if video had never come to the net http://worldclassbrands.tv

but video has come -thanks to west cpast internet companies and mass media etc -so we have to fight fire with fire

(I am old enough in internet terms to go back before teh dotcomes to hosting what was then a major web in areas of open knowhow that mattered to me in 1994- I can feel the flow of hiw dumbing down our meia is becoming at the average level of use)

and in other words -yes if you seriously have any idea that you want shared with the poor world do what linda says or if you have put it on video put a transript up

but equally know that within very few years the internet will be lost to video as far as the rich world's use of it - which is why it would be best to connect/map through a very small handful of people who have collaboration suolutions that flow round the world rather than search out 100000 separate socila entrepreneurs

truth is actually even worse than what I have just written since the modal use is heading towards video on the small mobile screen and mobile as the most expensive most gragemented non-flowing mediu ever-in london I have studied this phenomeno; the so called most socilally networked youth have comeplete attention deficit doisorder from texting hundreds of tiems a day; they wont even foucs on a real meeting with people without insisting to have texting breaks every 30 minutes

gee some of us have been advising that media is what can end our world faster than anything, if we make the wrong choices on media for 30 years now, so could we try and agree on sme of the above- and actually behave communally as if we did agree