One Size Does Not Fit All: US and Unique Needs

I have written earlier about reforms of USA's Universal Service Programme. A news item titled, "FCC suspends some cuts in rural high-cost support funding" tells us that FCC has announced that the suspension of its cuts in case of rural Alaska  planned as a part of its High Cost programme reforms. It has been stated by FCC that,

  “These measures will provide additional predictability and certainty for rate-of-return carriers as the Bureau works to adjust the benchmarking methodology as directed by the Commission through an open and transparent process.”

As explained in this article, "The Connect America Fund was designed to ensure that consumers in rural, insular and high cost areas have access to modern communications networks at rates comparable to those in urban areas. The program provides federal reimbursement to certain eligible carriers for some of the costs of serving rural communities."

As said by the Chairman of the American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee

 “The reforms they are suspending today is great news for rural Alaska, and is confirmation of what we have been trying to tell them this whole time: Alaska is different." He also emphasized that it has unique needs.

It has been recognized across the world that top down one size fit all approach will not work and Universal Service Funds and programmes must allow more stakeholder collaboration and bottom up projects to cater to different needs of geographies and communities.

Readers can also see  previous posts on U.S.A's Universal Service Programmes,  International Experience and related articles w.r.t  Indian USOF.

Nigeria's Universal Service Provision Fund-Lessons Learnt Way Forward & ITU's GSR 13 Discussion Paper

It has been reported that the Nigerian USPF ("which is a special fund set up by the Federal Government under the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, designed to provide telecommunications and ICT services to un-served, under-served and deprived groups and communities in the country") will under its new five year Strategic Management Plan (SMP),  build 1000 BTS per year and also lay 15,0000 kms of OFC . It will afurther create Internet POPs in 25 clusters by 2017.

The previous SMP which ended in 2011 revealed lessons that are perhaps  common across the globe. These include use of bidding for transparency, the need to "follow an  integrated approach to project strategy and execution would lead to increased participation of industry operators; ensure implementation of well-planned and adaptable projects that suits a variety of ICT schemes.." etc.

The problem with the earlier SMP include that,

“...[P]rojects were designed and defined using a ‘one size fits all’ approach, thus USP intervention, in some cases, did not directly address the specific needs of the beneficiaries, among others challenges,”  as stated by partner KPMG chief said.

I have written about this earlier as for example at http://ictsforall.blogspot.in/2013/07/usof-indias-unspent-balance-under.html.

Many of these thoughts are echoed in ITU's discussion paper on Universal Service Funds for the Global Symposium for Regulators 2013. (Please see  http://ictsforall.blogspot.in/search/label/GSR%202013.) This paper has outlined 12 success factors for effectiveness of USFs including policy and regulation, lexibility, transparency & accountability, active participation & inputs from all stakeholders, comprehensiveness of projects to cover all sustainability elements etc. I will write more about this soon.

Global Symposium for Regulators-Discussions on Competition and Universal Service

The theme for this year’s Global Symposium for Regulators being held in Poland from 3-5 July, 2013  is ‘4th-Generation Regulation: driving digital communications ahead.’The consultation process focuses on 3 areas:

• Regulation 4.0: Innovative and smart regulatory approaches fostering equal treatment of market players, stimulating services uptake and access to online services and applications without putting extra burden on operators and service providers (co-regulation, self-regulation, smart incentives, etc.);

• The evolving role of the regulator: the regulator as a partner for development and social inclusion;

• The need to adapt the structure and institutional design of the regulator to develop future regulation.

Regulation 4 mentions many important areas including those bearing on competition vis-à-vis broadband networks and flexible approach required for digital inclusion and universal service as discussed in my previous posts. In my view significant observations are the following:

Competitive provision of broadband networks:

‘We acknowledge that when adopting a regulatory framework that eliminates barriers to new entrants, ensuring the inclusion of competitive   provisions  that guarantee healthy relationship between all players  (operators,  Internet providers,  OTT providers, etc.),   is one of    ways  to promote the deployment of next -generation broadband networks and access to online applications and services.’

‘Regulators also need to review existing competition laws to determine whether measures  

based on regulation or competition law are already in place and whether they adequately address the issues that tend to impact net neutrality.’  

‘We acknowledge the importance for regulators to understand all parameters at play in a digital environment to ensure not only affordability of access but also the need to guarantee a certain level of quality of service (in particular for  communications that are sensitiv e to time delay), the need for interoperability,  without putting extra burden on operators and service providers.’

‘We notably recognize that encouraging operators  and service providers   to propose and implement ways in which they can develop the sector may  stimulate innovation and provide for   a win-win solution   for both  the state and the industry .  Regulation should ensure  the  sustainable development of the ICT  sector that is essential  to attracting the investments  needed in  a  global  digital environment.’

On Regulation for Universal Access and Digital Inclusion:

‘We recognize that stimulation of service uptake and access to online services and applications  requires flexible regulatory approaches.    We acknowledge that understanding people’s n eeds and  how they can  benefit from using ICTs  is  key to innovation , as both business and individual   consumers  are providers of  incentive s  for innovation .  We encourage governments  to work  collaboratively with all stakeholders and in particular the industry and  regulators to   facilitate   and  support  the  development of  infrastructure and  provision of services, particularly in rural, unserved  and underserved areas .  From  the  supply   side ,  predictable and stable   regulations are needed   to   maintain effective  competition and drive the development of  innovative services.  From  the  demand side, measures such as deferring  heavy or special  taxes on ICT equipment and   services,   encouraging research and development, endorsing special programs to stimulate e-literacy, will result in higher penetration, increased demand ,    better social inclusion  and contribute to national economic growth.  Governments  and regulator s  have a key role  to play in promoting and increasing  awareness on  the  use  and benefits of ICTs.’

‘Regulators  can  also   act as a partner for ICT development and social inclusion, by facilitating (and sometimes creating ) partnerships, such as private-public-partnerships (PPP), with aid-donors, governments, ministries and other NGOs ,  in particular to meet universal access goals to ICTs for rural ,  remote   and unserved   areas  and people with special needs. Regulators can further extend partnerships with schools and local communities through projects  for improving the connectivity of schools  and communities to  enhance use of ICT applications in addition to providing access to technology  and promote economic development.   We also  encourage partnerships with  other public agencies  to offer a   coordinated approach   for  the benefit of the government and  the community, as a whole.  The regulator may further provide advisory and educational assistance  to local communities .’

During this symposium, the session on Universal Service will focus on “Maximizing the Potential of Universal Service Funds through Successful Administration and Management – Addressing the Missing Link” The discussion paper for this session is a study on Universal Service Funds which is summarized in a presentation by Lynne.A.Dorward.

It is remarkable how much convergence there is on best practices,  lessons learned and way forward. Significantly, the presentation highlights that we must look beyond mere connectivity to also look into special needs of persons with disabilities, women, indigenous people etc and focus on providing access to ICTs in a conducive and culturally  acceptable manner. The recommendations for Universal Service Funds rightly focus on a comprehensive approach which takes into account tapping into linkages between all types of stakeholders including other public agencies and funding sources to provide a comprehensive solution to ensure digital inclusion.

I think this is pretty much on the same lines as what I have been trying to communicate through my previous posts. Once again I am happy and proud that the Indian USOF has been praised for high level of transparency, visibility and accountability to all stakeholders.

In my view the way forward for USOF could be captured pictorially as follows: