International Telecommunication Union   ITU
 
 
Site Map Contact us Print Version
 Sunday, March 30, 2008

Facilitators for E-discussion topics Q10-2/2

 

29 March 2008

(Revised after the RGQ10 Geneva meeting

 in September 2007)

 

Revised Topic

Facilitator

1 Rural Technology, Infrastructure and community participation

SANZ CABRERA Julian, julian@telan.co.cu

HECTOR Paul, phector@uneca.org

 

2 Rural community development

ANAGO Richard, anago@onatel.bf

JHUNJHUNWALA Ashok, ashok@tenet.res.in

BHATTI Mushtaq Ahmad, mabhatti@moitt.gov.pk

 

3 Rural projects, Economic Viability & Sustainability

Ms SHARMA Sapna, sapnatrai@gmail.com

HECTOR Paul, phector@uneca.org

Ms. ALVAREZ Clara-Luz,  claraluz@informa.com.mx

 

4 Rural projects, Emergency Support and Environmental Monitoring

AGUNG Wiseto, wiseto@telkom.co.id

SASTROKUSUMO Utoro, utoro@ltgm.ee.itb.ac.id

ROSE John, johnrose@alumni.caltech.edu

 

5 Broadband + NGN for Rural and Remote Areas

AGUNG Wiseto, wiseto@telkom.co.id

Ms. PATNAIK Laboni, lpatnaik@qualcomm.com

 

6 Regulatory Matters for Rural and Remote Areas

MUNIKUNDA MUSATA Oscar,

manikunda_oscar@yahoo.fr

 

7 E-healthcare

NATENZON Mikhail, mnatenzo@space.ru

 

 Yasuhiko KAWASUMI, Rapporteur

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:58:22 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Saturday, March 29, 2008

Revised Topic 3.  Rural Projects, Economic Viability & Sustainability

 

Access to reliable power for electricity generation has been and continues to be a challenge for small-scale rural and remote communities. Today, the rising cost of petro-fuels is clearly another wake-up call to redouble efforts aimed at ensuring that the energy needs of these communities are being met.

 

Renewable energies provide one means of addressing this challenge, particularly for those communities which are not on the national power grid. Possible technologies include wind turbine, micro-hydro, solar and human/animal powered equipment.

 

Equally important though is to note that by employing devices which themselves have low-power consumption levels, the power requirement needs of communications can be reduced. Consequently, more devices can be powered with a given level of power generating capacity. An example, which comes immediately to mind are energy-saving bulbs, however, a variety of electrical components ranging from computers to radio transmission/receiving equipment are being designed with built-in power saving and low-power consumption features.

 

The following websites provide some examples of projects and products that incorportate low-energy and low-cost ICT devices as well as information on renewable energy generating equipment that can be developed and installed by rural and remote communities.

 

 

1. Ugandan experiences using low-cost Internet for rural schools

 

Deploying Low-Energy ICT ? A technical overview:

http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/newsletter/article.php?article_id=148

 

Low-energy Internet for Education ? Where Electricity is a Challenge

http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/newsletter/article.php?article_id=142

 

2. A list of global organizations and products that offer low cost and low-energy ICT devices for the developing world

http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.107.html

 

3. Scoraig Wind Electric - a number of do it yourself plans for building small scale wind turbines

http://www.scoraigwind.com/

 

4. Information on micro-hydro turbines

http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Hydro/WaterTurbineAppendix.pdf.

 

5. A rural India micro-hydro project

http://sgp.undp.org/download/SGP_India1.pdf

 

6. ICT infrastructure projects for rural and remote communities in Africa and Asia

http://www.inveneo.org/

Paul Hector, Topic 3 Facilitator

Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:47:33 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, April 27, 2007

Cher Monsieur Manga,

WiMax ce n'est pas du tout une espèce de WiFi, et ca parce que du point de vue  théorétique la rase d'action pour un système WiMax c'est environs 40 km, si on utilise comme système radiant un système d'antennes intelligentes "smart antenna". En plus si on développe un logiciel de type Mobile IPv6, comme méthode d'accès alors vous avez déjà un système vraiment mobile. Ca veut dire que je peut m'inscrire dans le système WiMax avec mon terminal de n'importe quel réseaux et ca fonctionnera super grâce aux algorithmes qui sont développés par Mobile IPv6. Je parle ici de la vraie mobilité et pas de celle prévue par un réseau 3G ou 2G, ou je suis seulement nomade dans mon réseau mère, car si je quitte ce réseau en 2G ou 3G il faudrait des accords de "roaming" entre les opérateurs, tandis qu'ici en WiMax ca marche, n'importe quelle sera mon réseau mère.

Vous trouvez comme pièce jointe quelques précisions de plus sur le système qui engendre Mobile IPv6.

Je parle d'un vrai mobilité alors de je serai servi n'importe quelle sera mon réseau, je serai en "roaming" partout, en plus je suis IP, alors des liaison de données sans peine. Super bonne idée comme technologie je ne serai lié de l'opérateur que pour des raisons de tarifications.

Amicalement votre,
René
ANDREESCU
Président de l'Association "Ecole Polytechnique de Bucarest"


Dear Mr. Manga,

WiMax it's not a really WiFi modified. That because cell radius can bee 40 km if we use a smart antenna area, theoretical speaking. Otherwise if we use also a Mobile IPv6 access protocol will have a really mobile network. That means I can login in the system with my terminal coming-up from any network. That doesn't works in 2G or 3G networks if only the operators have roaming accord. In our case will work fine because of Mobile IPv6 algorithms, for any host network.

You find attached small presentations, where you can find the principle of Mobile IPv6.

I talk here about a truly mobility and not only about nomadic situation in my home network, like in 2G or 3G cases. In this situation I will be in "roaming" in any network and more than that I have an IP link, which will work fine. Great technological idea! The only raison for I have a home network it's the billing.

Sincerely yours,
René
ANDREESCU
President of "Polytechnic School of Bucharest" Association

Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:12:39 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Dear Mr. Manga,

Thank you very much for your message asking whether WiMax technology should be regulated in your coutry.

In my country or in any other country, I think at least the use of radio frequencies, power emission of radio signals, conditions for deployment of the technology for fixed or mobile services should be prescribed by the radio regulation. The study of regulation is now under way in our country.

I wish to seek the views of other e-discussion members in this respect.

Regards, Kawasumi

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger MANGA
Subject: règlementation du Wimax

Bonjour,

je voudrais vous poser un problème qui n'a pas un lien direct avec la question 10-2/2.

En effet un débat sur la règlementation du Wimax divise en ce moment les responsables en charge des télécommunications dans mon pays. Certains sont pour la règlementation de cette technologie d'autres sont contre.

J'aimerais connaitre la vision de votre pays à ce sujet.

salutations, Roger MANGA

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:55:47 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, April 10, 2007

 Dear Mr. Kawasumi,

  As far as USO policy in India is concerned, initially the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) was providing support for public access through Village Public Telephones (VPTs), Rural ommunity Phones (RCPs) and individual access through provision of individual household telephones (RDELs) i.e. basic services. Recently, the Government is working to provide support for creation of infrastructure for provision of mobile services in specified rural and remote areas. In addition, USO policy also intends to support provision of e-governance and other data services to the rural masses. For the same a proposal is under consideration of the Government to provide subsidy support for Broadband connectivity in rural and remote areas of the country in phased manner by utilizing the infrastructure created for provision of mobile services. The broad parameters under which the connectivity is required to be provided are being worked out.

 

  2.         In India, the Corporates, State Governments and NGOs have launched several rural initiatives based on latest ICTs and of different scales. Some pilot projects carried out in rural areas of India include the following:

              (a)       Profit Driven Projects:

                         Ø      ITC e-chaupal  
                         Ø      N-Logue   
                         Ø      Drishtee (using existing telecom infra-structure)

              (b)       Grant/aid driven:

                        Ø      MS Swaminathan Center (in Pondichery,  focused on agriculture and fishing applications).   
                        Ø      Tara-haat (focus on rural enterprises)   
                        Ø      Akshaya (in Kerala with Government support).   
                        Ø      Gyandoot (in M.P. with focus on e-Governance)- operated by n-Logue.   
                        Ø      Rural e-Seva (in East Godavari District of AP with focus on e-governance)   
                        Ø      Warana Village (in Maharashtra  by NIC) ? operated by n-Logue

              (c)        Application Development initiatives:

                       Ø      Bhoomi

              (d)       State Government driven:

                       Ø      Andhra Pradesh Broadband Network ? Broadband connectivity available across the state 
                                                                               
? for offices, institutions and homes 
                                                                               
? at affordable costs.

  3.         In these pilot projects the main services that are being provided include the following:

           (a)   Information about agricultural product  
           (b)   market information 
           (c)   weather information  
           (d)   e-education  
           (e)   e-medicine  
           (f)    exam results   
           (g)   e-payments   
           (h)   video conferencing   
           (i)    cyber chatting   
           (j)    ecommerce   
           (k)   email   
           (l)    voice mail   
           (m)  e-governance, etc.

Best regards  Sapna

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 4/9/07, KAWASUMI Yasuhiko  wrote:

 Dear Ms. Sharma,

    I think your message is based on the real policy and its practice.
    Thank you for your useful input. We would like to know what e-services are aimed for the rural and remote areas in India and Pakistan or implemented.

Regards.     Kawasumi

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:16:58 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, April 09, 2007

Dear Mr. Bharti,

I agree with Mr. Gupta. When I visited rural village centers in India two years ago,rural intreprueners explained to me that video-conferencing through the MCT
facilitieswere pupular service among the village people. 256Kbps may be more confortable forthe users than 128 for the image or video transmission( video-conferencing,
medicalconsultation services, and tele-education services etc).

Regards.
Kawasumi

------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Bhatti,

Though 128KBPS for rural area may be a goodbeginning,it cannot support Video(Entertanment) aswell as e-learning which are considered to be veryimportant applications to make the Broadbandaffordable as well as popular in rural areas. also any mandate for lower speeds in rural areas vis-a-vis urban may widen the digital divide further. For consideration please.

Satyen Gupta

Monday, April 09, 2007 2:16:12 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [2]  | 

Dear all,

     1.         In India, Broadband policy 2004 defines Broadband connectivity as an  'always-on' data connection that has the capability of the minimum download speed of 256 kilo bits per second (kbps) to an individual subscriber.

     2.         As per commission of the European communities "Digital divide forum report: Broadband access and public support in under-served areas"   dated 15.07.2005:

      Speeds in rural areas tend to be lower than average. Download speeds between 144 kbps and 512 kbps have been the most common speeds rural users have subscribed to in the past two years (55-56% of users).

       At the national level, in July 2004 the percentage of subscriptions to this bracket of speeds is down to 39%, and a similar percentage is registered for speeds up to 1 Mbps. Since 2003, at the national level, the share of low speeds has been declining, while higher speeds above 1 Mbps have increased their share. The share of high speeds in rural areas has remained overall constant.

Best regards  Sapna

Monday, April 09, 2007 3:48:49 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

Facilitators for E-discussion topics

Q10-2/2

 

9 April 2007

                                                                                                          

 

Topic

Facilitator

1 Community Development

ANAGO Richard

anago@onatel.bf

2 Developing Support for Small Businesses

JHUNJHUNWALA Ashok

ashok@tenet.res.in

3 Rural technology for Social infrastructure

SANZ CABRERA Julian

julian@telan.co.cu

4 Emergency Support & Disaster Mitigation

HASAN Taufik

taufik_h@telkom.co.id

Co:SASTROKUSUMO Utoro

utoro@ltgm.ee.itb.ac.id

 

5 Sustainability, Reliability & Effectiveness

Ms SHARMA Sapna

sapnatrai@gmail.com

6 Environmental Monitoring & Protection

ROSE John

johnrose@alumni.caltech.edu

7 Economical Viability

HECTOR Paul

phector@uneca.org

8A Indices in rural area

ALVAREZ Rodolfo

ralvarez@conatel.gov.ve

8B Community participation in infrastructure

HECTOR Paul

phector@uneca.org

9 NGN for rural and remote areas

AGUNG Wiseto

wiseto@telkom.co.id

10 Broadband for rural and remote areas

Ms GRAIG Samantha

scraig@qualcomm.com

11 Regulatory Matter for rural and remote areas

MUNIKUNDA MUSATA Oscar

manikunda_oscar@yahoo.fr

12 E-Services planned or implemented in rural and remote areas

BHATTI Mushtaq Ahmad

mabhatti@moitt.gov.pk

* updated after Bandung RQG10 meeting in March 2007.

Monday, April 09, 2007 1:57:37 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Dear Mr. Bhatti,

It was so nice to meet you during the RGQ10-2/2 meeting in Bandung last week. Thank you for your input on the topic of requirements for broadband and NGN.
128Kbps and the 256Kbps are the target suggested at this time. During the Bandung meeting you suggested the new topic of e-services over the broadband for the rural and remote areas for the e-discussion and you kindly volunteered to be the facilitator for this topic.

Can you lead the topic by providing the e-services planned or implemeted in rural and remote areas of your country.

Regards.  Kawasumi

Monday, April 09, 2007 1:46:05 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Saturday, April 07, 2007

Dear Mr.Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti,

Too, I fully agree with Hendrik Prins, your definition seem very realistic and deserve to be studied in depth

Yours sincerely  Michel LEMAITRE

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti

This is a realistic entry point in my view (same as 2x64 ISDN).

Regards  Hendrik Prins   Australia

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear All,

High data rates provision for rural areas is a bottleneck for rural areas as these areas lack in back bone facilities and content requirement is also limited. Keeping in view these constraints, Pakistan has defined 128 kbps always on connection as broad band which will meet most of the requirements/applications of rural areas.
 
Regards,  Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti  Director Telecom,  Ministry of IT

Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:40:20 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Thanks Wiseto,

As mentioned in my earlier comments,TRAI reccomendations for Unified licence is yet to be accepted by Govt. and therefore enough incentive is not there for operators to deploy NGN in rural areas. But main operators are in planning stage for NGN deployment for NGN.  I will get some more details for that.

Regards,  Satyen


--- Wiseto Agung <wiseto@telkom.co.id> wrote:

Dear Satyen,
 
Many thanks for your comments.  As NGN promises new services possibilities as well  as the cost reduction  (both capex & opex), I have the same opinion with  you that this  technology might support the affordability  aspect. 
 
Perhaps you could inform us the real case in India  of the NGN  implementation ?
 
Kind regards,  Wiseto

Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:18:32 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, April 02, 2007

Dear Wiseto,

Thanks a lot for initiating the discussion on NGN in Rural area. There appears to be no killer application for NGN in rural areas but one very compelling application appears to be Triple-Play ie. all voice,internet and video through same infrastructure bundled with the single bill for all this services. This will take care of the affordability angle in the rural area as other wise people there can not afford the cost of individual service through separatre networks(infrastructre).Also rural area being a green field  environment in most of the developing countries,deployment of NGN there makes an ideal choice.

The main requirement for motivating the operators to deploy NGN in rural areas will be an Unified licence which should be technology neutral and service agnostic, enabling the operator to deploy any technology and provide all type of services by obtaining the single unified licence. In india the regulator(TRAI) has already reccomended a similar licencing regime to the Govt.

Regards,  Satyen

Monday, April 02, 2007 7:04:01 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Sunday, April 01, 2007

It seems to me that we are getting things a little out of order here and that is creating a problem.

I believe the situation is quite straight forward. User requirements are established first whether they be for individuals, households, businesses, Government entities, Hospitals, schools etc.

These requirements will vary greatly depending on the services and applications sought under a host of different scenarios depending on location, level of economic development and will tempered by the ability to fund/pay.  We can try to determine a set of so called typical scenarios to be used for modelling and then do some straw man technical solutions and costing.  If the network architecture is to be based on a shared and thus contended access model, we need to start from average date rates to dimension the network and then depending on the traffic flow dynamics make some predictions about likely peak data rates for individual connections.

There is nothing new in any of this. Thousands of networks have already been deployed in rural areas based on wireless to offer voice and more recently higher speed packet data access. Whether these or future ones are deemed broadband or not is a moot point and not even very important as long as the user needs are satisfied in my view. Furthermore how all this actually relates to NGN in a practical  is still not even certain in my mind.

The above view are based on nearly 40 years of practical and theoretical experience in wireless communications, including intimate involvement with wireless broadband network system design and deployment in rural areas.

For consideration  by the group.

Regards   Hendrik

Sunday, April 01, 2007 1:11:07 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Hendrik, Michel:
 
I agree that everyone should be very careful before drawing any conclusions from our discussions on this forum. We are in a very early stage in the deployment of broadband in rural areas, and it is not even clear what questions need to be asked - let alone answered - in order to provide a foundation for decisions at many levels. Ashok's suggestion to set targets for average or effective bandwidth rather than  peak rates helps define the policy question in a certain direction, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions in my mind about what the implications of such an approach would be in terms of cost and feasibility.
 
I think that discussions like this are useful for bridging the gap between technical standards debates (particularly in ITU fora) and more practical considerations such as: what are the actual service features that rural populations experience using this infrastructure, what are the service models through which broadband is reaching or will reach the end user, and how do we abstract the economic and cost principles behind infrastructure deployment that are needed by policymakers to make choices about how to allocate limited resources.
 
As for Michel's objection to my relaying an anecdote from a vendor about product functionality, I purposely did not mention the vendor's name or product line so there could be no question of promoting commercial interests. A lot of people have practical questions about what today's commercial technology can offer LDCs. An informed consumer has the best chance of protecting their own interests!
 
Regards,  Rebecca

Sunday, April 01, 2007 1:06:42 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

dear all,

I fully agreed with Hendrik point of view: the most important point is this of users not vendors!!  it is not a commercial forum; we are required for helping the LDC !!!

Regards and good week end!

michel lemaitre

Sunday, April 01, 2007 1:03:13 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Saturday, March 31, 2007

Rebecca                                                                                               (re: starting input)

I respectfully disagree with the statements from the vendor re guarantees for end users unless the configuration is a point to point link using one of the WiMAX profiles. In fact I find that this whole debate lacks technical rigour and the conclusions arrived at need to be carefully scrutinised.

Regards  Hendrik

Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:45:09 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, March 29, 2007

I am following the discussions and finding them very interesting. In Brazil we are trying to solve the problem of rural communications in two ways:

a) with 3G technology, by putting an obligation to the operators to cover all the 5 560 brazilian cities that have elected mayor, most of them with less then 30.000 inhabitants;
b) with WiFi and WiMax, by giving mayoral lycenses to operate telecommunications services in their region.

Perhaps we manage to implemente both solutions until the end of this year.

Vilmar R. Freitas
Anatel - Brazil

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:37:25 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

                                                                                                           (re: starting input)

Dear Colleagues                                                                               

Yes as with moth things unfortunately there are significant technical limits to the amount of BW that can be offered and they are governed by the air interface and spectrum availability and other factors and off course there is a cost and it is certainly not minimal!

Regards  Hendrik

---------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Magodo,

Thank you for your comments on the reqjuirements for data rate of broadband in rural and remote areas.

Re your points raised, we are discussing minimum data rate needed for e-applications or services in rural areas. If you have experiences with regards to the limitations(technically or legally) of data rate and its cost implications in Zimbabwe or in any other African countries?

Regards. Kawasumi

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:27:33 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Colleagues

I have been following the issue of bandwidth requirements for rural areas The questions that come to mind are;

1.    Are there any technical limitations in providing the maximum available bandwidth?  The choice of how much bandwidth is used should be left to the customer¹ applications and needs.

2.    Is there any additional cost and how much if bandwidth is limited to 256 Kbits/s or 2 Mbits/s?  Most of the systems or solutions are modular and I believe if any additional cost is involved it should be minimal. Some of the so called rural areas have a propensity for high bandwidth e.g. to access markets where they an sell their produces; download information on how to improve on their agriculture efficiency and output.  I think we should be able to provide adequate bandwidth to meet the customers needs.
 
Regards  G. Magodo, POTRAZ

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:28:54 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Dear Mr Kawasumi

My gut feeling based on my own experience and working in rural areas is that a target average user data rate of 256 Kbps symmetric if possible is very effective. This is a personal opinion but one close to what some operators aim for (rural Australia with Telstra for instance have indicated this figure).

Regards   Hendrik


On 29/3/07 1:00 AM, "KAWASUMI Yasuhiko" wrote:

Dear Rebecca, Ashok and Hendric,

What is your observation on the minimum requirements for broadband considering the needs of users for e-applications and services in rural areas. Copper wire, optic fiber and PLC are being deployed for the last mile in the collected case studies.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/study_groups/SGP_2006-2010/Case_Library/index.html

Regards.   Kawasumi

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:04:55 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  |