International Telecommunication Union   ITU
 
 
Site Map Contact us Print Version
 Tuesday, March 15, 2011

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 7 Applications such as E-healthcare, E-education, E-government and E-agriculture, etc.

Facilitators
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  DALKILIC Arikan arikan.dalkilic@turktelekom.com.tr
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  MULUK Turham Turhan.muluk@intel.com
  NATENZON Mikhail mnatenzo@space.ru

 

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:45:13 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 6 Regulatory Matters for Rural and Remote Areas

Facilitators
  AKA Awoua Gertrude awoua@atci.ci
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  DALKILIC Arikan arikan.dalkilic@turktelekom.com.tr
  EWOLADE Florence ewolade@yahoo.fr
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  MULUK Turham Turhan.muluk@intel.com
  MUNIKUNDA MUSATA Oscar manikunda_oscar@yahoo.fr
  NDJEKOUNDADE Ndjerabe nndjerabe@yahoo.fr
  PRATA Rafael rafaelprata@anatel.gov.br
  YILDIRIM Selcen selcen.yildirim@turktelekom.com.tr

 

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:41:46 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 5 Broadband + NGN for Rural and Remote Areas

Facilitators
  AGUNG Wiseto wiseto@telkom.co.id
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  AVANESOV Yury avanesov@i-tc.ru
  HANG Nga Nguyen Thi nganth@vnpt.vn
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  MULUK Turham Turhan.muluk@intel.com
  NDJEKOUNDADE Ndjerabe nndjerabe@yahoo.fr
  PATNAIK Laboni lpatnaik@qualcomm.com
  PRATA Rafael rafaelprata@anatel.gov.br
  XIANXIU Si sixianxin@catr.cn
  ZERAI Teklehaimanot Mogos zerai.zerai@ties.itu.int

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:39:45 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 4 Rural Projects, Emergency Support and Environmental Monitoring

Facilitators
  AGUNG Wiseto wiseto@telkom.co.id
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  SASTROKUSUMO Utoro utoro@ltrgm.ee.itb.ac.id

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:36:24 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 3 Rural Projects, Economic Viability and Sustainability

Facilitators
  ALVAREZ Clara-Luz claraluz@informa.com.mx
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  AVANESOV Yury avanesov@i-tc.ru
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  NDJEKOUNDADE Ndjerabe nndjerabe@yahoo.fr
  SHARMA Sapna sapnatrai@gmail.com
  YILDIRIM Selcen selcen.yildirim@turktelekom.com.tr

 

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:34:37 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 2 Rural Community Development

Facilitators
  ANAGO Richard anago@onatel.bf
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  AVANESOV Yury avanesov@i-tc.ru
  EWOLADE Florence ewolade@yahoo.fr
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci
  MULUK Turham Turhan.muluk@intel.com
  NDJEKOUNDADE Ndjerabe nndjerabe@yahoo.fr
  YILDIRIM Selcen selcen.yildirim@turktelekom.com.tr

 

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:32:38 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

e-discussion topic for Q10-3/2

Topic 1 Rural Technology, Infrastructure and Community Participation

Facilitators
  ASSOUMOU Regina Fleur assoumou@atci.ci
  AVANESOV Yury avanesov@i-tc.ru
  IPOU Alexandres ipou@atci.ci 
  KOUAME Hailette kouamehailette@atci.ci
  MULUK Turham Turhan.muluk@intel.com
  YILDIRIM Selcen selcen.yildirim@turktelekom.com.tr
  ZERAI Teklehaimanot Mogos zerai.zerai@ties.itu.int

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:29:37 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, March 10, 2009

10 March 2009

This weblog is maintained for ITU-D study group 2 Question 10. The members of the study group are welcome to register their e-mail address to the administrator below, and to make comments/contributions to this blog page by any of the following methods.

 

1 Sending your comments to the Question 10 participants.

Please send your comments by e-mail to the address: q10fora@pj9.so-net.ne.jp

then the copies of your e-mail message will be disseminated to all the participants of Question 10 as well as to the rapporteur. Your comments also will be posted after the review by the rapporteur.

2 Uploading your comments onto this blog page.

 Please send your comments by e-mail to the rapporteur: Kawasumi at kawasumi-yasuhiko@s3.dion.ne.jp

 or you can send them to the administrator of this blog page: Miyoshi at ymiyoshi@pj9.so-net.ne.jp 

 In either case, your comments will be posted after the review by the rapporteur. 

3  Making short comments directly on the blog page by yourself.

Please click "Comments" link that is located at the right end of the bottom line of each article. A comment input form will appear below the article, please type in your comment.  This may be good only for a short comment on the input article.

 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:11:32 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [3]  | 
 Monday, March 09, 2009

The rapporteur is seeking the comments from the e-discussion participants on the following revised draft question 10-2/2 for 2010-2014 study period to be discussed during the forthcoming rapporteur's group meeting. The draft will be submitted to the SG2 September 09 meeting for its review and then submitted to the WTDC-09 for apporval. Please send your comments to my e-mail address at kawasumi-yasuhiko@s3.dion.ne.jp, or by following "How to make comments" which is found in Navigation links to the right of this blog page.

Regards.

Kawasumi  

 

                                                                          _________________________________________

Question 10-2/2 : Telecommunication for rural and remote areas

SOURCE:

Rapporteur for Q10-2/2

TITLE:

Draft revised Question Q10-2/2 for 2010-2014

Action required: The Rapporteur's Group is requested to review for modification, if any, this draft revised question for the next study period.

Abstract: Draft revised question Q10-2/2 is submitted to the Rapporteur's group for its consideration and necessary modification for approval by SG2 in September 2009 for submission to WTDC-10.

 

Question 10-2/2: Telecommunications for rural and remote areas

 

1       Statement of the situation

In order to meet the objectives set by Geneva plan of action including those in Millennium development goals for improving connectivity and access in the use of ICT to be achieved by 2015 for all on this planet, the challenge of infrastructure development in the rural and remote areas of developing countries, where more than half of the world population are dwelling, is an essential foundation for providing valuable ICT applications outlined in C7 of Tunis agenda for quality of life of residents in the marginalized, harsh climate and difficult geographical terrain. 

Rapid migration of population to urban areas of developing and least developed countries may cause the adverse effect to the poverty alleviation unless measures are taken to improve the environment of the life of rural and remote areas possibly by deploying ICT technologies.

“Connect villages with ICT and establish community access points” should be promoted more intensively by emerging broadband technologies for various e-application services to vitalize the social and economic activities of rural and remote areas. Multipurpose community telecenters (MCT), public call office (PCO), community access centers (CAC), e-posts are still valid for cost effectiveness for sharing infrastructure and facilities by the community residents leading to the goal of provision of individual telecommunication access. 

Decisions that may drive first the examination and then the choice of particular techniques and solutions for the provision of multimedia services may be influenced by, inter alia, the following:

a)           Increasing availability of technologies that provide broadband connectivity  at progressively lower costs, lower energy consumption and lower emission of carbon oxide gas.

b)          Experience gained since the previous study cycles in many parts of the world in developing, implementing and refining major rural telecommunications programmes, as more countries respond to particular situations and in-country demand using "best practices" as outlined in the work of ITU‑D.

c)           The influence of cultural, social and other factors in producing differing and often creative responses to meeting the demand for multimedia services from residents of rural and remote areas of developing and least developed countries.

d)          Progress being steadily made on human resource development/management issues which are fundamental to establishing sustainable telecommunication infrastructure.

 

2       Question for study

There are a variety of issues that members will be interested in addressing within the four years of the Question. It is proposed that the key issue for study is the range and scope of techniques and solutions that are expected to play a significant role in the provision of e-application services for rural and remote areas. It is further proposed that the study should progress in stages to cover a four-year cycle in the following manner:

            Step 1 – Identification of the full range of potential techniques and solutions that can significantly impact on the provision of e-application services in rural and remote areas, with emphasis on those that employ the latest technology designed to lower infrastructure capital and operating costs taking into ample consideration for protection of global warming.

            Step 2 – Investigate and report on how the techniques identified above can be used to best deliver the range of services and applications required by rural and remote communities and adapted to the needs of users.

            Step 3 – Make an assessment of the likely commercial viability or sustainability of the techniques and solutions identified in the above steps.

            Step 4 – Report on a range of case studies that clearly demonstrate how a range of techniques, based on new technology aimed at providing reduced capital and operating cost solutions and enhancing community participation, can maximize the benefits of broadband ICT infrastructure in rural and remote areas.

In dealing with the above studies, the work under way in response to other Questions being dealt with in ITU‑D, and close coordination with relevant activities of the Questions, in particular Questions 18-1/2, 20-2/2 and also Questions 7-2/2 and 18-1/1 (Study Group 1), are highly relevant. In the same way, the studies shall take into account cases related to indigenous communities, isolated and poorly served areas and small islands, and highlight their particular needs and other particular situations which need to be considered in developing communications for these areas.

3       Expected output

The output will be a report on the results of the work conducted for each step above, together with one or more recommendations at appropriate times, either during the course of or at the conclusion of the cycle.

4       Timing

Output will be generated on a yearly basis. The output from the first year will be analysed and assessed in order to update the work plan for the next year, and so on.

5       Proposers

The Question was originally approved by WTDC‑94, revised by WTDC‑98, WTDC‑02, WTDC‑06 and WTDC-10

6          Sources of input

Contributions are required from Member States and Sector Members, as well as inputs from relevant BDT programmes, particularly those that have successfully implemented telecommunication programmes in rural and remote areas. These contributions will enable those responsible for work on the Question to develop the most appropriate conclusions, recommendations and output. The intensive use of correspondence and on line exchange of information and experiences is encouraged for additional sources of input.

7       Target audience

 

Target audience

Developed countries

Developing countries

Least developed countries (LDCs)

Telecom policy‑makers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Telecom regulators

Yes

Yes

Yes

Service providers/operators

Yes

Yes

Yes

Manufacturers

Yes

Yes

Yes

a)          Target audience

Depending on the nature of the output, upper- to middle-level managers among operators and regulators in developing and least developed countries are the predominant users of the output.

b)          Proposed methods for the implementation of the results

To be decided during the study period.

8       Proposed methods of handling the Question

Within Study Group 2.

9       Coordination

The ITU‑D study group dealing with this Question will need to coordinate with:

            Relevant focal points in BDT.

            Coordinators of relevant project and programme activities in BDT.

            Regional and scientific organizations with mandates covering the subject matter of the Question.

 

10     Other relevant information

As may become apparent within the life of this Question.

                                                                           ___________________________________

 

 

Monday, March 09, 2009 1:54:56 PM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [3]  | 
 Tuesday, March 03, 2009

 

Calling for inputs to the forthcoming Rapporteur抯 group March meeting

Tokyo, February 15, 2009

 

Rapporteur Group meeting on Q10-2/2 will take place at ITU headquarters during March 18-19 am. Invitation letter and the agenda may be retrieved from the following URL:

 

http://www.itu.int/md/D06-CA-CIR-0038/en

http://www.itu.int/md/D06-CA-CIR-0038/en

 

The Rapporteur would like to invite the members of Q10-2/2 group to submit input contributions to the forthcoming meeting on the following agenda items in particular:

 

1) Agenda item 5; Individual country experiences (Case studies),

2) Agenda item 7; Report/Guidelines on Question 10-2/2,

3) Agenda item 8; Proposals for Recommendations on Q10-2/2 for WTDC-10,

4) Agenda item 9; Proposals for a revised Question 10-2/2 for WTDC-10.

 

The draft analysis report on case studies Doc. 2/178 (2006-10) is available from the URL and the rest of the case studies submitted after the completion of draft analysis report is also available on the case library of the ITU-D :

 

http://www.itu.int/md/D06-SG02-C-0178/en

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

 

Rapporteur would also like as many members as possible to participate in the forthcoming meeting with input contributions on the above agenda items. The rapporteur will also prepare the draft report, recommendation and question for the WTDC10, however input from the members and vice-rapporteur will be much appreciated for productive meeting in March.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Yasuhiko Kawasumi, ITU Association of Japan

Rapporteur for Q10-2/2 on

揟elecommunication for rural and remote areas

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:43:49 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, April 24, 2008

The rapporteur would like to remind all the participants to refer to the ?Analysis of case studies on successful practices in telecommunications for rural and remote remote areas? published by the ITU as report of ITU SG2 for Q10-1/2 during 3rd study period (2002-2006). It gives under the annex from 47-53 on the ?Reducing Off-Grid Energy Costs for Small-Scale Rural ICT Projects?. The annex was provided by Ms. Rebecca Mayer of Winrock International (USA) to the rapporteur?s group meeting as their contribution and agreed to be included in the report. The following is the extracts from the annex. The complete text is downloadable free of charge from : http://www.itu.int/publ/D-STG-SG02.10.1-2006/en

 

(Extracts)

The cost of providing electricity for small-scale ICT projects in off-grid and poorly electrified areas can consume as much as 80% of initial project funds if energy demand is not managed properly from the outset.

When on-site energy generation and storage systems are used, the selection of low-power ICT equipment such as notebook computers, low-power desktop computers, LCDs screens, and ink jet printers (Figure A-1) can result in significant net savings in initial project costs by reducing the need for energy. Simply using energy efficient notebook computers instead of desktop systems can reduce the upfront investment in an off-grid, solar-powered telecenter by over USD 30 000. One of the primary goals of this discussion is to raise awareness of the relationship between ICTs and energy, and the financial benefits of considering energy needs early in the process when planning ICT programs in unelectrified rural areas.

 

Figure A-1 ? Energy-Saving ICT Options for Off-Grid Projects

 

 

 

Even when grid power is available, low ICT power consumption may be beneficial if the grid is unreliable and subject to frequent power outages. When the grid has frequent outages, a back-up electricity generator and/or a battery system may be needed to ensure continuous availability of electricity. As with distributed energy generation systems, the cost of a back-up battery system typically increases with the capacity of the battery bank. In general, the less energy the ICTs are consuming, the less expensive it will be to supply any shortfalls that may arise during the lifetime of the project.

A variety of field tested, commercialized standalone power systems are available to provide electricity for small-scale rural ICT applications. Energy management is particularly important with the use of photovoltaic (PV) and small wind systems. An assessment of the availability, quality and reliability of access to electricity at the site of proposed information and communications facilities can be a valuable cost-saving tool when matched with an understanding of distributed energy options and the impact that ICT power requirements have on energy system size and cost.

Small-scale energy needs are defined in this paper as the consumption of no more than 10 or 12 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per day. These needs can typically be met by power systems with rated capacities ranging from tens of Watts up to 2 to 3 kilowatts (kW) of peak power. In practical terms, power systems within this size range are capable of supporting applications such as battery charging for cell phones; a satellite dish, television and videocassette player for distance education; or a rural telecenter with eight to ten energy-efficient computers. Once the demand for electricity starts to exceed the range defined above, greater economies of scale in the purchase of energy system equipment begin to tip the balance of cost-benefit analyses toward different solutions and approaches.

Rural Energy Options

There are a number of ways to power small-scale ICT installations in locations that are not served by the electricity grid. Typically, the easiest and least expensive solution from the end user?s perspective is to arrange for the extension of the electricity grid to the project site. The cost of grid extension increases with the distance from the grid at a rate of several thousand U.S. dollars per kilometre (Table A-1). Therefore grid extension often starts to become economically prohibitive farther than three to five km from the grid.

When grid extension is not an option, a stand-alone or distributed power system can be installed to generate electricity at a location close to the site where the electricity is needed. Examples of small-scale, standalone power systems include generator sets powered by diesel, photovoltaic systems, small wind systems, and micro-hydro systems. Power systems based on renewable energy resources such as sunlight, wind and running water typically incur most of their costs up front with the initial purchase and installation of the system. On the other hand, power options based on fossil fuels tend to have lower initial investment costs and much higher running costs over time (Table A-1).

Table A-1 ? Costs of Energy Options for Off-Grid ICT Installations

 

 

Grid extension

Solar PV

Small wind

Micro-hydro

Diesel/gas

generator

Capital costs2

USD 4 000 to

USD 10 0003

per km

USD 12 000 to

USD 20 000

per kW

USD 2 000 to

USD 8 000

per kW

USD 1 000 to

USD 4 000

per kW

USD 1 000

per kW

Operating costs4

USD 80 to

USD 120

per 1 000 kWh

USD 5

per 1 000 kWh

USD 10

per 1 000 kWh

USD 20

per 1 000 kWh

USD 250

per 1 000 kWh

 

_______________________________________________

 

2 Capital costs include energy system components, installation, vendor markups, taxes and duties.

3 NRECA, February 2000.

4 Source: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, 1992. Grid operating costs are based on retail electricity rates of USD 0.08 to

USD 0.12 per kWh. Generator operating costs include fuel at a price of USD 0.50/liter.

 (End of Extracts)

 

Yasuhiko Kawasumi, rapporteur

Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:30:13 AM (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 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 esp鑓e de WiFi, et ca parce que du point de vue  th閛r閠ique la rase d'action pour un syst鑝e WiMax c'est environs 40 km, si on utilise comme syst鑝e radiant un syst鑝e d'antennes intelligentes "smart antenna". En plus si on d関eloppe un logiciel de type Mobile IPv6, comme m閠hode d'acc鑣 alors vous avez d閖 un syst鑝e vraiment mobile. Ca veut dire que je peut m'inscrire dans le syst鑝e WiMax avec mon terminal de n'importe quel r閟eaux et ca fonctionnera super gr鈉e aux algorithmes qui sont d関elopp閟 par Mobile IPv6. Je parle ici de la vraie mobilit et pas de celle pr関ue par un r閟eau 3G ou 2G, ou je suis seulement nomade dans mon r閟eau m鑢e, car si je quitte ce r閟eau en 2G ou 3G il faudrait des accords de "roaming" entre les op閞ateurs, tandis qu'ici en WiMax ca marche, n'importe quelle sera mon r閟eau m鑢e.

Vous trouvez comme pi鑓e jointe quelques pr閏isions de plus sur le syst鑝e qui engendre Mobile IPv6.

Je parle d'un vrai mobilit alors de je serai servi n'importe quelle sera mon r閟eau, je serai en "roaming" partout, en plus je suis IP, alors des liaison de donn閑s sans peine. Super bonne id閑 comme technologie je ne serai li de l'op閞ateur que pour des raisons de tarifications.

Amicalement votre,
Ren
ANDREESCU
Pr閟ident 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,
Ren
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: r鑗lementation du Wimax

Bonjour,

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

En effet un d閎at sur la r鑗lementation du Wimax divise en ce moment les responsables en charge des t閘閏ommunications dans mon pays. Certains sont pour la r鑗lementation de cette technologie d'autres sont contre.

J'aimerais connaitre la vision de votre pays 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:

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

              (b)       Grant/aid driven:

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

              (c)        Application Development initiatives:

                             Bhoomi

              (d)       State Government driven:

                             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]  |