Revitalizing Universal Service Funds to Promote Inclusion | IGF 2023

Audience

The analysis examines various topics related to internet access and digital inequality. The GIGA project is highlighted as a cost-effective solution for improving internet access in schools. The project has helped in reducing the cost of schools by involving small providers who can offer more affordable options or better access to schools located near communities. This initiative aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

Another important concern raised in the analysis is the concentration and monopolization of online platforms. This issue not only affects carriers but also content creators. The dominant position of certain platforms has led to a decrease in competition and options for both users and content creators. These concerns align with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

The analysis also discusses the misuse of Universal Service Funds (USF) in Paraguay. It is stated that these funds have been used to acquire surveillance and biometric technology, which have been deployed in the streets of the capital and other cities. This raises concerns about privacy, surveillance, and potential misuse of funds. The misuse of USF in Paraguay is seen as a violation of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Private and public sector financing is highlighted as a factor that may influence the costs associated with entering the ecosystem for community networks. The analysis mentions different tiers of investment economics, suggesting that the availability and accessibility of financing can play a crucial role in determining the success and sustainability of community networks. This topic is linked to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

There is uncertainty expressed about a one-size-fits-all model or approach being applied to community networks. The argument presented suggests that different communities have unique needs and challenges that cannot be addressed effectively by a single approach. The analysis calls for a more tailored and context-specific approach to community networks, which aligns with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 4 (Quality Education).

The analysis also discusses the challenges faced by community networks in taking operational ownership. Specific reference is made to CowMesh, a community network in India, to illustrate the challenges faced in transitioning from external support to community-driven ownership. This highlights the importance of community engagement and empowerment for the sustainability and success of community networks. The topic aligns with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

In addition, the analysis raises concerns about defining and understanding what the internet means for different communities. It highlights the need for a common understanding and language when it comes to concepts such as hypertext and hyperlinks. This indicates a potential gap in digital literacy and the importance of ensuring equal access to knowledge and understanding of internet-related concepts. This topic relates to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on various aspects of internet access and digital inequality. It highlights the GIGA project as a cost-effective solution for bringing internet access to schools and raises concerns about the concentration and monopolization of online platforms. The misuse of USF funds in Paraguay, the influence of private and public sector financing on community networks, the challenges in community networks taking operational ownership, and the need for a common understanding of the internet are also discussed. Overall, the analysis emphasizes the importance of addressing digital inequality and ensuring access to affordable and equitable internet connectivity for all communities.

Nathalia Foditsch

The analysis of the provided information reveals several key points regarding universal service funds (USF). Firstly, it is noted that a significant portion of USF funding is being directed towards larger operators, which is seen as a negative aspect. This raises concerns about the fair allocation of resources and the potential exacerbation of inequality within the telecommunications sector. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru are cited as countries with high disbursement rates, indicating a potential bias towards larger operators in these regions. On the other hand, many countries either do not utilize USF at all or use it for other purposes, such as creative accounting, which further highlights the issue of improper allocation.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that smaller internet service providers (ISPs) face obstacles in accessing USF funds. These ISPs are required to obtain a letter of credit amounting to 25% of the funds needed, along with a 25% match requirement. This poses a significant financial burden on smaller ISPs and effectively shuts them out of the Broadband Expansion and Enhancement Program (BEED). This observation underlines the need for a more equitable and inclusive approach to accessing USF funds, particularly for smaller players in the industry.

Advocacy for changes in the design and disbursement of USF is also highlighted. Organizations have partnered with other stakeholders to advocate for reforms that would facilitate a fair and transparent process for the allocation of funds. This includes ensuring the inclusion of all types of stakeholders, not just large operators, and developing a more accessible and streamlined application process.

The analysis also reveals an increased awareness and recognition of community networks within public and regulatory bodies. Over the past 2-3 years, there has been a growing awareness of the role that community networks can play in improving connectivity and bridging the digital divide. This has led to the creation of new working groups within national regulators, specifically advocating for community networks. This development suggests a shifting paradigm where the importance of community-driven initiatives is being acknowledged and integrated into policymaking and regulatory frameworks.

Another significant point raised in the analysis is the need for stronger public involvement and multi-stakeholder partnerships to ensure transparency and prevent the misuse of USF funds. Increased transparency is highlighted as a requirement to address concerns about the potential improper use of funds. Additionally, the analysis notes that not all stakeholders are adequately represented in the decision-making process. Therefore, a more inclusive approach that actively involves all relevant actors is necessary to foster a fair and accountable system for USF governance.

The analysis also brings attention to the growing possibility of including big tech companies in contributing to the USF. Following a recent national regulator consultation, there are rumors suggesting that big techs may be asked to contribute to the fund. This potential development has garnered support from some stakeholders who argue that involving big tech companies could provide additional resources to support the goal of industry, innovation, and infrastructure in line with Sustainable Development Goal 9.

However, the analysis reveals instances where the USF funds have been misused. For example, in Paraguay, surveillance cameras were purchased using USF money. This highlights the potential for inappropriate use of funds and underscores the need for proper oversight and accountability measures to ensure that USF funds are used for their intended purpose.

In conclusion, the analysis of the provided information underscores several significant issues pertaining to universal service funds. The preferential allocation of funds to larger operators, the challenges faced by smaller ISPs in accessing funds, and the need for reforms in the design and disbursement processes are key concerns. The growing recognition of community networks, the importance of transparency and multi-stakeholder partnerships, and the potential inclusion of big tech companies in contributing to the fund are also notable observations. However, instances of fund misuse and inappropriate usage serve as a reminder of the critical role of effective governance and oversight mechanisms. Overall, the analysis highlights the necessity for reform, inclusivity, and accountability in the management of universal service funds, ultimately ensuring equitable access to quality telecommunications services.

Jane Roberts Coffin

Universal service and access funds, established by regulators worldwide in collaboration with telecommunications companies, have been in existence for over 20 years. Originally intended to subsidise fixed fiber networks, these funds have had mixed implementation and impact. While some have been well-administered, others have been misused for purposes unrelated to network expansion, leading to a lack of accountability and hindered progress in reaching underserved areas.

With approximately 2.6 billion people still offline due to inadequate network coverage, there is a pressing need to review and find new ways of implementing universal service funds. One proposal is to diversify fund usage, directing them towards initiatives that address specific connectivity gaps, such as connecting women and girls, or supporting internet exchange points and community networks.

Jane Roberts Coffin argues for a complete reboot of these funds, advocating for a fresh approach to implementation and distribution. She suggests expanding fund usage to target specific connectivity needs, citing successful examples like Argentina.

The role of Ofcom, a regulatory body, is also discussed. Ofcom focuses on creating market conditions for network providers to thrive, rather than providing direct funding. Jane appreciates Teddy Woodhouse’s explanation of Ofcom’s function.

Challenges may arise when community service organizations (CSOs) work with regulators. Jane raises concerns about this and seeks advice on how CSOs can effectively collaborate with regulators and influence policy decisions. This highlights the importance of productive partnerships and dialogue between CSOs and regulatory bodies.

In conclusion, the implementation and impact of universal service and access funds have varied greatly. Reviewing fund usage, expanding their scope, and fostering collaboration between CSOs and regulators are vital in addressing global connectivity challenges.

Josephine Miliza

Universal Service Funds (USFs) play a crucial role in advancing network connectivity in Africa. Currently, 37 countries on the continent have established USFs. However, challenges exist regarding the ownership and sustainability of USF projects.

In many African countries, community networks, which are considered complementary access models, face obstacles when it comes to accessing USFs. Due to a lack of recognition, community networks are unable to benefit from the funds available. Advocacy efforts are being made to remove the clause that exempts community networks from making contributions to USFs. A successful example of this is seen in Kenya, where the removal of this clause has allowed community networks to benefit from the USF.

Regulatory experiments in Kenya have proven to be successful for community networks. The country’s regulator has taken steps such as developing a community networks service provider license and has plans to establish a hundred community networks. These efforts serve as examples of successful community network initiatives and highlight the importance of supportive regulatory frameworks.

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play a crucial role in advocating for community networks. They are actively involved in raising awareness, building capacity, and providing technical assistance. CSOs also have the responsibility of helping regulators understand how to effectively support community networks. Through their efforts, CSOs contribute to the creative regulatory solutions and awareness building necessary for the success of community networks.

Patience and resilience are emphasized as necessary qualities for CSOs engaging with regulators. Building sustainable relationships with regulators takes time and requires perseverance, as evident from the experience shared by Josephine’s team.

Collaboration and partnerships with existing stakeholders are highlighted as essential for effective advocacy for community networks. By leveraging resources from other countries and regions, collaborations can bring about positive outcomes. The UK Digital Access Program’s collaboration with the Kenyan regulator is given as an example of such partnerships in action.

The importance of utilizing existing resources, experiences, and advocacy efforts is stressed. Instead of starting from scratch, teams should build on the knowledge and expertise already available. The collaboration with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is mentioned as an example of utilizing existing resources for the benefit of community networks.

Transparency and accountability are significant concerns when it comes to USFs in Africa. A study currently being reviewed by the GSMA highlights the issue of fund reallocation in the region, with difficulties in tracking where the money is being spent. Clear reporting on how funds are allocated and utilized is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability.

In conclusion, USFs are essential for advancing network connectivity in Africa. However, challenges exist in terms of ownership and sustainability. To fully leverage the potential of community networks, it is essential to remove barriers to their access to USFs. Regulatory experiments, collaboration with CSOs, and the utilization of existing resources are instrumental in supporting community networks. Transparency and accountability in fund allocation and reporting are vital for the effective use of USFs in Africa.

Senka Hadzic

In this introductory session, six speakers were introduced to discuss various aspects of technology, connectivity, and digital inclusion. Natalia Fodic, the Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity, is an esteemed expert in technology and communications policy. With over 15 years of experience, Fodic brings a wealth of knowledge to the discussion. She is joining the panel online from Brazil.

Konstantinos Komaitis, currently a non-resident fellow and senior researcher at the Lisbon Council, is present in the room. With a background in policy development and strategy, Komaitis spent 10 years as Senior Director at the Internet Society. He is also a published author and public speaker, making him a valuable contributor to the session.

Ben Matranga, the Managing Partner of Connectivity Capital, focuses on impact investment in developing countries to expand internet access. With almost two decades of experience in leading private equity, venture capital, and debt investments in emerging markets, Matranga offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in connecting underserved regions.

Teddy Woodhouse, the International Policy Manager at Ofcom, the UK Communications Regulator, is an ICT for development expert. He has extensive experience in both the public and non-profit sectors, including his previous role with the Alliance for Affordable Internet. Woodhouse is responsible for Ofcom’s engagement within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and provides a strong voice for the UK in the global discussions on connectivity.

Josephine Meliza, a Digital Inclusion and Transformation Consultant, is a pioneer of the community networks movement in Africa. Currently serving as the Regional Policy Coordinator for Africa within the APC’s LockNet project, Meliza brings a unique perspective on digital inclusion initiatives on the continent. Additionally, she co-chairs the Africa Community Network Summit and serves as a member of the MAG, the IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group.

Finally, Saul Luca de Tena, a Connectivity Solutions Specialist at Giga, a UNICEF-ITU joint initiative, aims to connect every school in the world to the internet by 2030. With 15 years of experience in strategic program management within technology and development, capacity building, and policy advocacy, de Tena’s expertise is essential in ensuring widespread access to education through connectivity.

With representatives from various stakeholder groups, including civil society, the private sector, government, and UN agencies, this diverse panel promises engaging discussions on how to improve connectivity globally. The wide range of expertise and experiences will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in driving digital inclusion.

Soledad Luca de Tena

The Giga initiative, a global collaboration between UNICEF and ITU, aims to connect schools worldwide by 2030. This is achieved through a multi-stakeholder approach involving the Ministry of Education, Ministry of ICT, private sector, and civil society organizations to ensure transparency and inclusivity in internet access and digital inclusion efforts.

Giga has successfully reduced connectivity costs in Kyrgyzstan by 43% and in Rwanda by 55%, resulting in significant financial savings and increased internet speeds. This highlights the importance of effective resource management in improving connectivity and reducing costs.

Revitalizing Universal Service Funds (USF) is crucial for enhancing school connectivity. Reforms in Brazil’s USF have unlocked $675 million for school connectivity, with Giga securing an additional $1.7 billion in financing. This emphasizes the need for appropriate policy frameworks to reduce inequalities in education.

Engaging various stakeholders and promoting collaboration is vital for progress in internet access and digital inclusion. Giga’s involvement with multiple ministries facilitates effective communication and coordination. The diverse experiences and perspectives of stakeholders enable addressing complex challenges and creating a common language based on evidence and facts.

Understanding underlying technologies and their implications is essential for lowering internet costs. Giga empowers stakeholders by providing knowledge and insights for informed decision-making.

Effective contract management ensures the involvement of small operators and equitable participation in the connectivity landscape. Giga emphasizes the importance of linking contract management to connectivity status for efficient payment processes.

In conclusion, the Giga initiative emphasizes transparency, stakeholder involvement, resource management, collaboration, and understanding of technologies to achieve global internet access, digital inclusion, and improved connectivity. By leveraging diverse expertise, Giga aims to foster productive partnerships and create a connected and inclusive digital future.

Teddy Woodhouse

The UK has implemented a universal service obligation for broadband connectivity, which came into effect in 2019. This obligation requires BT and KCOM to provide universal broadband service in specific geographic areas assigned to them, ensuring all citizens have access to a decent broadband connection.

Users without a decent broadband connection can request service from BT or KCOM, with the cost being no more than what an average commercial consumer would pay. Additionally, the build cost of connecting these users, up to £3,400, will be covered.

In rural areas, a shared rural network agreement between the UK government and major mobile network operators promotes competition and provides reliable mobile services to these areas.

Ofcom, the regulator, plays a crucial role in achieving universal service. It ensures transparency, enforces targets, and adapts the process to address challenges.

To address affordability, Ofcom negotiates with broadband providers to create affordable packages for low-income households, with specific expectations for minimum speeds and performance.

Collaboration between the regulator and industry is essential for protecting consumer interests. Both BT and KCOM are committed to meeting universal service obligations.

Ofcom creates a regulatory framework catering to both large and small operations. The strategic separation of BT from OpenReach fosters competition and diversification. While Ofcom doesn’t fund community networks directly, it creates market conditions for their existence.

Ofcom enables a diverse and competitive market for internet service providers, resulting in a good and affordable broadband experience for consumers.

Fair competition is promoted by ensuring a level playing field for communication providers.

Research, facts, and evidence are necessary for well-informed decision-making by regulators, enhancing transparency and understanding.

Regulators, communication providers, and stakeholders should collaborate to improve global connectivity, reducing the digital divide for equal access to information and opportunities.

The UK demonstrates a comprehensive framework for universal broadband connectivity. Ofcom’s role in transparency, competition, and consumer protection is significant. Collaboration with the industry and the availability of social tariffs for low-income households highlight the commitment to universal service.

Konstantinos Komaitis

The debate on internet infrastructure in Europe has been heavily influenced by the concepts of digital sovereignty and protectionism. Telco providers are demanding payment from content application providers for the traffic they carry. However, users argue that they are the ones generating the traffic, not the companies. This has led to a negative sentiment surrounding the fair share proposal.

The fair share proposal is seen as a potential disruptor to the way interconnection agreements are made. There are concerns that it could narrow down the scope of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), which could ultimately lead to increased costs for consumers. This negative sentiment is shared by a coalition of global civil society organizations, who have released a statement expressing their opposition to these policies. They argue that such policies have adverse effects on users and the open Internet.

The implementation of similar policies is being considered by many jurisdictions, including Brazil, India, South Korea, Australia, and parts of the Caribbean. This suggests that the debate on internet infrastructure is not limited to Europe, but is gaining global attention.

Konstantinos Komaitis, a strong critic of the fair share proposal, has been resisting it since its inception. He believes that the proposal is an awful idea and needs to be resisted. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of open and accountable discussions on infrastructure, as well as the need to create systems that allow maximum participation and have sufficient checks and balances against misuse.

The European Commission has handled public consultations remarkably by using an exploratory consultation process to identify issues before drafting legislation. This demonstrates their commitment to transparency and ensuring public input. However, there are concerns about the unclear policy objective to tackle connectivity issues in Europe. It is also noted that the Commission appears to be prioritizing access networks over other networks, which is viewed as potentially problematic.

Collaboration and working together are seen as key to infrastructure building. Various actors, including telecom providers, big technology companies, tower companies, and municipalities, should participate in the process. This is because increasing reliance on the internet requires a collective effort. Rather than pitting technology companies against telcos, it is believed that they should work together. Universal Service Funds (USFs) may provide the framework for this collaboration.

Konstantinos Komaitis also emphasizes the importance of open and accountable discussions on infrastructure. He highlights the need to ensure that funds are not misused or mismanaged and proposes the implementation of accountability mechanisms to avoid such issues.

In conclusion, the debate on internet infrastructure in Europe is shaped by the ideas of digital sovereignty and protectionism. The fair share proposal, which involves payment from content application providers, is viewed negatively due to concerns about the impact on interconnection agreements and potential increase in costs for consumers. Similar policies are being considered in other jurisdictions. Konstantinos Komaitis strongly opposes the fair share proposal and stresses the importance of open discussions and collaboration in infrastructure building. The European Commission has demonstrated transparency through its public consultations, but concerns remain about the clarity of policy objectives and prioritization of access networks. It is believed that maximum participation and accountability mechanisms are key to ensuring effective infrastructure development.

Ben Matranga

Global connectivity can be achieved by addressing coordination and access to capital. The issues surrounding connectivity are not merely technological but are also related to the coordination of efforts and access to sufficient capital. Once these two problems are effectively solved, broadband access can increase on a global scale. This suggests that improving coordination and ensuring access to capital are crucial steps towards achieving global connectivity.

Blended finance plays a critical role in building broadband networks in remote areas. In Europe and the US, blended finance is commonly used to subsidize telecommunications. However, in emerging markets, the challenge lies in determining who should bear the costs and how much subsidy is required. One positive development is that as the cost of network construction decreases, less subsidy is needed. This highlights the importance of blending finance to bridge the gap in remote areas and make broadband access more accessible.

Governments can extend the reach of broadband access by providing subsidies and extensions around anchor institutions such as universities and hospitals. This approach helps pull the distribution of backhaul into new areas, making data access more affordable in previously underserved communities. The presence of anchor institutions can effectively extend the access of broadband services.

It is argued that broadband access should be considered a commodity that is accessible to all, rather than a luxury. Many parts of the world still regard data as a luxury item. The goal should be to make data a commodity that people can access anytime and anywhere. This approach aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals of promoting industry, innovation, infrastructure, and reducing inequalities.

Universal service funds are commonly utilized by governments worldwide as a source of capital for market investments. These funds play a critical role in making capital available for broadband projects. By utilizing universal service funds, governments can support market investments and contribute to achieving the goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

The cost of establishing networks and providing broadband services can be significantly reduced through coordinated builds and subsidies. Coordinated builds, which involve constructing various areas together, are more cost-effective than doing so individually. Additionally, subsidies play a role in offsetting the costs of establishing networks. It is estimated that subsidies typically account for only 10% to 20% of the total cost.

Public policy plays a crucial role in determining how different geographic areas, based on their economic buckets, are serviced. Areas with solid economics are usually serviced, while areas with marginal economics require access to long-term capital. Moreover, areas with insufficient economics need subsidies from Universal Service Funds to bridge the gap. This highlights the importance of public policy in ensuring universal broadband access.

However, higher interest rates are causing delays in global construction projects, particularly impacting emerging markets. The increase in interest rates worldwide has contributed to these delays, presenting challenges for the progress of infrastructure development, especially in emerging markets.

To manage high capital costs, there should be a focus on reducing the cost of service delivery. It is important to strike a balance between capital and labour, as higher labour costs in markets like the UK and the US can significantly increase the cost of building infrastructure. By finding ways to reduce the cost of service delivery, the challenges posed by high capital costs can be effectively managed.

Lower labour costs in emerging markets have the potential to contribute to delivering affordable revenue per user (ARPU). The affordability of broadband services is a crucial factor in achieving widespread adoption and usage. The lower cost of labour in emerging markets can help reduce the overall cost of delivering ARPU in the desired range of 10 to 15 dollars.

In conclusion, global connectivity can be achieved by addressing coordination and access to capital. Blended finance, subsidies around anchor institutions, and the provision of universal service funds are some of the strategies that can be employed to expand broadband access. Coordinated builds, public policy, and efforts to reduce the cost of service delivery also play important roles. However, challenges such as higher interest rates and high capital costs must be tackled. Overall, achieving global connectivity requires a comprehensive approach encompassing various factors and stakeholders.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Welcome to workshop 292. The workshop organizers are sitting here with our wonderful panel. I’m Jane and this is Senka. I’m gonna give a quick overview of why we’re here, in theory, and we’ll talk more about it throughout the panel session. And Senka is gonna introduce some of our panelists and then we’ll get to the panelists and the lineup. We have until 12 o’clock and we have two sets of speakers. We’ll have Q&A in between and after each set of speakers. So we have six speakers from around the world. We’re very excited they’re here. We’re here to talk about universal service or universal service and access funds. These funds have been around for over 20 years. Some people are not aware of that. They were originally created by regulators around the world to subsidize fixed networks, which are fiber networks that were in the ground. Some of you may only be familiar with mobile networks, but there are fixed mobile and satellite networks. And originally, universal service funds were meant to subsidize those fixed networks. They were developed, in fact, with some of the big telcos that deployed those networks at the time. Over the years, as technology has changed and new technology has emerged, particularly mobile and other Wi Fi. Mobile, in particular, has also been subsidized. If you receive phone bills still from your providers, you may see certain universal service taxes on your bills, at least in the United States you do and in some other countries. And you start to realize there are quite a few fees that build up. Generally, that money went into funds. Throughout the years, some of those funds have been very well administered. Some have been extremely corrupt. They’ve been used by some governments, not for the purposes for building out networks. And there’s been lack of accountability in some of those funds, meaning providers were given the money to build out, and they didn’t build out to the rural, remote, unserved and underserved areas. If they had, we wouldn’t be where we are today, with about 2.6 billion offline. Now, we all recognize, all the speakers here and Senka and I, that building out certain places with fiber is just not doable from a geographic perspective and in different territories. And this is also, I should say, an urban, rural and remote issue. This is not just rural, remote when it comes to universal service. There are some communities that have been what’s called redlined, excluded from connectivity, and that’s a whole other issue we won’t get into necessarily. But the funds have been administered over the years generally by regulators, in some cases by ministries. Senka wrote a paper recently for APC under a certain program that is linked to the workshop description. And you can see some great examples of different universal service funds from around the world. We also wanna give a shout out to A4AI, and now it’s called GDIP. That team has done so much work, and Natalia Frodich, who’s our first speaker, was from that team in the past, who’s done research in Latin America on universal service funds. The A4AI team also, at that time, had done some work in Sub Saharan Africa to posit that there were ways that you could use those funds to help also women and girls to connect women and girls, but also to broaden the funds. And it’s something that we’ve all talked about, is how to take those funds and distribute them to potentially internet exchange points, to community networks, which has been done in Argentina recently, so that there’s more diversification of those funds and subsidies out to other areas. So we have a wonderful range of speakers, from practitioners who’ve been in the field building networks, to policy experts, to folks that have done extreme work on how to fund networks, that’s Ben, and Josephine who’s worked with a group in Nairobi called Tanda, it’s a community network, Constantinos, who’s a policy expert, and I’m gonna turn it over to Senka, so she can give you better bios. But we just wanted to set the stage that the idea here is that we need to think of ways to reboot these funds, to create a new way of putting the universal service funds out there.

Senka Hadzic:
Thank you. Hi everyone, and welcome to the session. I’m going to introduce the six speakers that we will have today. Our first speaker is Natalia Fodic. Natalia is the Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity. She’s a licensed attorney and expert in technology and communications policy and regulatory issues, with over 15 years of experience. Natalia is joining us online from Brazil today. Our second speaker, Konstantinos Komaitis, is here in the room. And he is currently a non resident fellow and senior researcher at the Lisbon Council. He’s also a non resident fellow with the Digital Forensics Research Lab and at the Atlantic’s Council Democracy and Tech Initiative. Previously, Constantinos spent 10 years in active policy development and strategy as Senior Director at the Internet Society. And he’s also an author and public speaker. Our third speaker is joining us online today. It’s Ben Matranga, who is the Managing Partner of Connectivity Capital. Connectivity Capital is a impact investment fund focused on expanding internet access in developing countries. Ben has nearly 20 years of experience leading private equity, venture capital, and debt investments in emerging markets. Like Jane said, after those first three speakers, we will have a short Q&A session, and then we will move to the second part of the session, which will be more focused on specific sectors. So in that part, our first speaker in the second part is going to be Teddy Woodhouse. Teddy is a ICT for development expert with almost a decade of experience in public and non profit sectors. Currently, he’s the International Policy Manager at Ofcom, the UK Communications Regulator. And in this role, he’s responsible for Ofcom’s engagement within the ITU. I believe that Teddy is joining us from Geneva, in fact. Before Ofcom, Teddy was with the Alliance for Affordable Internet. Like Jane said, we actually cited a lot of work from A4AI in our background paper. After Teddy, we’ll have Josephine Meliza, who is here with us in the room today. Josephine is a Digital Inclusion and Transformation Consultant. She’s one of the pioneers of the community networks movement in Africa. Currently, she’s the Regional Policy Coordinator for Africa within APC’s LockNet project. She also co chairs the Africa Community Network Summit and is a member of the MAG, the IGF Multi Stakeholder Advisory Group. And last but not least, we have Saul Luca de Tena here in the room. Saul has worked as a Strategic Program Manager within Technology and Development, Capacity Building, and Policy Advocacy for 15 years. She’s the former CEO of a award winning community based ISP in South Africa. And currently, Saul is a Connectivity Solutions Specialist at Giga, which is a UNICEF ITU joint initiative aiming to collect every school in the world to the internet by 2030. As you can see, we have a very diverse panel from different stakeholder groups, civil society, private sector, government, UN agencies. I hope you enjoy the discussions and I will hand over to our first speaker, Natalia Fordic.

Nathalia Foditsch:
Thank you, Senka. Well, first of all, thank you so much to you and to Jane for organizing the session. It’s a pleasure to have so many of you. Well, I envy you a little bit, as I mentioned in the chat, because I would love to be in Japan. But it’s so nice to see you and see some, I mean, be able to be in this panel with Teddy. I know Onika, my former colleague, is also, I mean, I saw her as one of the persons who will attend the session. So it’s a real pleasure. So I have been working with connectivity issues for around 15 years. I’m currently working for Connect Humanity, which is a philanthropic fund focused on connectivity. Prior to that, I was at A4AI and as Jane has mentioned, and well, regarding the document that Jane has mentioned, that was a document that was published about two years ago. And it was focused in Latin America, Latin American and Caribbean countries. In part, we did that in partnership with the Internet Society. And in that document, we came to the conclusion that, I mean, most, most of the funding of universal service funds go to large operators, right? So that’s a first issue here, because I mean, this various types of stakeholders should be able to access this funds. Another issue is that a lot of the times, the disbursement disbursement rates are really low. So in the region, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru had high disbursement rates. However, many of the countries either were not using it at all, or were using for other purposes, such as creative accounting, right? So you use it for, for other purposes, other than telecom policy, for example, helping the country reach certain federal budgetary goals, like surplus, right? From a perspective of equity and universality. As I was mentioning, there is a key issue on who is able to access this funds, not only whether they are disbursed or not. As Jane has, Jane has mentioned, Argentina had some recent changes, like about three years ago, recent legal changes that actually allowed community networks to access the funds. However, it just came back from the LACNIC, LACNOG meeting, and the LACISP meeting with all of the stakeholders from the region. Last week, I was there talking to them, and they said that, you know, this is not working that well any longer in the country. So I mean, I don’t have precise information, but that’s what I heard from them, from Argentinian colleagues in the meeting last week. So in the US, there is also $42 billion now to support broadband, right, to unserved and underserved communities. However, and the program is called BEED, which stands for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program. However, Connect Humanity, the organization I’m working for, has recently, together with other organizations in the US, has advocated for changes in how these funds are being designed to be disbursed, because the smaller ISPs, whenever they are trying to get access to these funds, they have to get a letter of credit of 25% of the amount plus a 25% match requirement. And a lot of times that amounts to a total amount that is much higher than what they can afford. So that basically shuts them out of the program. So and similar fears to that happen, for example, in Brazil, Brazil is going back to the Latin American examples, is one of the countries that actually has is a pretty famous one, because it had has had a fund for literally 20 years. However, the fund was completely dormant, and was being used for creative accounting purposes. However, two years ago, a new law was enacted, in which finally, first of all, the funds can be used towards broadband, because prior to that, it was only phone lines, not really internet. And then second, finally, we are advancing towards actually disbursing this funds have that has have been accumulated for so long. But then there are also fears related to whether all types of stakeholders will be able to access this funds or not, whether it’s just like same old, right, like large operators only. Just a quick overview of how that’s going, like, you know, the National Development Bank is the financial agents behind it. So right now, the BNDS, which is the National Development Bank, as the only financial agent responsible for the funds, there’s there, there will be reimbursable and non reimbursable lines of credit. However, the reimbursable ones are much clearer than the non reimbursable ones. And precisely the smaller stakeholders like community networks would be the ones that will benefit from the non reimbursable lines. And this is actually they’re going to finalize the the details of how that’s going to play out only next year. And well, I don’t know how much more time do I have? Well, um, and well, in regards to community networks, Natalia, sorry to interrupt you. You have about a minute. Okay. Regarding community networks, it’s something that used to be not even known by some of the public officials in even in within the national regulator or the ministry, right? So over the past two, three years, finally, there is more awareness of it. And now finally, there is a new working group that has been created within the national regulator, I’m sorry. And I actually have a sprained ankle, and I’m taking a lot of medicine. And this is my stomach, basically. I’m sorry. So we hope that the we hope to create more awareness of this community networks through this working group that was recently created in the regulator, the national regulator. That’s it for now for the first round. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you, Natalia. Over to Konstantinos. Thank you, Jane. Good morning, everyone. It’s really good to be here. And thank you very much for asking me to come and speak. So I would like to start by saying that I think that at least I will bring the perspective of Europe and what’s happening in Europe where discussions on infrastructure have really picked up again. I think that the COVID pandemic did two things. First of all, it made us all realize how important the internet is and made us survive what was and I’m presenting a very difficult situation. But at the same time, it highlighted the need to have a conversation about infrastructure again. And also the political need for this to happen. In Europe, at least the way the conversations about infrastructure have been taking place for over a year and a half now, unfortunately has taken a direction that it’s not really about how to create sustainable models to support infrastructure. But it is done in a way that is really premised on ideas of digital sovereignty and protectionism. And for those of you who might be following a little bit what is happening in Europe, I am talking of course about the fair share debate, which effectively is this idea that telco providers need to be paid or, you know, are entitled to payment by continent application providers for the traffic that they carry. It is very unfortunate that in Europe this debate has been shaped in the way that it has because it has been sensationalized and currently we’re at a place where it’s not really based on facts anymore, but it’s really purely emotional. And what I mean by that is that, you know, the way the story has evolved, we’re even seeing terminology being used that is, you know, basically completely mistaken and misinformation. For instance, companies like Google and Facebook and AWS and Netflix are being referred to as large traffic generators, which is fundamentally wrong because anyone who has spent at least a little bit of time in this space knows very well that the only, it’s users that generate traffic. That’s it. Users want to access the services that are being provided by these companies and they pay their ISPs in order to be able and access those services. So effectively what telco providers are asking is some sort of double payment. So it’s really double-dipping, right? So we’re getting what we want out of users, but we’re also going to be getting what we want out of those large, very large companies. We are at a place, and actually a lot has happened in the past 12 hours in Europe at least, once the debate started and of course there was not a lot of information because beyond the idea of give us money, there was not really a concrete plan as to how this money will be calculated, what sort of measures they will be used, why USFs are not being utilized or are part of the conversation. So by the time, however, everyone started engaging, I cannot remember. I’ve been doing this for approximately 20 years and by this I mean internet policy, and I cannot remember any other time in Europe where stakeholders that traditionally have been at opposing ends have come together in order to fight this, because this model and this idea is really going to materially affect the way the internet works. It is going to affect the open internet. We are talking about changing here the way interconnection agreements are made. We are talking about minimizing and narrowing down a lot the scope of IXPs, internet exchange points, which are effectively the place where interconnection happens, and we are talking about, of course, consumers and how they will be affected because somebody will need to pay for all that money that will be spent. So we have spent a year and a half fighting the Commission on this. There was never a proposal. There was a consultation that opened up in February and ended in May, and yesterday, of all days, after four months of waiting patiently, or impatiently in my case, the Commission released its results. Of course, there is no consensus about the fair share proposal, so for the time being it’s been shelved. However, we do know that there’s going to be some sort, most probably, some sort of a policy recommendation. We know that the Commission is not really willing to give this up and that it is going to continue. And before I just wrap up, a little bit of self, it’s not really a self-speech, but because Europe did it, and that has been one of the unintended consequences or perhaps even intentional, a lot of other jurisdictions have started picking this up. Brazil, India, South Korea, Australia, somebody pinged me on Twitter, and many other jurisdictions, some places in the Caribbean, are starting to pick up this conversation as well. And of course, the thinking is, if Europe does it, which is a democracy, which is the biggest trading bloc, which is the third largest economy in the world, why shouldn’t we do it? It must be a very good idea. It is an awful idea, and we need to resist this global trend because one of the side effects is going to be that if this thing goes through in many jurisdictions, even in one jurisdiction, we are talking about fragmenting the Internet, right? So as part of that and all these concerns, a coalition of global civil society organizations released a statement today calling out on the governments to resist such policies because of the adverse effect that they might have on users as well as the open Internet. And I’ll stop here and happy to take any questions.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Konstantinos. And we have one more speaker, and I would pause it, and we might want to talk about this after Ben speaks, is, is it triple dipping? If you get money out of users, get universal service funds, and then you put a tax on people who ride on top of, well, carrier traffic for you in some instances. In any event, we’re over to Ben Matranga, and just a shout out also to a great report that Ben and his colleague Anup put together with Connect Humanity, the Internet Society, and the Association for Progressive Communications in Moscilla. Last year, there’s a great report on innovative financing for all types of networks, and in particular some of these smaller, medium-sized ISPs, which are both commercial and non-commercial. Ben, we are going to turn it over to you, and Ben is another online speaker.

Ben Matranga:
Perfect. Well, thank you, Jane, and thank you, Senka, for allowing me to join. We’re excited to be here. My name is Ben Matranga. I’m a managing partner at Connectivity Capital. Connectivity Capital is an impact investment fund, and what that means is we mobilize capital from the private sector and work, by and large, with public sector private partners, so these are development finance institutions, to mobilize capital to expand Internet access in frontier markets. So, to date, we’ve had investments in over 15 countries. Our focus is broadly Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, and I think it’s an exciting time to have this conversation because we’re, you know, we’re, meaning the global, we are at a place now where we really do have all of the tools to reach 90% plus of the people on this planet with with broadband access. And that’s pretty, you know, exciting, bold, but also limiting. And what I mean by that is, you know, this is not a technological problem. This is not kind of physics of how we promulgate, you know, the characteristics of an IP-based network. This is not a question of whether we do fiber or wireless or what kind of mode of transportation of how we get data to people. That will all be solved by actors on the ground that are close to the problem. We really see this as a coordination and then an access to capital problem. And if we can solve those two problems, we will see access to broadband increase, you know, in vast swaths of the globe. And I think I want to break down both of those things. First, coordination and then access to capital. And I’ll start with access to capital. Now, the way we kind of view connectivity writ large, I think one thing that is incredibly important for everyone to kind of accept and understand, something we kind of already intuitively get is that there’s this idea of the dual ecosystem of connectivity is what we call. And what that means is every single person has two forms of connectivity. They have one form, which is mobile, which is connected to the person, which is optimized for go anywhere you want. You can take it on the go. It’s amazing what you can do. You know, we look at migration patterns in places like Kenya and what you can do because of the mobile phone, because you can, you know, in your life, you know, even kind of call your mom on her birthday to send mobile money transfers, everything that’s kind of those smaller data uses. It’s done a fantastic job over the last decade. We like to call that kind of the first wave of connectivity in emerging markets. But there’s limits to that leapfrog. And the second form of connectivity, which is predominant, which we’re all using right now, is broadband connections and broadband for us is uncapped always on. It is thinking about the Internet and thinking about the data, not as kind of some episodic thing that you do. It’s just always there. And when it’s always there, it becomes a utility. What we like to see over time is the pricing for that service no longer becomes a luxury good, but it’s a commodity. You don’t even think about the price to transact on it. And today, in most parts of the world, for the vast majority of people, data is still a luxury good. And our mission is basically to make a commodity everywhere in the world so people can jump online whenever they want to interact in whatever way they choose to and then exit and know the Internet is still going to be there when they’re done. Now, I think, you know, what I really want to hit the point on is kind of the challenge of blended finance and how we use blended finance with private sector partners to expand access to the Internet’s in all of these remote parts of the world that need that uncapped always on broadband connection. I think the challenge with blended finance is less that it’s needed, you know, the track record of using blended finance and universal service funds in Europe and the United States is pretty universal. You know, you take most sections of the population and they required some some some form of subsidy. I think the bigger challenge in emerging markets is who pays for it. And then how much blending is needed. You know, the stark reality is in most of the countries we operate in The government’s have a ton of pressure on their budgets and that’s to provide for social goods and services, health care, education, etc. There’s constraints on those parts and it It seems to have shaken out that providing additional subsidy for telecoms is something that is just always one of those things that this is not the coalition of actors there to provide that subsidy that you would have in other sectors. Now, the good news is that the cost to actually build these networks is falling through the floor, you know, kind of global supply chains have reacted And the cost to build a network, even a fiber based network and most of these markets is, you know, extraordinarily cheaper than it was even, you know, five years ago. So less subsidy is needed. And how is that subsidy then provided for our belief is that governments may be able to provide some subsidy. The exciting subsidies that we see are coming around anchor institutions. When we talk about anchor institutions we think about these as universities, community centers, hospitals. Etc. And that what that does in terms of network architecture is it pulls kind of the what we like to think of as the trunk, the kind of fat part of the network, your, your backhaul distribution into new places. And it just lowers the landed cost of bandwidth to get into new communities, then that kind of ground game that is piece can build off of It drops their price to then reach the end consumer. So in certain markets. We’re most excited about seeing the potential of that giga has certainly done that at scale and certain African markets. Once you get the landed cost of bandwidth into new communities and by and large is piece are extraordinarily creative. They’re probably, you know, riding on the backbone of some of that infrastructure, even before Most of the public sector clients know it. They’re, you know, it’s extraordinarily crafty and kind of fast moving entrepreneurs that do that. And once they see that landed cost of bandwidth drop They know their economics, one of that they can deliver that service to end consumers. Now, the second part of that question is, is who and I think, you know, Building a broadband network really comes down to what we like to think of as revenue density. It’s just the cost to serve denser populations is always going to be less. And that’s how You know, it’s kind of always been the case. And that’s where kind of the need for thoughtful public policy of how we think about the amount of subsidy that’s needed to reach some of those lesser dense population comes into play. The good news is, I think, in emerging markets. We’re not kind of even there yet. You know, there’s still a lot of runway to move with private sector builds in these in in most of these markets, you know, you take Take the country, even like South Africa for all intents and purposes, you know, feels well developed is a brick is, you know, kind of Solid second world country still has broadband penetration rates that are just around 15% right. So there’s just a lot of movement to go to get an uncapped always on connection and everyone’s home. I think what’s critical for us. And I think I just want to end on this point. And this is something that a free I the Alliance for Ford one and it really hit on early on around the importance of meaningful connectivity. Is, you know, what is broadband and why is it important and the pandemic certainly hit that home for a lot of us. You can’t, you’re only going to use a sliver of the Internet. If you have episodic data use, you’re certainly not going to have a call like this. And be on, you know, will be on this call an hour and a half that will consume about a gig and a half of data. So just as an example of real time for people that want to be able to participate. You do need that uncapped always on connection. We think that’s kind of the way what customers will demand in these markets. With that, I’ll let me send it back over to Jane and Cinco.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Ben. And I should have said earlier when we started. Thank you to the host country. The connectivity here has been amazing. So thank you to the To our hosts here in Japan as well. And we’re very lucky as Ben said that we can have this call. We have about 10 minutes for Q&A. And we’ve just heard from Ben Constantinos and Natalia. We have about 10 minutes for Q&A. And we’ve just heard from Ben Constantinos and Natalia. There’s a theme we could pull out on subsidization and public policy. And I would say multi stakeholder participation in policymaking because Ben, you as a finance expert certainly could not only are you helping subsidize networks, but you’re working with governments and public sectors to make sure that you’re doing the right thing. I would like to ask you all, in particular, in the context of multi stakeholder organizations, to help them flip the policy so it’s not just them making the decisions without talking to experts. I would ask you all, and Constantinos was just talking about Europe, subsidization of connectivity has been going on a very long time, especially some of the biggest networks in the world. The biggest ISPs. Why wouldn’t we want a strong public policy multi stakeholder consultation to shape those policies to either develop funds, to have the right public policies put in place. Natalia, I’ll start with you because Connect Humanity is doing great work in starting up funds to also work with the public policy folks, and you’ve recently, as you noted, put something out on the letter of credit in the United States, and or you’re in Brazil yourself and you’re an expert in that space, and from A4AI in general. Talk to us about, and we’ll give it a minute each, talk to us about what you think can be done to improve multi stakeholder consultation on some of these really critical issues, particularly USFs. Ben, when it comes to just financing in general, and Constantinos, how this relates to fair share and the subsidization as well. So Natalia, over to you.

Nathalia Foditsch:
Well, regarding the fair share, I’m also following that closely. I’m following the debate closely as Constantino has mentioned. It has become a really strong topic in Brazil too. We recently had a consultation from the national regulator. Now there are rumors that they will propose that big techs contribute to the USF too, as like one potential solution for that ordeal. And then regards to the consultations. One of the fears that smaller ISPs in Brazil have is that the money is not going to be dispersed at a fast enough pace. And whether they are actually going to be able to access them or not. We should have more participation at the design itself of the details of how the money will be disbursed. I mean, there is some multi stakeholder participation, but it’s limited to particular institutions that are part of an established group, an official group. But not all stakeholders are represented there, right? I mean, I’m talking about the universal service funds now. And also there are issues with double or triple dipping, as you have mentioned. Potential overlaps in incentives that large companies get. So for example, we had recently the 5G spectrum auction. And it was actually auctioned at a lower price. And now they have the large operators that actually got the spectrum have to cover schools. However, they are also getting public funds from the universal service funds to connect the schools, right? So that is an issue. And for that particular type of example, we need a stronger public involvement and involvement from different stakeholders to make sure that there is more transparency. And actually the funds are actually used and there is not double or triple dipping in these funds. That’s it.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Natalia. And you’ve hit on something that I’ll segue over to Konstantinos. For years and years and years, we all talked about best practices in public consultations, which is transparency. Publishing the different proceeding results that you’ve got. So if you’ve contributed to the proceeding and then working with a large range of stakeholders so that you can hopefully have a better policy in place. Konstantinos, have you seen that recently?

Konstantinos Komaitis:
Short answer, yes. So to me, it has been quite a remarkable experience, especially Europe has been quite a remarkable experience in the way this has been handled. Because we did have a public consultation process. FYI, this was an exploratory consultation, meaning that it is a tool that the commission uses in order to be able to identify whether there is actually an issue before they proceed to actual drafting of legislation. And according to its own toolbox, the commission’s own toolbox, if the exploratory consultation comes back and they are against it, they should not really proceed with legislation. So all that was a little bit of a hazy moment in Europe because we really do not understand what is happening and why this is happening. But even beyond that, I just want to make a couple of points here. The first one is that… There is not a clear policy objective why we’re doing this, especially in Europe. Connectivity issues in Europe are not as, of course there are connectivity issues, but in terms of fiber, we are actually meeting the targets. In terms of 5G coverage, we’re actually meeting the targets in Europe. And also there has been a study by WIC Consultancy on behalf of the Commission in the European Union that actually said that even though these targets are met, consumers are not using them, they’re not making use of these services, because they don’t know they exist, they haven’t seen the utility yet, and so on and so forth. So we are at a place where we are actually meeting those targets. The second point that I want to make is that telcos are making money, right? I mean, it’s not that they’re not making money. The question here is, and the policy seems to be, and that was always an issue for me, and a question that has never been answered, the policy always seemed to be to try to make big telcos, because we’re only talking about big telcos in Europe, as big as big tech, right? And I do appreciate that in the internet environment, telcos might not be as big as big technology companies, but that is their issue to solve. This is not a public policy issue that requires regulatory intervention. The other thing that I want to make is about the diversity of infrastructure, and the point that the Commission seems to be missing. When it comes to the internet, one of the things that, one of the most basic rules is that no network is more important than another. And what the Commission seems to be implying is that access networks seems to have some sort of priority and privilege over other networks. We know that when it comes to internet infrastructure, it is extremely diverse, and everybody contributes their own share. What do I mean? Telcos invest in upgrading their networks. Technology companies invest in creating CDNs and data centers in order to be able to facilitate the traffic and make sure that users get access to the content that they want and the services that they want in a much faster and more reliable way. In fact, the OECD is working on a report, and they will be coming out, that most probably will be coming out next month, where it makes exactly that point about broadband infrastructure. It tries to demonstrate the diverse set of actors that are participating, and the report will identify, of course, telecom providers, of course big technology companies, but then you have tower companies, you have hedge funds, you have pension funds, you have municipalities that they’re all being part of this infrastructure ecosystem. So it is very important, and I will keep on repeating this because I believe that it gets missed in all this noise. We need to talk about infrastructure, right? Our reliance on the internet will only increase, but pitting technology companies against telcos is not the way to do this. The only way to do this is to collaborate, and only to collaborate. USFs might provide that framework to collaborate, and yes, we need to change a lot of things. I heard transparency, the word transparency being thrown out, definitely transparency. We have a mechanism, in some cases it has worked, the USFs, in some other cases it may not have worked. Let’s all work together in order to try to figure out how to strengthen it, boost it, and actually facilitate this infrastructure building.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Konstantinos, and Ben, sort of riffing off that theme of collaboration but in a different way, in a financial collaborative sense of universal service funds being part of a capital stack for investment. Can you just pull a little bit on that a little bit more, and why that is part of a potential blended finance stack? So over to Ben.

Ben Matranga:
Absolutely. Thank you very much, Jane, and I think the reality is that universal service funds are, most governments in the world utilize them, so it’s a pot of capital that just exists in most of the markets, even kind of the lowest end countries that we finance projects in. So the money’s there. The challenge is always how does it get out to the end users, and I would plug just one more time the report that Jane mentioned. We wrote a report with APC, Connect Humanity, with ISOC around financing mechanisms, and one of the things that we really highlighted was getting in the weeds of what a subsidy looks like. And the real importance with subsidies is understanding what we would, in finance, call the difference between capital expenditure and operational expenditure, but it’s really kind of what is the one-time versus the ongoing costs of subsidy. When you’re doing subsidy-type programs, the ongoing costs are the ones that tend to be tougher because do they go on in perpetuity, when do they expire, essentially, whereas the one-time costs, you can really get your head around right at the build. The great thing about one-time costs is you can drastically lower that number when you have coordinated builds, so the cost to actually build multiple different areas when you’re doing it at once, when you’re doing it up front, is actually quite a bit cheaper. What we call truck rolls, bringing out a crew, mobilizing resources to continue builds after the fact, it can be extraordinarily expensive. Now, I think the key with CapEx is understanding what types of numbers we’re talking about. I’ll give you an example. We just put out two loans, one in South Africa, where we look at the core CapEx of a network. We’re putting that out at about $80 per user. That’s $80 per user to provide core network CapEx to build out in these markets. The subsidy needn’t be very large. We’re talking in the range of 10% to 20% is typically what was done in the United States. In a situation like that, we’re talking $20 a user to be able to bring broadband services. In India, it’s even less. In India, they’re doing fiber at such tremendous scales. This is durable, long-dated infrastructure that is in the ground that’ll exist in perpetuity. I think the last point I would just make is understanding the difference. This is where public policy really is needed and is challenging, is how you divide different geographic areas. The way we typically think about any given geographic area is it falls into one of four economic buckets. One of them is that they’re great economics, solid returns. The other one is there’s marginal economics. The other one is there’s insufficient economics. The other one is there’s permanent subsidy that’s required. The ones that are solid economics are, by and large, are being serviced. The topos are already there. They’re there at scale. With great public policy environment, there’s competition that sits down pricing. Those are, by and large, solving themselves. No one would be surprised if you looked at the maps of those. It’s in the CBD. It’s in the highest, most populated parts. The second phase, which is the marginal economics, by and large, the builds are happening. It’s the longer duration capital that really constrains those from being built. The way capital formation works in most emerging markets is long-term dated capital, and especially in high inflation environments like we’re in now. It does constrict the ability to build to some of those projects. That’s where mechanisms of international finance that are still private sector led can really increase the build there. The next bucket, marginal economics, that’s where you do need USFs to come in. Those are communities that are predominantly impoverished, a whole host of other challenges. By and large, if you can get that subsidy in there, you can build out to those places. I think the smartest subsidy programs that we’re seeing are focused on those areas. The last one, which is insufficient economics, part of that is just deep, rural, remote areas. I think the good news is, as a percentage basis, those are almost always single digits in any given country. There’s a needed discussion about permanent forms of subsidy that’s needed, but it includes that both one-time and ongoing subsidy.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Ben. I would throw in, if we’re going to have permanent subsidies, midterm, short-term, long-term, we’re going to need a little bit more accountability in some countries, where if a provider is given a certain amount of subsidization, it would be good to know what they actually did with that money, and if people were actually connected. There’s some great universal service programs out there. We’re going to hear a little bit more about that. That’s a good segue over to Teddy. The next set of panelists are Teddy Woodhouse, Josephine Meliza, and Sol Luca de Tena. Teddy, over to you. Teddy’s coming to us from Geneva. Thank you to Teddy and Ben, because it’s very late, where they both are, and Natalia. We appreciate your being so fresh and giving us great data at a tough hour. Teddy, over to you. You’re in Geneva. We appreciate that, and you’re with Ofcom, the UK regulator, for those that may not be familiar with Ofcom. Perfect.

Teddy Woodhouse:
Thanks so much, Jane, and hopefully everyone can hear me all right. It’s an absolute pleasure to be joining you all, no matter what time zone it is. It is worth the effort. As Jane mentioned, I’m at Ofcom, the UK regulator. I wanted to focus a bit on what the regulator’s role in trying to achieve universal service and what that looks like, because there’s nuance to what a public policy role is and what a regulator’s role is going to be. Focusing in on that regulator role, which is the stuff I love, hopefully we can get into that. In the UK’s experience, one of the key nuances that defines the UK market is we have a universal service obligation rather than a universal service fund. What that means is it’s actually implemented that there’s an obligation on two providers in the UK, BT and KCOM, which are chosen by geography, who have an obligation to provide universal service to broadband in certain geographic areas they’re assigned to, rather than necessarily there’s a central fund that disburses the funds out to other service providers or how you have it. The way the obligation works in the UK, just to briefly describe it, is created in 2018 through legislation, and then 2019, Ofcom creates the implementing forces as the regulator of what are the expectations of this, and this has expectations around the speeds, there’s a minimum definition there, and then also naming who this obligation will sit on. The way it works for a user is if they don’t have a decent broadband connection at home, they can request to either BT or KCOM, depending on where in the country they live, for coverage to be provided to them. If coverage gets provided to them, they pay no more than what an average commercial consumer would pay, but the build of up to, right now it’s £3,400 gets covered. If it’s more than that, unfortunately, and for some truly remote and rural parts of the UK, it’s more than that, and so then there has to be a question of, okay, how does that access get paid for, whether it’s by the consumer or other public financing mechanisms that exist in the UK, and that’s where it kind of then starts to lean in to the government work that can happen in this sector, so it’s a brief description of how the universal service obligation works in the UK, and so that’s one model of approaching this question of how do we connect everyone in the world. Some of the other parts that are live in the UK market that are going to be relevant to how we understand this issue are things like the shared rural network, which is a kind of agreement essentially between the UK government and network operators here, mobile network operators here in the UK, to build out into rural areas set by two targets that are monitored by Ofcom, the regulator, and so that’s the regulator’s role is actually this kind of transparency and enforcement role of making sure that what gets agreed to and what the expectations are in terms of rural coverage are being met, and it’s important here to think about the driver that’s the benefit of having four major operators all working together on this program is you have the prospect for competition, which can be a really thorny issue when you’re trying to think about universal service in rural areas and feel like if you get coverage of any kind, it’s great, but then it’s, oh, but there’s only just one, so now you’re creating the conditions for monopoly, and how do you address that by design is also an interesting question when we think about universal service. Another program that’s in the UK, and this one is operated by Ofcom, is the social tariffs program, and so this one works with fixed broadband, where essentially Ofcom, the regulator, has negotiated with broadband providers throughout the UK on creating a specific tier of broadband packages that are more affordable, targeted towards low-income households, so if someone is on universal credit here in the UK or receives another type of public benefit, they become eligible for this program, and it, again, has expectations of minimum speeds and performance for this network so that people are still getting a good user experience, even in these conditions where you’re trying to use kind of a public intervention to provide connectivity, and so I’ll stop there just because I also want to hear from the other two panelists personally. I think they’re going to be incredible, and they’re also on site, so that’s much more interesting, but what I’ll just say is from the UK experience, some of the things that I hope are kind of the transferable lessons that make sense are things about you have to have a role of different stakeholders, and particularly a role between the regulator and industry is really important. The universal service obligation, for example, was designed so it was actually an application basis, so BT and KCOM come forward and said we want to provide and feel we can meet the obligation in these areas, and so that was something that was done at an earlier stage so that it works for consumers at the later stage when they’re requesting access. It’s also about analyzing the market, and this builds a bit into, you know, Ben’s four categories of economic investment here is things like the shared world network here in the UK builds out of, you know, what is feasible with just no interventions and doesn’t need something, but where are the areas in the country where we do need to intervene and do need to kind of set targets, and the last part is about kind of adapting and iterating as you go through, and so this is actually going to be one of the upcoming issues for the UK is what are expectations around speed and performance, and if we need to revise the universal service definition of broadband, so currently it’s 10 megabits per second is the minimum download speed, does that need to increase to a higher number potentially in the future, and so that’s hopefully just a few examples and kind of bits of wisdom that we can share from the UK experience, but I’ll hand over to my other panelists and thank everyone for their time. Thank you, Teddy, and you gave us a lovely segue there with the

Jane Roberts Coffin:
point that you just made on adapting and iterating. I had experiences years ago where I worked with regulators who thought the rules went in place and things didn’t need to change, and of course with new technology coming on and new types of networks being deployed and new ways to subsidize those networks or help capitalize them, in Ben’s case and others, it really is important that we look at regulatory flexibility, and I think many people will call it fit-for-purpose regulation, which has to change over time. Josephine, I know in Kenya there’s been some really great work being done with the regulator. I know that from a community networks perspective you have perspectives on universal service. We’re turning it over to you now to hear a little bit more from your perspective and from your on-the-ground perspective. Thanks.

Josephine Miliza:
Thank you, Jane, and to my other panelists as well. I think I’d just like to start by setting a context around USFs in Africa in general. Currently, 37 countries have been able to establish a USF. Some are still in progress, and with regards to how they are set up, those that are independent, sort of independent agencies, and others are housed within the regulator. And I think similar to other continents as well, there’s still gross challenges around domancy in as much as many of them are established, not at the fund and not dispersed. We have issues around transparency, impact, and sustainability of some of the projects that the USFs undertake. For example, you’d find that in some countries they’ll set up infrastructure, but there’s no ownership of that infrastructure beyond those funds. Some undertake projects such as setting up digital ICT centers, which after they’re handed over to the communities, there’s no follow-up, and so you find that this lies dormant. And so in trying to unlock USFs, especially for community networks, it really begins at first understanding that majority of our African countries do not recognize community networks as complementary access models. And so this means that automatically you are locked out from accessing these funds. Kenya is an example where there has been good collaboration between the regulator and civil society organizations. In 2020, during the pandemic, I think the silver lining was that we realized that in as much as we are talking about these technologies such as AI, IoT, we really had a huge percentage of our population which is still unconnected. And so as part of the COVID-19 responses, the government looked at how it can be able to support last-mile connectivity, and so We started looking at how can community networks be licensed or introduced into the telecommunications market structure, and this resulted into the development of a community networks service provider license, which addressed the issues around affordability, because we were looking at issues around affordability, because at $50 is an annual operating fees is quite affordable for community-based organizations or NGOs that would like to start and operate community networks. And it came at a good time, because 2021 was just the end of the cycle for the U.S. strategic plan in Kenya, and so at that time we began now working on how then can community networks be able to benefit from the USF. So one of the issues that came up was that for you to access USF, you also had to contribute to the USF, and the license for community networks exempted community networks from contributing to the USF. So one of the arguments that came up was that since community networks do not contribute to the USF, they should not be able to benefit from the USF. And so together, again, providing our technical assistance and contributions to the USF process, engagements with the local community networks, we were able to advocate for the removal of that clause. And so within the draft framework, 2022, 2026, the regulator looks to establish a hundred community networks, which I think was a great milestone in terms of the wins for community networks. And this really helped in terms of our advocacy across the continent, because at least now we have a reference point with other regulators. And last year, we had the Malawi regulator visit the Kenya regulator just for an exchange. And from that now, within the Malawi strategic plan, they are now looking to support community broadband networks. So for them, it’s not community networks, but community broadband networks. But even beyond Kenya, we’ve also seen success in Zimbabwe as well, where there’s that close collaboration between the community network there, which is Murambinda, and Portras, which is the regulator. So what is the role of CSOs? I think first is raising awareness. Regulators still are not aware of community networks. There’s still a lot of misconceptions around what community networks are and what they’re not. And so there’s need for that raising awareness, capacity building as well. For example, we’ve had workshops together with the ITU in Kenya, Nigeria, and Cameroon also just to raise awareness around the licensing framework and also how USFs can be able to support community networks. Kenya, for example, even though we have a license and within the framework of the strategic plan, they’d like to support community networks, the regulator still does not understand how that is going to happen. So I think that there’s still need for hand-holding as to how we can be able now to structure it, how much does a community network need, how much funds can they absorb, what is feasible. And beyond that, I think, is also the providing technical assistance where resources are available.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Wow. Shout out to the multi-stakeholder model and working with the Kenyan regulator and also just this good news about the Zim, Nigeria, and Cameroon. This is exciting. And there are wonderful regulators like Teddy and the people that Josephine is working with in Kenya and some of these other countries. So this is a really interesting ecosystem of work that has to happen, and it’s not done overnight. Sol, Luca de Tena. We’re going to turn it over to you for a perspective from an intergovernmental organization and also from your personal experience.

Soledad Luca de Tena:
Thank you very much, Jane and Senka, and I really appreciate the richness of experience and knowledge in this panel. Two points that other panelists have highlighted and I keep hearing repeated throughout the IGF that really pertain to essentially reaching this Internet for all are the need for more transparency and the need for different stakeholders to be involved and informed to attain digital inclusion. I want to share with you what we’re doing in Giga that speaks to these two points and also go a little bit deep into one of the success cases. So essentially Giga is a global initiative by two UN agencies. We have UNICEF and ITU focused on connecting all the schools in the world by 2030. Now I think it’s really important to understand here schools as a marker of community or as Ben mentioned as an anchor of community, often not only for access but also to access digital literacy and tools. They also function as hubs during social services or shelters in times of disaster and emergencies. So to better understand the unique position of intergovernmental stakeholders, let me just explain how from Giga’s perspective we are leveraging UNICEF’s presence in 190 countries, decades of a wealth of know-how working with critical issues with children, youth and education and of course ITU’s unique position within the telecommunications sector across the world. So together we work with the Ministry of Education on one side, the Ministry of ICT, private sector and civil society organizations. But okay, what do we do and how can we help revitalize UNICEF? Giga works in the access layer of the digital divide essentially developing open source tools that create a common language, evidence and bring together best practices. We do this with three main areas of work, advocacy, technical assistance and procurement. If you can see my slide here, yes, everyone is highlighting Brazil somehow. It’s a good example. So what you see in front of you is every dot represents a school. So roughly 138,000 schools and their color indicates the connectivity status. Green dots are good connectivity. Red dots are no connectivity. And this data gets updated every four hours. We’re also working on the yellow dot which is whether it’s enough or not. So using this map I want to just go over the three areas of work that we have, right? In many cases stakeholders don’t hold the same information and don’t understand the same information. And this map shows very quickly where the need lies and how large the need is. So I’m going to refer back to the Brazil case that Natalia mentioned where UNICEF Brazil and Giga joined forces to advocate for this reform of the USF and from 2020 to 2022 eventually succeeded in this reform of, I don’t know if Natalia mentioned, but it was a $24 billion accumulation of 20 years of funds. Essentially these changes did lead, at least at some level, right, to improve focus and mechanism for dispersing the funds, reducing regional inequalities and as pertains to our focus, right, unlocking this commitment to connecting schools. And this translates into about $675 million for school connectivity which is about 18% of the annual fund. In technical assistance I wanted to highlight firstly this map knowing what the state of connectivity is. Giga has mapped 2.1 million schools in 138 countries. In some cases the governments don’t have full databases of these schools so we are using machine learning AI to identify schools as well and to date this has just been started. We’ve mapped 20,000 new schools in eight countries. Then understanding connectivity status. We’ve developed together with Ericsson and M-Lab a user device app that sends measurements through and there are about 80,000 schools reporting connectivity status near real time but we are also going further, right, to understand from an ISP’s perspective what the quality of service is or just what their status is and we’re working with several ISPs currently who are sharing their network data. And so in triangulating that experience and quality we’re really getting a sense of what the connectivity reality is. There’s also other tools for improvement of procurement and management of public connectivity contracts which for many governments is very complex. So briefly connectivity credits is a way to incentivize connecting the difficult areas or the high risk areas, you know, technically or financially. I think Teddy mentioned, went into that quite well. And GigaCounts would also, it’s another project to support the management of high volumes of contracts. Lastly, in procurement. So initially GigaConnected 5,500 schools in 20 countries just creating a basis for better procurement practices and now it’s focused on procurement recommendations, templates, assistance to support more efficient school connectivity. I want to mention two brief examples. So in Kyrgyzstan together with the Ministry of Education the contracting was able to reduce costs of connectivity by 43%, representing about a saving of $250,000 per year. And in Rwanda it was able to also catalyze a cost decrease by 55%, so from $20 per Mbps to 9 and improve the speeds by 400%, so from 5 to 25 Mbps. Further to that Giga helps to unlock more and has helped so far to unlock $1.7 billion for financing school connectivity in a blended format. And in addition to the case in Brazil that I mentioned earlier, we’ve also been able to help unlock $5 million for a loan for Sierra Leone and $100 million for Niger. And these different areas of work support one another. So if USF are to be effectively revitalized, I think what our work focuses on and what I think is imperative is that we look at the life cycle, right, that we look at coordinated planning, that we look at deployment and monitoring of, you know, is the fund, I mean, are they connected? Are they staying connected? And, yeah, we hope that Giga can help with this. Thank you.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you, Sol. This is exciting work that the two UN agencies are doing with, as Sol indicated, of course, with the regulators, policymakers, and others to help, you know, bring about change in how connectivity is being distributed but also financed. We do have some online questions. We’ll turn to our online moderator in a minute. We’ll ask each participant that just was in this other block, Teddy, Josephine, and Sol, a question, and then we’ll open it up, of course, to the floor here in Kyoto but also the online floor. Teddy, one quick question for you. Has Ofcom provided universal service funding to community-based networks or municipal networks or whatever the correct terminology is in the U.K.?

Teddy Woodhouse:
Thanks, Jane. So, yeah, so when we talk about universal service programs, it’s not so much that Ofcom is providing the funding ourselves. We kind of see our role as, you know, creating the market conditions for network providers to exist. And so when we think about, you know, community networks or AltNets as they’re called here in the U.K., what it is, it’s about creating market conditions so that communication providers of all variety of types can succeed. So in part, that’s going to be aspects about having a regulatory framework that is simple enough that, you know, anyone can do it no matter whether they have a huge legal team behind them or if they’re a really small operation. But also, you know, looking at other aspects of how, you know, market competitors work with each other. And so to, you know, provide Internet services throughout the country. And so that relates a lot to how we understand, you know, wholesale services and the kind of separation of BT from OpenReach and how that process has been managed from a regulatory perspective because it’s, you know, BT being a retail operator and then OpenReach being kind of more of an access network that other networks can then build onto and provide access in new areas. That relationship is really important to making sure it’s working correctly so that you have a competitive and diverse market of different providers. Because what we’re having as a really positive experience in the U.K. is this diversity of market players. Hopefully in part because of Ofcom’s role, but there’s other aspects at play as well that, you know, enable consumers to have a good and affordable experience in terms of broadband services.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
And thank you, Teddy. That is that important differential between the fact that you’re not dispersing funds, you have an obligation, and you’re looking at those market conditions, which is great from that regulatory perspective. I think it’s in sharp contrast to what Konstantinos has experienced recently. Josephine, on setting the stage and working with regulators, what would your advice be to CSOs that do want to interface and work with regulators and help influence policy? Because for those in the room that have done this, I’m looking at Eric Huerta, who’s in the room as well, from Redis, and Carlos Baca, Sol, and others, it can be tricky if you’re not experienced in working with government. So what would you suggest, Josephine?

Josephine Miliza:
I think in our case, a lot of, I would say, patience. Fast. Patience, because an experience that we had in 2019 with one of my colleagues was that as we were trying to get in, just having meetings with the regulators, the doors were just being slammed on us. But I would say 2020 was when things began to shift. So, and Jen, you are with us, I think, since 2017, 2016, 2017. So it’s fast, I would say, patience. So it’s not patience and resilience. But I also think, as you mentioned something, that it’s an ecosystem type of advocacy. In our case, we really built on the collaboration that was existing between the UK Digital Access Program with the regulator in Kenya. And so that helped in terms of, one, building sustainability into some of the programs that they support. Because if there’s no policy change, then even if you’re building capacity or you’re building networks, then there’s no sustainability to that. So I would say also looking at who else in the ecosystem has those types of relationships and can be able to introduce you or bring you into the room because they have a sort of validity. Yeah, we can see, like, even our collaboration with the ITU, for example. Also helps us in terms of those advocacy efforts. And also there’s no need to recreate what is already existing. So in our interventions, for example, we also built on a lot of experience from other countries and other regions as well. So these resources exist. So more partnerships and collaborations with other existing players or stakeholders within the ecosystem.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
That’s awesome, and thank you. That’s a shout-out to FCDO as well, who you worked with closely in ITU and Go UK. You guys are two for two here. And also your point about data, getting those case studies out there and segueing over to you, Sol, on the data side. Help us with some of the sort of insight you have on what you think Giga could do more in the future of working with countries to highlight the importance of that ecosystem and funding and data.

Soledad Luca de Tena:
Thanks, Jane. Yeah, I mean, ecosystem. I really also appreciate Josephine’s mention of the need for different stakeholders. Also gathering experience, right? And I think that that’s the privilege that we are in the position to have, right? With these two different agencies that pull on already existing relationships with at least two ministries already creates a channel of communication. And I think we are working more on that, and I think we can work more. And I think I go back to my struggle not only now but also previously in my life as a community network practitioner around creating a common language. And, you know, that’s not just between government, private sector and civil society, which we know, you know, kind of are driven by different things and speak to the same issues in different ways. But also between government departments, right? Different foci and different ways to explain or different, I suppose, challenges. So I think Giga is in a very good position to create, I think, I hope, the map illustrated, you know, the kind of simple tools. of trying to understand the same problem, trying to understand that based on facts and evidence and cases. So I think that what we can definitely bring to the table is a common language, not only across different departments in public sector, which are our natural interlocutors, but also with private and community-based organizations. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you very much. We

Jane Roberts Coffin:
have about 12 minutes for some Q&A. Is there anyone? I think there is a question. Let me give Carlos a microphone. Carlos, was there a question online? Is there anyone in the room that would have… Oh, Eric, okay. So we have two questions in the room and we did have a question online, I think. Oh, good. We have three questions. Okay. And could we just say, if you could ask concise questions so we can give like a minute of an answer so we can get everybody in. Thank you.

Audience:
Well, regarding the GIGA project, it says that it helped to download the cost of the schools in some country. Can you explain a bit more how that happens? And also they mentioned this tool for global, our big contracts. So one of the challenges and some of the difficulties is that the government usually do all those big contracts, but there are sometimes small providers in close to the communities that can bring different costs or cheaper costs or better access to those schools. So I know how is this dealing with this. Yeah, well, and the other was, with the first questions, the model of… Yeah, and there has a lot of complaints about the concentrations of these platforms. And I think it’s not only affecting the carriers, but also it’s affecting the content creators and such. Do you think, or what would be the ideas to change this or sort of allowing to spread more, to spread the money they get instead of the concentration they already have? Hello, everyone. I’m from Civil Society in Paraguay. Perhaps a question for Josephine and Natalia, I think. We’ve seen a lot in Paraguay, which is where I’m based, denaturalization of the universal service funds for funding surveillance and security programs throughout the country. So first, I’m quite curious to see if there are other examples, because I think Natalia in the beginning was sort of like mentioning how the USF sometimes is used for other purposes, but perhaps you can talk a bit more about that as well, because we’re quite curious in network with, and see if other countries also have this sort of initiatives that are quite different from the purpose for what the USF was created. Particularly in Paraguay, we’ve seen that USF funds have been used to acquire surveillance and biometric technology to be deployed in the streets of the capital and other cities. Thank you.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Any other questions in the room? Please just ask the question and then we’ll do

Audience:
a collaborative answer there. Okay. Thank you very much, the speakers, online and offline, for such interesting insights. So I have a question. I think it has been on capital financing. I liked the different tiers you spoke to in terms of investment economics, and so I have a question. To what extent does private and public sector financing, whichever those models are, influence the costs related to entry into the ecosystem by community networks? So is there a linkage between the model of capital financing, whether it’s private or public, and the barriers of entry for community networks? And also then a general question then to the whole team, because I have a sense that we can, and I think someone talked to it, you can get to the same objective but using different tools. So how can we, maybe from the experience of the community networks, is there a sort of a one-size-fits-all kind of model, or there is room for you to appreciate what is the context and listening, especially from a public sector perspective, and see how you can plug in, in a way vis-a-vis highway or no way. Yeah, thank you. Hi. We also have a community network in India, and it’s called CowMesh, and it’s a community-owned Wi-Fi mesh network. So one of the things we struggle a lot is how to, I mean, when do the community take operational ownership, and how is that possible? So with this we struggle in terms of what internet is for them, and when Sol mentioned common language, I’ve been thinking for us internet is hypertext, hyperlinks. So if you are low literate, if you don’t have the text in your repertoire of possible media things, how do you do hypertext, hyperlink? Like what is internet for these people? Are we stagnated? Are we stopping the idea of what internet is? Or can we push this to community networks on, like, who are the people who can push this internet idea itself to people who have let define, like, three billion people? So that’s my, and maybe this connection is also about hardware, not only, but services, the idea of internet and all that. Thank you. Thank

Jane Roberts Coffin:
you, everyone, for those great questions, and if we could do speed round on your answers for a minute. So Sol, over to you and Giga. Thank you. Thanks, Eric, for the

Soledad Luca de Tena:
question. So how did the lowering costs happen? I have that. I think essentially it’s about being better informed. You know, what does the internet actually cost? Better access to understanding technologies in certain cases and what the options were. So some of it has to do with conditions. So longer contracts, better pricing, as well as what you mentioned of bigger contracts, right? So demand aggregation some way, and better supported, I think, is one of the key elements of, yeah, an informed ecosystem, I would say. And in terms of contracts, I think it’s exactly to your point. It’s not about making bigger contracts the whole time, but I have experienced it both now and previously as a community network, how difficult it is for public institutions to manage contracts, and they don’t have just one. I mean, whether it’s a municipality or nationally, managing hundreds and hundreds of contracts, you know, do they pay on time? Because they don’t know how to manage that. So the idea here is not to exclude small operators. I think on the contrary, it’s by helping to manage those contracts effectively, seeing that and linking that perhaps to the connectivity status. Okay, I can see it’s connected still. Yes, you get paid. Okay, thank you.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Sorry to cut you off. Paraguay, question on denaturalization.

Nathalia Foditsch:
Josephine and Natalia. Natalia, you have one minute. Well, in regards to the question on Paraguay, I actually cited the case of Asuncion specifically in the report I have mentioned. And I mean, in that case, they bought surveillance cameras with money from the Universal Service Fund, which is not a use we consider appropriate, right. And then I remember that was one of the most extreme cases we have found. However, there are other cases too, in which I mean, we wasn’t clear whether the impact of the use was as relevant as wanted. But I remember that the Asuncion case, that’s probably the one our colleague is referring to was cited specifically in the report. And well, I have more things to say, but I guess we don’t have time. So, Josephine. Yes, I think there’s

Josephine Miliza:
definitely reallocation of funds, but the challenge also within Africa, I think GSMA is just currently reviewing a study on that, is that there are no clear reporting or there are no clear reports as to how the funds are spent. So yes, there’s reallocation, but it’s also difficult to track exactly where the money went to.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Back to accountability. Okay, Ben, there was a great question on the issues you raised, if you could give a minute.

Ben Matranga:
Yeah, just to quickly answer, it was a question about the cost of capital. And it’s, you know, we’re in a place right now in the world where, you know, interest rates are higher than they’ve ever been before. So we’re just seeing a delay on builds across the globe. And unfortunately, that hits emerging markets the hardest. What I would say to great operators, one of the key data points we look at whenever we finance any project, is what we think about is kind of a maniacal focus on reducing the cost of service delivery. Just to give you an example, just on this panel, Kennedy had mentioned how in the UK, there’s a subsidy of a little over 3000 pounds. And part of that is just the cost to build in those markets is a lot higher. In the United States, it’s even higher than that. And it’s because this trade off between capital and labor, and in markets where labor is more expensive. So I tell all the emerging market providers, first of all, if you ever need capital, please knock on our door. We’re here to lend. And, but it is that focus on utilizing the services that you have, which are a lower cost of labor to get that cost of installed down. And that’s how you can deliver an ARPU, you know, in the 10 to $15 range, which is what we we see as kind of the way to unlock access at that lower economics trend. And given that there’s so much interest online and in the room,

Jane Roberts Coffin:
we may start up a listserv or a group based on this workshop to have this continue the conversation, because I know there’s one about Comesh. I think that one we could take onto a list group, an email list, if you don’t mind, or Slack or wherever people wanna set up. And I would just say that Teddy and Konstantino’s will give you 30 seconds if you wanna give us a tweet, because I wanna make sure everyone got a last question in. So,

Konstantinos Komaitis:
Konstantinos, 30 seconds. Thanks, Jane. So, the only thing that I will say here is that let’s have a conversation on infrastructure, let’s use what we have as tools, but let’s make sure that we make them, we build them up in a way that everyone can participate and there are accountability mechanisms for not misuse and mismanagement of these funds.

Teddy Woodhouse:
And Teddy… Teddy, back over to you. Thanks, Jane. I’ll try to be quick. I didn’t realize I was gonna have the honor of being a closing speaker on this part, but I guess the thing I would stress is really important is regulators thinking about a level playing market field, a level field for the market, for communication providers of all types. Part of that is also providing research and facts and evidence that A, make the regulators’ decisions more robust and more understandable, but also can help others in the sector understand what are the factors at play, where is service not as good as it should be, what are ways that it can be improved. And so, I think that’s also a really important aspect to consider as we’re looking at a holistic image of what are the challenges we face in connecting the world.

Jane Roberts Coffin:
Thank you so much. I would just like to give everybody a round of applause. Thank you to the wonderful panelists. You were excellent. Yay. And to Senka so much for not only the paper she helped draft right, but also the great organization of this panel. So, thank you all very much. This was excellent. And thank you to Carlos for being our online moderator. Thank you, everyone. Have a good day.