WS #225 Bridging the Connectivity Gap for Excluded Communities

Summary

This discussion focused on bridging the connectivity gap for excluded communities, examining innovative solutions and policies to achieve meaningful, affordable, and inclusive internet access for all. The panel, moderated by Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu from Paradigm Initiative, brought together experts from the Internet Society, Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, and Internet Bolivia to address last-mile connectivity challenges.

Christopher Locke from the Internet Society emphasized that while emerging technologies like low-earth orbit satellites show promise for connecting remote areas, sustainability remains a challenge due to pricing instability and regulatory issues. He stressed the importance of community readiness and building local capacity for network management, noting that successful community networks require both technical training and business model development. Onika Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership advocated for treating connectivity as a human right and reforming universal service funds to address demand-side issues like digital skills and device affordability. She highlighted the need for gender-disaggregated data and moving beyond basic connectivity metrics to measure meaningful access.

Leon Cristian from Internet Bolivia presented a more sobering perspective, outlining four key complexities: emerging technologies creating new problems around data sovereignty, regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies, the breakdown of cooperative governance models, and the emergence of a new digital divide around advanced computing capabilities. The discussion revealed that despite 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society, similar connectivity gaps persist, requiring context-informed, people-focused solutions that go beyond traditional market-driven approaches to embrace community-centered models and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Last-mile connectivity challenges and innovative solutions**: The panel explored how emerging technologies like low-Earth orbit satellites (LEO) and 5G can bridge connectivity gaps, particularly in remote and underserved communities. However, sustainability issues around pricing, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure capacity remain significant barriers.

– **Moving beyond basic connectivity to meaningful access**: Panelists emphasized the need to shift from simply providing internet access to ensuring meaningful connectivity that includes digital literacy, local content in native languages, affordable devices, and daily reliable access rather than the current standard of usage “once every three months.”

– **Community-centered networks and sustainability models**: Extensive discussion on community networks as viable alternatives to traditional telecom models, with emphasis on local ownership, management, and diverse business models including cooperatives. The Internet Society’s community readiness toolkit and grant programs were highlighted as examples of supporting sustainable community-led initiatives.

– **Policy and regulatory reform needs**: Strong calls for reforming Universal Service and Access Funds, opening spectrum for community networks, treating connectivity as a public good and human right, and creating enabling regulatory environments that support diverse stakeholders rather than just large telecommunications companies.

– **Growing complexity of the digital divide**: Recognition that the digital divide is becoming more complex with new challenges including data sovereignty, regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies, and emerging technology gaps (AI, quantum computing) that create additional layers of exclusion for developing countries.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to generate actionable insights for bridging the connectivity gap for excluded communities, focusing on innovative solutions, policies, and business models to achieve meaningful, affordable, and inclusive connectivity for all by 2030, particularly in the Global South.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional but increasingly urgent tone throughout. It began optimistically with solution-focused presentations but became more sobering as panelists acknowledged the persistent challenges and growing complexities. The tone shifted from technical problem-solving to more critical assessments of systemic failures, with speakers expressing frustration about the lack of progress 20 years after initial digital divide discussions. Despite the challenges highlighted, the conversation concluded on a constructive note with concrete recommendations and examples of successful community-led initiatives.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu** – Chief Operating Officer at Paradigm Initiative (nonprofit dedicated to promotion of digital inclusion and digital rights in Africa and the Global South); Session moderator

– **Christopher Locke** – Works with Internet Society, involved in community-led connectivity programs and ISOC Foundation

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager Partnerships and Engagements for Paradigm Initiative; Expert in human rights-based advocacy

– **Onica Makwakwa** – Executive Director Global Digital Inclusion Partnership; Has worked for 25 years driving gender and equity-focused policy

– **Leon Cristian** – Executive Director of Internet Bolivia; Advisor to governments on digital rights

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Sani Suleiman** – Colleague of Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu, mentioned as online moderator gathering questions and comments (though did not speak in the transcript)

– **Bara Kotieno** – Chair of the Association of Community Networks in Kenya

– **Leo** – Representative from United Republic of Tanzania

– **Lee McKnight** – Professor at Syracuse University in the United States

– **Lisa Dakanay** – From the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

# Bridging the Connectivity Gap for Excluded Communities: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu, Chief Operating Officer at Paradigm Initiative, brought together leading experts to examine innovative solutions and policies for achieving meaningful, affordable, and inclusive internet access for excluded communities. The conversation addressed the persistent challenge that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected globally, indicating that current approaches require fundamental reassessment.

The panel featured Christopher Locke from the Internet Society, who focuses on community-led connectivity programmes; Onica Makwakwa, Executive Director of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership with extensive experience in gender and equity-focused policy; Leon Cristian, Executive Director of Internet Bolivia and government advisor on digital rights; and Thobekile Matimbe, Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative. The discussion also included valuable contributions from audience members, including Bara Kotieno from Kenya’s Association of Community Networks and other participants from across the global digital inclusion community.

## Emerging Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges

### Low Earth Orbit Satellites: Promise and Limitations

Christopher Locke examined the potential of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites to bridge connectivity gaps in remote areas, while highlighting significant challenges that complicate their deployment. “We’re still in the very early stages of Leo Internet,” Locke explained, “and not only is the price initially expensive, but also we’re increasingly seeing that as the networks become clogged, the prices sometimes are quite dynamic based on demand.” He cited examples from African cities where Starlink services are “pretty much booked out,” illustrating how capacity constraints create new barriers to access.

Locke emphasized that while LEO satellites offer solutions for remote connectivity, sustainability remains problematic due to pricing instability and regulatory frameworks that haven’t kept pace with technological development. The infrastructure requires significant investment in ground stations and local capacity building, making it unsuitable as a standalone solution for underserved communities.

### Regulatory and Sovereignty Challenges

Leon Cristian provided a critical perspective on how emerging technologies create new regulatory challenges. His most striking example concerned data sovereignty: “Starlink is operating in my country without permission,” he revealed, explaining how the company told Bolivian authorities, “I don’t need that, I don’t need to put an office in your country. I can operate and I can provide my services even if I don’t fulfil all their requirements.”

This example illustrates broader challenges where technological solutions can undermine national sovereignty and regulatory frameworks. Cristian identified emerging complexities including problems related to data sovereignty and spectrum allocation, regulatory power imbalances between states and technology companies, and what he termed an evolving “digital divide.”

### The Expanding Digital Divide

Cristian introduced the concept of an evolving digital divide that extends beyond basic connectivity. “Now the digital divide is not only about having or not meaningful connectivity,” he explained, “it’s also about having enough capacity to run AIs, quantum computation, blockchains, cryptos… So there is another connectivity divide, there is another digital divide that is happening right now.”

This observation challenges current approaches to digital inclusion by suggesting that while efforts focus on basic connectivity, new technological requirements are creating additional layers of exclusion that countries in the Global South must navigate simultaneously.

## Community Networks: Alternative Connectivity Models

### Beyond Traditional Telecommunications

Christopher Locke presented community networks as viable alternatives to traditional telecommunications models, emphasizing the need to move beyond conventional thinking. “We need to understand there are many business models to providing connectivity,” he argued. “Mimicking a small version of being a telco isn’t the way to build a sustainable community network. There are co-op models, there are many other models that allow us to develop that.”

The Internet Society’s approach focuses on community readiness evaluation that encompasses technology solutions alongside business and governance training. Locke stressed that community networks are “not mini-telcos but community organisations providing vital services in ways that make sense for local communities.”

### Real-World Implementation and Success Stories

Bara Kotieno from Kenya provided concrete examples of progress, noting that Kenya has established 20 community networks with a target of 100. This demonstrates the viability of the model while highlighting the ongoing need to focus on sustainability components beyond initial establishment.

The discussion revealed that successful community networks require comprehensive approaches that include technical training, business model development, and governance structures. Locke emphasized that the Internet Society’s community readiness toolkit and grant programmes support sustainable community-led initiatives, but the ultimate goal is local self-sufficiency rather than continued dependence on external funding.

### Sustainability and Local Ownership

The sustainability of community networks emerged as a central concern. Locke emphasized that successful community networks must develop sustainable business models that can cover costs through local pricing systems rather than depending on continuous grants. This requires innovative approaches that balance community service with financial viability.

Leon Cristian reinforced the importance of community participation, arguing that “including local communities brings diversity and indigenous perspectives essential for building technology for the future.” This emphasis reflects a shift away from top-down technology deployment towards participatory approaches that center community needs and capabilities.

## Policy Reform and Regulatory Innovation

### Universal Service Funds: Untapped Potential

Onica Makwakwa highlighted significant problems with Universal Service and Access Funds, revealing that these potentially transformative resources are largely underutilized and lack transparency. Thobekile Matimbe reported that “less than four out of 27 African countries are transparent about Universal Service Fund resources and initiatives,” highlighting the scale of the accountability deficit.

Makwakwa argued for comprehensive reform of these funds, emphasizing the need for “public reporting and openness to addressing demand-side issues like digital skills and devices.” Current approaches focus primarily on infrastructure deployment while neglecting the broader ecosystem of digital inclusion, including digital literacy, local content development, and device affordability.

### Enabling Regulatory Frameworks

The need for enabling regulatory frameworks emerged as critical for scaling community networks. Thobekile Matimbe emphasized that “enabling regulatory frameworks are essential for community-centred connectivity initiatives to thrive with multi-stakeholder approaches.”

Christopher Locke argued that “governments should support different connectivity solutions through affordable spectrum licensing rather than viewing it as income stream.” This represents a fundamental shift in how spectrum is conceptualized – from a revenue-generating asset to a development tool that can enable community-led connectivity initiatives.

### Connectivity as a Human Right

Strong consensus emerged around treating connectivity as a fundamental human right rather than a market commodity. Onica Makwakwa argued that “universal affordable access should be prioritised as a right, embedded in development policies and rights frameworks.”

Leon Cristian reinforced this perspective by arguing that “market failures require public investment and public-private alliances with greater community participation.” This represents a significant departure from market-led approaches that have dominated connectivity policy, acknowledging that market mechanisms alone cannot deliver universal access.

## Redefining Meaningful Connectivity and Addressing Barriers

### Beyond Basic Access Metrics

Onica Makwakwa delivered a powerful critique of current connectivity measurement standards, arguing that “defining a connected person as someone who uses internet once every three months is underwhelming.” This highlights how inadequate measurement standards mask the reality of digital exclusion and prevent effective policy responses.

The discussion revealed that meaningful connectivity requires regular access with adequate speeds, not the basic connectivity measured by national averages that currently dominate policy discussions. Makwakwa emphasized that current data collection lacks gender and income level disaggregation, making it difficult to measure true impact on underserved populations.

### The Device Affordability Crisis

Device affordability emerged as a critical barrier that receives insufficient attention in connectivity discussions. Makwakwa revealed that people often spend significant portions of household income on purchasing devices, with high taxation on devices creating additional barriers. These costs create insurmountable barriers for low-income populations, even where network infrastructure is available.

The discussion challenged conventional approaches to device affordability that focus on financing schemes rather than addressing root causes of high costs. Makwakwa argued for “actually lowering initial device costs through local assembly and right to repair” rather than simply making expensive devices more accessible through credit arrangements.

“We need to stop having poor policies for poor people,” Makwakwa declared. “Poor phones for poor people… There’s a big difference between you can afford a phone over three months and you can afford a phone now.” This reframing challenges approaches to digital inclusion by demanding dignity and equity rather than accepting second-class solutions.

### Digital Literacy and Holistic Approaches

The discussion emphasized that connectivity without digital literacy and relevant local content fails to deliver meaningful benefits. Investment is needed in digital literacy programmes, local content development in local languages, and online safety education to ensure that connectivity translates into empowerment rather than mere access.

This holistic approach recognizes that technical connectivity is only the foundation for digital participation. Without complementary investments in skills, content, and safety, connectivity provision may fail to deliver transformative benefits.

## Economic Models and Alternative Approaches

### Moving Beyond Profit-Centric Models

The discussion revealed strong consensus that traditional profit-centric telecommunications models are insufficient for achieving universal connectivity. Christopher Locke advocated for “multiple business models beyond profit-centric telco models, including co-op models for sustainable community networks.”

Leon Cristian reinforced this perspective by arguing that market failures require public investment and public-private alliances with greater community participation. This acknowledgement of market limitations opens space for alternative approaches that combine public investment, community ownership, and social enterprise models.

### Spectrum as a Development Tool

Christopher Locke’s argument that governments should use “spectrum licensing as a development tool rather than primarily as government revenue generation” represents a significant policy shift. This approach recognizes spectrum as a public resource that should be managed to maximize social benefit rather than simply generate government income.

By making spectrum more accessible and affordable for community-serving organizations, governments can enable local solutions that complement commercial telecommunications infrastructure while serving communities that are not commercially viable for traditional operators.

## Challenges and Political Realities

### Political Understanding and Support

Thobekile Matimbe provided a revealing illustration of political resistance to digital inclusion through an anecdote about engaging with government officials: “I have been in one engagement with one government on the African continent where we are discussing digital inclusion for underserved communities and the feedback was from one member of parliament that look, do you really think my grandmother needs a smartphone?”

This example reveals the fundamental disconnect between policymakers and the reality of digital inclusion needs. It illustrates how basic assumptions about who deserves connectivity access still need to be challenged at the highest levels of government, highlighting that technical and policy solutions require political will and understanding to achieve scale and impact.

### Implementation Complexities

The discussion revealed various implementation challenges, from regulatory power imbalances with global technology companies to the need for new governance frameworks that can accommodate diverse stakeholders and business models. These challenges require nuanced approaches that balance the benefits of global connectivity solutions with legitimate concerns about sovereignty and local control.

## Areas of Consensus and Future Directions

### Community-Centered Approaches

Despite different perspectives on specific solutions, all speakers demonstrated strong consensus around the need for community-centered approaches to connectivity. This consensus spans technical implementation, business model development, and policy design, reflecting recognition that top-down approaches have failed to deliver universal access.

The community-centered consensus includes meaningful community participation in solution design, local ownership and management of connectivity infrastructure, and business models that serve community needs rather than simply maximizing profits.

### Rights-Based Framework

Strong consensus emerged around treating connectivity as a fundamental right that requires government intervention and public investment. This rights-based approach provides a foundation for arguing that market failures justify public intervention and that universal access is a legitimate government responsibility.

### Need for Systemic Change

Perhaps most significantly, speakers demonstrated consensus that current approaches to digital inclusion have fundamentally failed to deliver results. The persistence of massive connectivity gaps indicates that incremental improvements to existing approaches are insufficient, creating space for more transformative alternatives including community networks, public investment, and regulatory reform.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed that bridging the connectivity gap for excluded communities requires fundamental changes to current approaches rather than incremental improvements. The persistence of massive digital divides indicates that alternative approaches centered on community needs, human rights, and public investment are essential.

The conversation highlighted both the promise and complexity of emerging solutions, from LEO satellites to community networks, while emphasizing that technology alone cannot solve connectivity challenges without appropriate social, economic, and political frameworks. The emerging consensus around community-centered approaches, rights-based frameworks, and the need for systemic change provides a foundation for more transformative interventions.

However, significant challenges remain, including developing sustainable business models for community networks, addressing regulatory power imbalances with global technology companies, and creating measurement frameworks for meaningful connectivity. Addressing these challenges will require continued collaboration, innovation, and political commitment to digital inclusion as a fundamental development priority.

The discussion ultimately demonstrated that bridging the connectivity gap is not simply a technical challenge but a comprehensive development undertaking that requires coordinated action across multiple sectors and stakeholders. The path forward demands both urgency to address the immediate needs of unconnected populations and patience to build sustainable, community-centered solutions that can deliver lasting transformation.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Hello. And welcome to this session titled Bridging the Connectivity Gap for Excluded Communities. My name is Nnena Polugochukwu, and I’m the Chief Operating Officer at Paradigm Initiative, which is a nonprofit dedicated to the promotion of digital inclusion and digital rights in Africa and the Global South. I’m honored today to guide today’s conversation on a challenge that sits at the intersection of infrastructure, equity, and human rights, asking the question, how do we ensure meaningful, affordable, and inclusive connectivity for all? While Internet access has significantly expanded globally, millions remain unconnected, particularly in rural, remote, and underserved regions. Bridging the last-mile connectivity gap is crucial for ensuring digital inclusion and achieving meaningful connectivity and access for all. Today’s conversation will explore innovative solutions, policies, and business models aimed at addressing last-mile challenges, including community networks, public-private partnerships, emerging technologies like low-Earth orbit satellites, 5G expansion, and alternative spectrum management approaches. So this session aims to generate actionable insights to inform global Internet governance discussions, ensuring that unserved and underserved populations’ equity and Senior Manager Partnerships and Engagements for Paradigm Initiative and also an expert in human rights-based advocacy. I also have with me Onika Makwakwa, Executive Director Global Digital Inclusion Partnership. She has worked for 25 years driving gender and equity-focused policy. And I also have with me Leon Cristian, the Executive Director of Internet Bolivia. So today online, I also have my colleague Sani Suleiman who will be moderating and will be gathering questions and comments during plenary at the end of the panel discussion. So welcome once again, and I think we will dive right in and go for it as my colleague always says. So I’ll start the conversation today with Chris. So drawing from your leadership and your background in building digital economies, how can emerging technologies like I mentioned, low earth orbit satellites and 5G be leveraged to bridge the connectivity gap in a sustainable way?

Christopher Locke: Thank you and thank you for inviting me to the panel. It’s lovely to be here. We are relatively agnostic at the Internet Society about what connectivity platforms people use to connect. and the work we do with our community-led connectivity program. We have programs around the world that use a wide variety of platforms, whether it’s Fiber, whether it’s Leos, whether it’s mobile. But what we have seen increasingly in the work that we do is how Leos in particular can really help bridge remote communities for blindingly obvious reasons, in that, you know, having satellites allows us to get connectivity to communities that otherwise would not be covered by Fiber platforms or not be covered by mobile platforms. And we’re seeing that increasingly, particularly in some island states. There’s a very strong focus in the new Fiber strategy for the Internet Society on connecting small island states. And what we’ve seen particularly in the Pacific region is that satellite is increasingly becoming the norm for connectivity and is helping connect remote islands in exciting new ways. So indeed, in some cases, we’re seeing communities and islands where Starlink is becoming the largest ISP in the island. And actually, the majority of Internet is coming over satellite platforms. So there are huge opportunities for the way that Leos can work. And as more are launched and the prices come down, it becomes more affordable. Sustainability, though, we think is still an issue. And sustainability comes from two different areas. Firstly, obviously, is price. We’re still in the very early stages of Leo Internet. And not only is the price initially expensive, but also we’re increasingly seeing that as the networks become clogged, the prices sometimes are quite dynamic based on demand. So having coverage from a Leo constellation, having coverage from a Leo provider, can absolutely provide connectivity to a remote area. But if the pricing is again unstable, and if, as we are seeing at the moment in some African cities with Starlink, where they’re pretty much booked out. Mike Jensen, Leon Cristian, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Leon Cristian, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Leon Cristian, Mike Jensen, Leon Cristian, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Mike Jensen, Leon Cristian, Mike Jensen, But at the moment, we’re really still in the early stages and the pricing issues and the regulatory issues are still to be solved

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Chris, and I love that you’ve touched on some of the lessons. I think that you’re already learning in implementing these solutions and talking about sustainability and the regulatory frameworks So with ISOC foundation, how do you evaluate? Talking about sustainability, how do you evaluate the impact and are there specific examples you can give with some of the lessons that you have shared that can show how they can be replicated across these local communities because you specifically mentioned communities in Africa. Are there any specific examples? How are you evaluating? What are the lessons and then how can those be replicated?

Christopher Locke: Yeah, the evaluation for us starts before the program begins So we have a very good community readiness toolkit that we use when we’re working on a potential project And what we do with that toolkit is not only evaluate the technological solution But as is implied in the title, we evaluate the community. We’re trying to understand who is going to be leading this for the community What is the governance structure and the support structure within the community for? Is it a school? Is it a local organization? You know who is going to be owning and maintaining the network and then you know How can we provide training to support them not only just in the crimping of the wires But also then in understanding what sustainability looks like. On a panel I was on yesterday when we were looking at kind of innovative financing in this space We were talking about the need when we develop community networks to develop them with business training as well as with technology training and what we want to be able to do is provide Our grant capital and our capacity building support to get local communities off the ground with their community centered connectivity solutions The next phase after that shouldn’t be another grant. The next phase should be that there is real sustainability and the community network because they’re able to build a pricing model that allows them to kind of cover the costs of the community. Often with schools, that’s where schools can sell connectivity to the local community via voucher systems or whatever system works and support that out. But what we like to see in our community readiness toolkit is that the technology solution is there that’s fit for that particular need, whatever the geographic need of that community is, but then from a business model perspective that you’re building a community network that is sustainable because it actually meets the needs of the community, can be managed by the community and is economically sustainable as well.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Chris. My takeaways from there is to be creative around regulation, around licensing and focusing also on building capacities of the community networks, ensuring that they are ready to manage these networks themselves and keep them sustainable. Thank you very much. So moving from connectivity and more to meaningful access, I’ll come to you, Onika. So drawing from your leadership of the GDIP, what evidence-based policy and regulatory frameworks can best improve affordability and inclusion and support last mile community initiatives such as the ones that Chris has given us examples of?

Onica Makwakwa: Great. Thank you so much for that question and thanks for inviting us to this panel. It’s always wonderful when we come to IGF and talk about these things to also have a partner like Internet Society that’s actually on the implementation side of making sure that some of these ideas have an opportunity to be tested out in communities. So in terms of, you know, focusing on this last mile connectivity initiatives that are affordable and accessible to everyone, it’s really important for us to. continue to support policy frameworks that are people-centered at first and that are designed through a lens of equity, human rights, and accountability. Because when we look at who is not connected at the moment, those tend to be the population that tends to benefit the most out of being connected when we talk about transformative qualities of connectivity. So the first thing that I would say is that we need to prioritize universal affordable access as a right. You know we need governments to embed digital access in development policies and frameworks and in the rights framework as well. Treating connectivity as a public good and not just nice to have a luxurious thing. This includes setting very ambitious universal service goals and enshrining them in the right to meaningful connectivity that focuses on regular access, reliable access that is high quality, as well as affordable internet and devices for people to be able to benefit from digital technologies. The other item is we need to reform universal service and access funds. I think we’ve been talking about this for a really long time. It is quite evident and we’ve done quite an audit a few years ago looking at universal service and access fund, how they’re deployed, how effective they are, and you know it’s quite clear that regulators should open, you know, that countries should continue to utilize universal service access funds in a lot better way. Perhaps even being open to addressing some of the demand side issues of connectivity like digital skills and affordable devices. So it’s not all just about infrastructure but beginning to address I’m here with the CEO of the World Bank, and I’m here to talk about the importance of public reporting. We need public reporting because we can’t continue to have gatherings like this where we keep talking about how we don’t really know the impact of universal services and access funds or that there are funds that are not utilized. And enabling community networks and innovative models, regulators need to open up spectrum, and that’s beginning to happen as we see with some of the work that internet society organizations have been doing around community networks and funding connectivity, community-based initiatives. And one of the things that’s really key that Chris mentioned in training for business and for technical skills, we need to be open to different financial models for connecting everyone. I think that the pure commercial model alone is not going to be a size that fits all communities, so we need to be open to the fact that, you know, in a continent like Africa, for example, where so many people live on less than $2 per day, we might, even if a country reaches the affordability level, remember that’s based on averages. We have to be willing to think about subsidies to certain communities or co-op model connectivity that allows those who may never be able to afford connectivity to be able to still have access as a public good and as a right for them to be connected, you know, mandating inclusive infrastructure sharing. And open access is something we’ve talked about, I think, at literally every IGF and gathering of this kind, and we need to see more and more efforts to prevent monopolies so that we’re truly building connectivity strategies that focus on everyone being included. And lastly, integrating digital inclusion in broader economic and social policies. Connectivity policies need to be linked with the investments in digital literacy, local content devices, and online safety issues, because those issues also drive the experience of people online. So I often say that we want everyone to go online to do what exactly, read English, be on Facebook? I don’t think so. I think there’s a lot more, if we’re talking about digital and transformation, we need to invest more in some of the other things that ensure people are able to fully benefit meaningfully from being online, including relevant local content in local languages that people are able to consume. And lastly, I’ll just summarize by saying that policy and regulatory frameworks need to work for the last mile, and they need to focus on being inclusive by design, accountable in delivery. Accountability is just one of those things that I’m pained by. I feel like we’re just not seeing enough of that. And transformative in the impact, we are not just connecting people for access. It has to be beyond access. What is it that they’re able to do to improve and change their lives by being connected? So we need to put that at the center, so that it’s all grounded in equity, actively dismantling structural barriers, and lastly, not leaving women behind. We’ve done a lot of work on connected resilience, which is a study that looks at gendered experiences of women. I invite you to read that report and just really see what the lived experiences of women is through meaningful connectivity and you will really get a picture of how we’ve barely scraped the surface in terms of being inclusive in our connectivity efforts. Thank you.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Anika. I had a follow-up question that I believe you already started to answer and that was around how we can move frameworks beyond just connectivity to ensure, like you said, meaningful access through digital literacy, cultural relevance, developing local content. Maybe touch a bit more on that and also share what do you think are the metrics that we should adopt to be able to measure? You’ve given us some things that, you know, inclusive design, accountability and delivery, very specific mandates as well. How would we know that we have gotten there? What are the metrics? How would we measure that?

Onica Makwakwa: Yes, great question, actually. So it’s really important that we measure what we want to see impact in, right? You know, so we are still struggling at just having data that’s segregated even by gender, believe it or not. In 2025, we are not collecting gender desegregated data. We are not collecting data that’s desegregated by income levels. And we learned this when we used to do the affordability index report because, you know, a lot of these indices rely on national averages. So if you take a country, for example, like South Africa, and you measure it on affordability based on the one gig for no more than 2% of household income, the country actually comes out as being quite affordable, right? However, when you take the population, because South Africa is a country where more than 50% of the population lives on less than half the average GNI. So when you take the population and you splice it by income quantiles, We’ve got these incredible instruments like your National Broadband Plan that can be mute. In fact, if you take a lot of National Broadband Plans and just do a web search of women, you’ll maybe find one or two, but no real measurement of how are we going to know we’ve actually succeeded. Is it 10% of the women, 30% of the women? We just have not been clear. So we’ve got an opportunity to make sure that our instruments that we measure our connectivity, our gaps with, are very clear and articulate on what the target and that goal is. Is it 40% of the unconnected? What percentage of that is women and what percentage is rural? Women are also not a monolithic group. So really getting into all those intersections of how we are connecting people is really important, but also moving away from measuring on basic connectivity. I’m a big advocate of us raising the standards. At the global level, the standard of a connected person is someone who uses the internet once every three months is so underwhelming that we need to just really, I think those of us who are going to WSIS need to really talk a lot about how that standard needs to improve. Meaningful connectivity is about daily access, especially when we are talking about the age of artificial intelligence and the things that… Thank you so much for joining us. We have a lot of things that we want to do, you know, we want to do in terms of digitization of public services, daily access and limited access, 4G speed at minimum, if we truly want people to do the kinds of things that, you know, we are promising them for transformation, because the truth is, we need to stop having poor policies for poor people. You know, poor phones for poor people. We need to do a lot of things, so let’s work on real device affordability strategies, not device financing. There’s a big difference between you can afford a phone over three months and you can afford a phone now, you know? So we need to, I feel like we really have not started to do the work in terms of driving affordability, in terms of making sure that there’s rich and relevant content, that there’s a way to make sure that all of the services that we’re providing are accessible for all of the people, and that’s really what we’re doing, and we’re doing this very much in English, which is not a majority language for most of our population.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: So, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, looking at all of the instruments that we have, including our digital development policies in general, to see how they are explicit about, you know, the kind of vision that we’ve set for the world, the kind of, you know, white kind of work that we’ve done on the kind of connectivity goals to achieve a high- quality and affordable access. And a lot of what you just said about the kind of work that we’ve done on the kind of connectivity goals to achieve a high- quality and affordable accessibility, and our partnership-building efforts. So in what role do you do public-private partnerships And community driven models play in ensuring access to the Internet.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Nnenna, for talking about public private partnerships and obviously access to the Internet for our communities. I think we’ve already begun to, you know, unpack community centred initiatives, connectivity initiatives and how they are important. And when we’re looking at it from the perspective of those initiatives, it is clear that it’s a multistakeholder approach. It’s all hands on deck in terms of laying out what is important, what should be there for meaningful connectivity. I need to highlight the importance of, you know, obviously a relevant and appropriate regulatory environment that ensures that, you know, connectivity and meaningful connectivity is reached and attained, especially for excluded communities. And this is something at the heart of our work at Paradigm Initiative, focusing on, you know, those who are underserved in rural communities and research from ITU last year, you know, presented that at least 38% of Africans of the African population is online. The digital divide is not something that has, you know, been eradicated at this point. Even as we look at attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals, we still have a big gap that is there. And we are now even moving away from just connectivity, but saying there should be meaningful connectivity. And what does that mean for collaboration and, you know, putting all hands on deck in terms of ensuring that this is a reality for our communities. So I think in that vein, it’s clear that, you know, in addressing that gap, you know, there’s need for that regulatory framework that ensures that, you know, community-centered community connectivity initiatives can thrive. and also that even the private sector is also able to come on board. I think Onyeka touched on the Universal Service Fund and it’s something that we’ve done research on at Paradigm Initiative through our State of Digital Rights and Inclusion in Africa report, LONDA, and looking at the 2024 report, it shows that, you know, from the 27 reported countries, we have less than four countries that really are transparent about those resources and what they’re doing with them, what they’re collecting and how they’re gathering those resources through the support of the private sector. There’s also not transparency about the initiatives that are even being rolled out and there’s not enough support even for whatever, you know, community centers for connectivity, how they’re being run and how they’re being sustained so that they’re not just something that’s put up in communities and as hubs, but it’s something that is sustained. And I like the fact that as well there’s, you know, a lot of support from a lot of civil society actors that are, you know, running other initiatives as well to support this and I think Paradigm Initiative has done a lot of work on life legacy, ensuring that they bring digital literacy to communities and putting their hands on deck and also engaging the government as well as a key partner to say, here we are, we can collaborate and ensure we expand, you know, the reach of digital literacy in communities that are underserved. And I think one of the key important things as we also talk about some of the work that we’ve done under the Local Networks Initiative together with AEPC, I think it’s been key to highlight the importance of social impact when these community-centered connectivity initiatives are being rolled out, ensuring that communities also are on board at the table of describing or rather articulating the vision of this initiative so that there’s tangible, meaningful, you know, benefit for the communities as well when we’re looking at even inclusion as a whole, bringing voices on board, what are the key things they want to see, what they want to benefit from these initiatives and how they can also be a critical stakeholder in ensuring that they are sustainable. I think it is something that is important. I will highlight of course as we are discussing the world summit on information society and looking at how far we have come 20 years later. I think it is really concerning that where we are right now. We are at a place where 20 years later we are still discussing the digital divide and articulating similar gaps that we articulated as far back as 2002, 2003 where we still need to see enabling policies that are ensuring that this happens. We still need to see great cooperation across diverse stakeholders to ensure that there is meaningful connectivity. We still see a really broad digital divide and how can we as we engage in these conversations be able to speak truth to ourselves and say do we really want to see this change? Do we really want to see the needle move? Because where we are, we are still where we were and we want to be able to ensure that we prioritize this. Even in national budgeting processes we have actually governments making sure that they prioritize this. I have been in one engagement with one government on the African continent where we are discussing digital inclusion for underserved communities and the feedback was from one member of parliament that look, do you really think my grandmother needs a smartphone? And you are like okay, at this day and age we are still debating the importance of access to digital technologies for our communities. So how far can we move? I think we need to be at a place where we speak truth to ourselves and say look, we cannot leave anyone behind and this is not an educated elitist conversation but it is a conversation that really ensures that. especially the Universal Services Fund and community initiatives

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: because I believe also that transparency fosters trust, it makes building of this public-private partnerships even stronger. So thank you, Tobekele. I’ll come to you now, Cristian. Thank you for being here today. So looking ahead to 2030, now we’ve been saying set goals, what do we want to see, what do we want to achieve? And having, you know, advised governments on digital rights, what innovation, be it technological or policy-based, has the potential to make today’s digital divide obsolete and how can we prepare for that future now?

Leon Cristian: All right, thank you, Nnena. Good morning to all the wonderful panelists and the friends participating online and on-site. I want to talk more about the complexities of this debate right now, not perhaps in a very positive way because actually we are seeing a lot of complexities in the world. You know, 2030 looks so in the future right now that let’s expect to reach 2026 first. All right, from what I have been hearing these days at the IGF, There are, I think, four challenges that we have to address. Let’s don’t expect that these things actually make things more complex to to, you know, close the digital divide. The first one I want to talk about, I think Christopher also mentioned it, is the emerging of new technologies such as low-orbit satellites, which are, of course, rapidly solving connectivity problems, especially in the most remote areas. For countries with very big digital divides and low resources, such as my country, Bolivia, these kind of connections seem actually an interesting solution, so we should take them into into account, but at the same time, also these technologies are generating new problems, problems that perhaps we didn’t have before, related to data sovereignty, spectrum allocation, national security, among others. And the second thing, the second challenge, is the regulatory power imbalances that now are growing between states and big tech companies. Countries of the global majority have today a minimum capacity to demand the fulfillment of guarantees and rights of these companies. This is something that we all know, but going back to the first complexity that I mentioned, for example, Starlink is operating in my country without permission. How this happened? Because my government asked Starlink to have a complaints office in order to operate in Bolivia, but since Starlink is so powerful and such a big company, they said, I don’t need that, I don’t need to put an office in your country. I can operate and I can provide my services even if I don’t fulfill all their requirements. So that is happening. And how we can do accountability to these companies if they don’t even want to invest in one office in one country like Bolivia. The third complexity is about the disappearance of a governance model based on cooperation. In a world in international crisis it is becoming increasingly difficult to think of models of internet governance because particular interests are becoming more important than the needs of the most vulnerable populations. And that is something that we also have to address and the spaces like the IGF are so important because they allow us to speak about these kind of issues. And fourth, the increasingly complex technologies that today require an infrastructure and a computing capacity that our countries don’t have. Now the digital divide is not only about having or not meaningful connectivity, it’s also about having enough capacity to run AI’s, quantum computation, blockchains, cryptos and all those technologies. So there is another connectivity divide, there is another digital divide that is happening right now. And we also have to address that digital divide for these countries because we are lagging behind and we will not have access to these technologies because we don’t have this capacity to run them, right? So we don’t even have the energy infrastructure to power it. That is why our countries are in a double digital divide. So these are real big complexities that we also I think we have to address. Of course, I’m being really negative in relation to what can happen in the future, but I think after hearing all these things in the IGF, I think we also have to, you know, speak about them.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you. Thank you, Cristian. Thank you for highlighting the increasing complexity in how the, you know, the digital divide is growing as well. And maybe just to bring some balance, because you’re right, looking at these complexities and challenges, it looks bleak because we’re just trying to, you know, solve one. And then, you know, we have these increasing complexities and challenges being thrown at us. How would you or what would you prefer as a balance? How would you balance this? I like the example you gave about Starlink and Bolivia and also about how it’s new problems are coming up in terms of national security, data sovereignty, other digital rights issues. So how can we balance investment in infrastructure and ensuring that we have connectivity with the necessary investments in rights protection mechanisms for communities and for countries as well?

Leon Cristian: Okay. I agree with everything that Onika said. I think that is the way. So I also think that the answer depends on the context, the needs of the specific countries or regions. In the case of Bolivia, I think, for example, that the last mile problem is purely a market issue. Why? Because the invisible hand of the market failed here to solve the connectivity needed by remote areas and populations. Either because these are very small communities and nobody wants to invest in these communities, or because the state is receiving lobby of these very big companies. ICTs, ICPs, and they don’t allow these communities, for example, to have the regulation that they need for community networks. There are so many cases in Latin America and in my country of community networks that are actually functioning and resolving some of the connectivity problems. But as Christopher mentioned, there is a difficulty here to sustain these community networks. The government is not helping at all because the government are creating legislations and regulatory frameworks only from the perspective of these big companies, what these big companies need in order to operate, but they are not facilitating things for small companies that also have these issues and they are doing what they can in order to resolve their own connectivity problems. I have a lot of cases in which communities, they said, I want to invest in my own infrastructure, but the government don’t allow me to invest because the government says that only the government or a big company can invest in this community. Why? This is something really, I don’t know how to explain it because it’s really hard to understand. So what should be done, in my opinion, and in my context, we need to stop seeing connectivity as something to be solved only by the market or only by big companies and more as a basic need that should be solved through public investments, public-private alliances with a greater participation of the communities that are affected, of course, and I think that the work that is being done by internet society, global digital inclusion partnership and civil society in general is really important and we have to strengthen that work. Also, of course, with the inclusion of the local communities.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you. Thank you, Cristian. My takeaway from your preferred solutions is they should be context-informed and people-focused. I have lost connectivity online to Zoom, but just to say to the audience online and on site, I hope you’re getting your questions ready and I hope that this has been an engaging conversation for you with some key takeaways and focus areas. So before we go to Q&A, I think I have one last question and this is for all my panelists. What practical steps can civil society, ISPs, mobile operators, all the stakeholders, we’ve talked about businesses, start-ups, what can they do together to de-risk investments in last mile infrastructure and promote inclusive access based on everything that you’ve spoken about today? I think I’ll start from Chris and then we can go down.

Christopher Locke: I’ll actually repeat something that was said earlier on. We need to understand there are many business models to providing connectivity. We need to understand that the dominant model of profit-centric, telco, satellite provider, etc., whilst fundamentally important in providing the possibility of access for last mile access for communities, isn’t necessarily the sustainable way. Mimicking a small version of being a telco isn’t the way to build a sustainable community network. There are co-op models, there are many other models that allow us to develop that. So I think really being innovative and creative in the way we think about what sustainable business models look like, and then as has been said, getting governments to support that, making spectrum licensing for local usage affordable and available. to those networks In a way that doesn’t just look at spectrum licensing as a nice income stream for for the government You know understanding the GDP impact of giving people connectivity, you know, the astonishing changes to their lives you get through connectivity Massively outweigh the small amount of money you can earn from selling Community spectrum licenses to network. So we really do need as was said earlier particularly by Anika to drive Governments to support very different types of connectivity solutions and business models and and put the regulation in place to support those

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Chris

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you. I will echo the importance of an enabling regulatory framework and and and the importance of inclusion as a matter of importance and in line with human rights not as a privilege, but something that is really critical and necessary as well as Also highlighting the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches not just between the government and the private sector but also civil society because of some of the meaningful steps that CSOs are taking to bridge the connectivity gap

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you

Onica Makwakwa: Okay, so I will I would say for me it’s advocating for policy incentives together And it’s really great that we are all here as government actors private sector actors and civil society We need to focus this advocacy strongly on you know, access to our universal service funds for multi-stakeholder projects text waivers or import duty reductions on equipment for last mile connectivity and license fee exemptions or flexible spectrum access for small-scale operations community networks or other rural development initiatives And on the data, we need to collaborate, you know, to guide investment and share and combine disaggregated data on coverage gaps, on affordability and digital use to better identify and understand, you know, what’s viable for less small investment areas. And civil society can help gather real-time community feedback while operators and ISPs can share infrastructure maps or usage data with appropriate safeguards. I know there’s a lot of protectionism that happens around this particular issue. And, you know, lastly, we need to develop and support local digital ecosystems, you know, by collaborating to incubate local startups and encourage local device repair and distribution networks. It really baffles me that we are also talking about climate issues and e-waste and sustainability of the planet. But we still have so many countries where the right to repair is not practical and a reality for these devices. And that’s one of the things that can help drive the affordability of devices down, especially for me in a continent like Africa, that’s a huge reuse market. It really baffles me that we have not looked at this issue of the right to repair as one of the solutions towards beginning to lower the cost of devices. Thank you.

Leon Cristian: Yeah, for me, it can be repetitive because this was already mentioned that meaningful connectivity should be a right and should be embedded in all the international policy framework, not only the one related to digital policy. Because this is something really transversal to almost anything right now. And as I mentioned, connectivity should not be left only for the market or the companies to solve. This is something that is really all the stakeholders need to be involved in this. Civil society, companies, government, and of course the local communities. Because connectivity is not a privilege, it’s a necessity.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you. Thank you to all the panelists. I already see a question coming up online, so I will take that as a cue to open the floor for questions. So the first question we have, talking of sustainability as a private sector looking at deploying community networks, what renewal incentives are available from Internet Society Foundation and how many years does the grant cover? So I believe this is for you, Chris.

Christopher Locke: Absolutely. So we provide a range of different support for community networks. We provide grants by reconnecting the unconnected program. Usually these are done on an annual basis. We have annual granting windows, so there is the opportunity to continue grants going forward. But as I said, what we like to do is, if we get into a relationship with a community network, is build them towards the point where they are sustainable without the need for grants. Now what that sometimes means is someone can come initially for a grant to support the initiation of a community network, and then at a later stage they are looking to spread it out to a larger area, so the follow-on grant allows them to increase their coverage. And then later on, maybe it’s something else. We are increasingly seeing power supply as something that people are wanting support with. So we don’t like to just continually fund something to stay as it is, or to get to a situation where it’s not possible to sustain without grant support. But what we do want to do is see actually if there is growth, how can we help those community networks overcome the next phase of their growth, and how can we get them on a path to sustainability, and how can we meet.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Chris, and I hope that answered the question. We have one in the room.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Bara Kotieno. I hope I can be heard. I chair the Association of Community Networks in Kenya. I’m here with my colleague James sitting at the back. Thank you very much, Chris, and the rest of the panelists for the very interesting interventions which are very relevant. Actually, I consider this a very pertinent and relevant topic. I wanted to just share some thoughts to affirm the comments that have been made by the panelists. First, Kenya now has about 20 community networks. We have a target by the Communications Authority of Kenya to build 100 community networks. It is based on realization of the fact that after 20 years of investment in GSM, we only have 30% of the country having meaningful connectivity. Therefore, there is a need to accelerate connection of the 70% that are remaining, and community networks have been found to be viable alternatives. Thanks to the Internet Society, we have received seed funding that has actually established 90% of the community networks that I have mentioned. We do have support from APC that has also contributed, which we really appreciate. But we have a letter of commitment or we have commitment from the Internet Society to work with us in achieving our target of 100 community networks. Of course, I cannot forget to thank the Communications Authority of Kenya, which has worked with the community to ensure that we have a community network service provider license. We also have further systemic enhancements to create a Tier 4 license. we have demonstrated that community networks are actually a viable alternative but the challenge now is to actually prove that there are sustainable means of providing affordable connectivity to the community and maybe that’s a challenge I will throw back to the panel to help us now figure out the sustainability component. Thank you very much. Thank you

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Barak. Any reflections to Barak? I mean I’d just like to give the respect back

Christopher Locke: and respect the work that Barak and the organization does you know it’s very nice of him to mention ourselves on APC as supporters but the work that they do in Kenya is astonishing and I think most importantly can be a case study for what country level coordination of community networks, training, development can actually do to achieve really immense results. Yeah thank you, thank you Chris.

Audience: Hello, you can hear me? Yes we can. Okay, my name is Leo from United Republic of Tanzania. I want to ask one issue. We all acknowledge that accessibility is still a big challenge especially in global south despite of the improvement of mobile coverage. We understand 8% plus of coverage is achievable against the accessibility of 38% of in Africa. It shows that the pricing and device affordability. It’s still a big problem Apart from the solution you have mentioned Please can you share more experience you have to solve the issue of the accessibility especially in the device affordability. Thank you

Onica Makwakwa: Okay, that’s a bit of a tough one so, you know device affordability one of the Research that we had done Specifically looking at Africa. We actually learned that device affordability is still a very huge challenge in addition to you know, the affordability of the Internet itself and that when you look at How much people are actually spending on? access to on accessing these devices We were able to to find that some Community some countries you find that people are spending anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of average household income on Just purchasing one device There’s a lot of work that’s currently happening around device affordability including a lot of resistance against Subsidies of Devices and we’ll pack that for a little bit for now. So looking at affordability specifically one of the things that we’ve done successfully in a couple of countries is looking at taxation of devices and found we found that there’s anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of Taxation that is on devices whether it’s an import duty tax your VAT Or you know sales tax or what have you but there’s anywhere from 20 to 45 percent And we’ve been able to demonstrate actually that if governments could just roll back some of those taxes It actually increases uptake of digital technologies within the country and I’ll give you just a quick example between Nigeria and Ghana where we found that people in Ghana would actually buy their devices in Nigeria and activate them in Ghana including Those who live on the border in terms of their DSTV Subscription they would live in one country and do their subscription in another country because those taxes are so high that they actually make a difference in affordability and so but I think what has been An area I will criticize of our all our multi-stakeholder community is that our focus when it comes to device affordability has predominantly been on Affording the devices over time Instead of really tackling the issue of how do we lower that initial cost of devices? To a point where more people can afford to be able to get them. The repair issue is one of them No one wants to talk about local assembly I’m not sure why because local assembly can also enable Gives an opportunity to also enable and retool The workforce in that country, especially in a continent like Africa where majority of our population is young people We need retooling and reskilling so bringing some of these devices to be partially or fully assembled within the continent Would make a huge difference including the content that’s uploaded, right? So why must this device arrive in my country with everything including the plastic that gets peeled off and all the software Already installed could not couldn’t some of those Happen local and we’ve seen this model with the motorbikes that are imported into the continent for delivery of food They literally come in parts and therefore their text differently Compared to if they arrived as a fully assembled motorbike to service the community the mobile operators have predominantly been working on the device affordability around financing schemes and Different models for that and that’s really great and wonderful but I really would love to see a commitment from civil society from government especially and some private sector around And developing this phone that we were promised, I don’t know how many years ago, the $10 phone is not here yet, but maybe it’s not going to be $10, you know, but we need to really, I would not give us a good grade on device affordability. We haven’t done a good job. We need to regulate for both the market and for consumer protection. And pricing is a consumer protection issue.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Onika. And I believe, Tobekili, you wanted to chime in?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you. I wanted to chime in, I think, in response to the comment, great comment from the second speaker. Just to highlight, I think, the importance of what actions are being taken in other spaces. I know in Tanzania, for example, there’s been, you know, great work as well by community networks. And, you know, I think annually they prioritize the School of Community Networks. And we’ve been part of that process as well to be able to convene this School of Community Networks where I think we unpack how to improve skills in designing, administration and management of the community-based telecommunications networks, as well as developing skills as well to create a sustainable business model for those community networks. I think that would be very key in terms of sustainability of the ongoing community networks.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. I’m Lee McKnight, Syracuse University professor in the United States. First, I wanted to share some possible good news or challenge the perspective that blockchain and other technologies are not reachable or accessible in the global south. We are working with Brazilian and Peruvian professors right now with open source software that we would be bringing and co-creating with indigenous and local communities in the Brazilian and Peruvian Amazon later this year. So this is not… And secondly, on AI, not AI if you believe Google and it takes a giant… , the first comment I wanted to make is that there is no trillion-dollar data center, it doesn’t, there’s smaller range of options also at the edge that can be reached and be accessible elsewhere. So that’s the first comment. Second, I wanted to note, I have something on my back, which is with, I’m just kind of making an announcement, Anika knows what I’m going to say, but I’m going to say that we are launching a new Internet program, or a SIP, as in a SIP of Internet, meaning not first-class Internet, but Internet accessible anywhere, and also thanks to the Internet Society Foundation’s support a couple years earlier in Costa Rica, we are now launching the program in cooperation with the government of Ghana and with the African Parliamentary Network, for real, to bring these, what’s called the SIPs, the SIPs, to a community network, and we’re launching just now, and I’m going to say that there are libraries, also a solar panel, you can set up, you can create a community network everywhere except the North and South Pole, starting now, and we will be bringing this forward, again, in cooperation with Internet Society chapters in many countries, with Parliament, across Africa, Central America, and elsewhere, so this is not a magic solution, there are limitations still, but there is really no reason with support of librarians, they can’t access the Internet either when they go out there, they’re your natural allies to bring and change the reform, the legislation, to bring community networks everywhere, because we’ve tapped out under WSIS, we’ve let 2.6 billion in 2022, 2023, 24, 25, it’s still 2.6 billion unconnected, it’s not working, this is the only approach that’s going to work is community networks, and I thank you for everyone’s attention.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you. Thank you for that answer. Congratulations.

Audience: I’m Lisa Dakanay from the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia. I just wanted to ask the panel in terms of experiences and perspectives of integrating community-centered connectivity initiatives with social entrepreneurship, social enterprise development, and social and solidarity economy, because in the Asia-Pacific region and the Philippines where I come from, that integration has been a critical factor, I think, in addressing sustainability and social impact issues of community-centered connectivity initiatives. Thank you.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you. I think we can start with Chris.

Christopher Locke: It’s late on Friday. I’m running very low on brain and energy at the moment. We discussed on the panel yesterday, and the excellent work in measuring the social impact of community networks that was presented, that being able, and again it goes back to the business model question, being able to understand what the impact of a community network is, not just in profit and sustainability, not just in a very simple calculation of contribution to the economy, but to a very broad social impact network of what is the implications on health, on education, on a very broad range of factors that was presented at our session we were both on yesterday, I think gives us a much better sense of assessing the success of a community network and being able to point to what is possible by investments in community networks. These are not, and I can’t say this enough, these are not mini telcos. These are community organisations providing a vital service to a local community in a way that makes sense for that community. And I think the better we can have the kind of granularity that was offered in the social impact assessment work that you were showing yesterday. Gives us that opportunity to not only measure ourselves the impact better and obviously measuring the impact of the community networks is something We do a lot within our granting program at ISOC and something I want to look to see if we can adopt the things that were Presented yesterday in the other session to do But far more importantly and again going back to the previous question from the previous speaker in the way We talked to governments and parliamentarians about why this is important and why is essential You know talking about success in as broad a spectrum as possible of social and economic indicators Allows us to make an incredibly strong case for the investment in community networks the right policies for community networks and the support of the kind of Organizations that Barack and many people in the room are running

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Chris. Thank you. I Don’t know anyone else wanted to speak to the question on the social

Onica Makwakwa: Yes It’s really important for us as we you know, I always feel uncomfortable Sort of seeing myself as this Advocate for connectivity and the question is always so what you want people to connect to do what exactly so, you know social enterprises are a real great opportunity for us to actually also support the use case of This connectivity and why we want people to be connected and I think the best example that I have so far And I’m just this is gonna just truly be a plug-in So we did this study that was actually also funded by Internet Society on connected resilience looking at how women are staying connected through meaningful connectivity specifically and one of the organizations that we continue to we Discovered in this process and continue to support and work with is an organization called women in digital that’s based in Bangladesh and You know, I Nila basically started this organization with the excitement and aim of Teaching women how to code now. We all know about all these programs about teaching women how to code, you know There’s all kinds of goals we’re gonna get a million girls coding and all of that and the question always becomes so after all of this and and then what? What are these girls doing with this coding? It’s really important, I think, what women in digital have been able to do is create an ecosystem for them after they are trained to be able to begin to change the content ecosystem within Bangladesh, right? So one of the things that they are doing that I actually just got mine this week is creating smart cards for people. So I’m coming all the way from South Africa, I ordered my digital smart card from Bangladesh because I want to support this project that’s led by women where they are creating these smart cards and, you know, just really incredible, and someone kind from Bangladesh was able to bring it to me to this session. So it’s not for me, I think it’s really important that it’s not good enough for us to, like, get people devices, get people digital skills. How are they utilizing them? How are we creating content that’s relevant and usable for them? But how are we also giving them an opportunity to truly transform their lives and be able to utilize these resources? How is government supporting social enterprises and creating an enabling environment for them to be successful and to ease registration? Because right now, most countries, registration is really for profit or non-profit. Social entrepreneurship has huge opportunities, especially in digital space, but it’s not recognized as, you know, formal business in quite a lot of communities so far.

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: Thank you, Anika. We’re about time, so maybe I’ll give a minute to Tobe Kili and Sir Christian, so some final remarks before we close.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Nnena, and thanks for everything you’ve done in the room and all the amazing contributions. I think what is key here from today’s conversation is the importance of ensuring that those who are in underserved communities are not left behind and that we ensure that there’s meaningful connectivity. Thank you. and how we can do that through, you know, effective regulatory frameworks and also relevant support as well, not just for establishing community networks, but also for their sustainability. And that’s very critical and very important.

Leon Cristian: Thank you. I would like to highlight and congratulate the initiative that they are doing with local population in Brazil. I think that is really important. And I think that is one of the cases we should replicate all. I believe that open source is really a technology that is a game changer and it has the capacity to empower local communities and reduce the dependence that countries like the one that I represent, we have with these very big tech companies. So including local communities is not only something about inclusion, it’s also about diversity. And we want to create an internet for the future that has diversity, that has indigenous languages, that has the perspective of these communities in how we are constructing, building technology. Thank you. Thank you, Cristian. I want to thank

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu: my panel today, the esteemed panelists. Thank you for sharing your experiences. Thank you for the fantastic insights, the interventions. We’ve gotten some great examples today from the panel and from the audience on what we can replicate in our communities going forward. Some key takeaways today, I think what’s reverberated a few things, connectivity as a right, because connectivity is foundational, but also seeing that the digital divide is increasingly becoming more complex with new challenges such as, like you mentioned, data sovereignty and national security. But we also have the opportunity with some of the recommendations that have been emphasized today, inclusivity in design, accountability. Thank you all for your time, for making time to be here. Thank you for your attention, thank you for your contributions and for the interventions. And I hope you have a great rest of the conference and enjoy the closing ceremony. Thank you.

Agreement points

Community networks require sustainability beyond continuous grants through local business models

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Onica Makwakwa
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Community networks should be developed as sustainable business models that can cover costs through local pricing systems rather than continuous grants

Universal service and access funds need reform with public reporting and openness to addressing demand-side issues like digital skills and devices

Enabling regulatory frameworks are essential for community-centered connectivity initiatives to thrive with multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

All speakers agree that community networks must move beyond dependency on grants to achieve long-term sustainability through local revenue generation, proper business models, and supportive regulatory frameworks

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Connectivity should be treated as a fundamental right requiring government support and policy reform

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Leon Cristian
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Universal affordable access should be prioritized as a right, embedded in development policies and rights frameworks

Market failures require public investment and public-private alliances with greater community participation

Enabling regulatory frameworks are essential for community-centered connectivity initiatives to thrive with multi-stakeholder approaches

Summary

Speakers consensus that connectivity is a fundamental right that requires active government intervention, policy reform, and public investment rather than relying solely on market forces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Current approaches to measuring and achieving connectivity are inadequate and need fundamental reform

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Thobekile Matimbe
– Audience

Arguments

Current connectivity standards are inadequate – defining a connected person as someone who uses internet once every three months is underwhelming

Less than four out of 27 African countries are transparent about Universal Service Fund resources and initiatives

After 20 years since WSIS, similar gaps persist with 2.6 billion people still unconnected, indicating current approaches aren’t working

Summary

Strong agreement that existing measurement standards, funding mechanisms, and approaches to connectivity have failed to deliver meaningful results over the past 20 years

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Community participation and local context are essential for successful connectivity initiatives

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Leon Cristian
– Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu

Arguments

Community readiness evaluation must include technology solutions, governance structures, and business training alongside technical training

Including local communities brings diversity and indigenous perspectives essential for building technology for the future

Solutions should be context-informed and people-focused to effectively address connectivity challenges

Summary

All speakers emphasize that successful connectivity solutions must be designed with meaningful community participation, local context consideration, and indigenous perspectives

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that while LEO satellites offer connectivity solutions for remote areas, they simultaneously create new challenges around pricing, regulation, data sovereignty, and national security that need to be addressed

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Low Earth Orbit satellites can bridge remote communities but face sustainability challenges due to pricing instability and regulatory issues

New technologies like LEO satellites create problems related to data sovereignty, spectrum allocation, and national security that didn’t exist before

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize that the digital divide has evolved beyond basic connectivity to include the infrastructure and capacity needed for advanced technologies, creating multiple layers of digital exclusion

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Countries face double digital divide – lacking both meaningful connectivity and infrastructure to power advanced technologies

The digital divide now includes not just connectivity but capacity to run AI, quantum computation, and blockchain technologies

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving away from traditional profit-centric business models toward more innovative, community-centered approaches that address affordability through structural changes rather than financing schemes

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Multiple business models beyond profit-centric telco models are needed, including co-op models for sustainable community networks

Focus should shift from device financing schemes to actually lowering initial device costs through local assembly and right to repair

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected consensus

Regulatory power imbalances between governments and big tech companies

Speakers

– Leon Cristian
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Starlink operates in Bolivia without permission, demonstrating regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies

Universal service and access funds need reform with public reporting and openness to addressing demand-side issues like digital skills and devices

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the challenge of big tech companies operating beyond national regulatory control, with speakers from different regions (Latin America and Africa) identifying similar patterns of corporate power superseding government authority in connectivity provision

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

The failure of traditional market-based approaches to connectivity after 20 years

Speakers

– Leon Cristian
– Audience
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Market failures require public investment and public-private alliances with greater community participation

After 20 years since WSIS, similar gaps persist with 2.6 billion people still unconnected, indicating current approaches aren’t working

Less than four out of 27 African countries are transparent about Universal Service Fund resources and initiatives

Explanation

Surprising level of agreement across speakers from different sectors that market-based approaches have fundamentally failed to deliver connectivity goals, requiring a complete rethinking of approaches rather than incremental improvements

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around four main areas: the need for sustainable community-driven connectivity models, treating connectivity as a fundamental right requiring government intervention, the inadequacy of current measurement and funding approaches, and the essential role of community participation in solution design

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy reform. The agreement spans technical, economic, regulatory, and social dimensions, suggesting a comprehensive framework for addressing connectivity challenges. The consensus indicates a shift away from market-only solutions toward rights-based, community-centered approaches with strong government support and reformed international frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Optimism vs. Pessimism about technological solutions and future prospects

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Low Earth Orbit satellites can bridge remote communities but face sustainability challenges due to pricing instability and regulatory issues

New technologies like LEO satellites create problems related to data sovereignty, spectrum allocation, and national security that didn’t exist before

Summary

Christopher Locke presents a cautiously optimistic view of LEO satellites as solutions for remote connectivity despite challenges, while Leon Cristian emphasizes how these same technologies create new problems and complexities that didn’t exist before, taking a more pessimistic stance on technological solutions.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Scope and complexity of the digital divide

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Current connectivity standards are inadequate – defining a connected person as someone who uses internet once every three months is underwhelming

The digital divide now includes not just connectivity but capacity to run AI, quantum computation, and blockchain technologies

Summary

Onica focuses on improving current connectivity standards and meaningful access for existing technologies, while Leon Cristian argues the digital divide has expanded to include advanced technologies like AI and quantum computing, representing different views on prioritization.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Technology accessibility for developing countries

Speakers

– Leon Cristian
– Audience (Lee McKnight)

Arguments

Countries face double digital divide – lacking both meaningful connectivity and infrastructure to power advanced technologies

After 20 years since WSIS, similar gaps persist with 2.6 billion people still unconnected, indicating current approaches aren’t working

Explanation

Leon Cristian argued that advanced technologies like AI and blockchain are inaccessible to developing countries, but an audience member (Lee McKnight) directly challenged this by announcing open source solutions for bringing these technologies to indigenous communities in the Amazon, creating an unexpected disagreement about technological accessibility.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers aligned on core goals of digital inclusion and community-centered approaches. Main disagreements centered on optimism levels about technological solutions and the scope of digital divide challenges.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Speakers generally agreed on problems and goals but differed on emphasis, approaches, and outlook. The disagreements were more about perspective and prioritization rather than fundamental opposition, which suggests productive potential for collaborative solutions despite different viewpoints on implementation strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that while LEO satellites offer connectivity solutions for remote areas, they simultaneously create new challenges around pricing, regulation, data sovereignty, and national security that need to be addressed

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Low Earth Orbit satellites can bridge remote communities but face sustainability challenges due to pricing instability and regulatory issues

New technologies like LEO satellites create problems related to data sovereignty, spectrum allocation, and national security that didn’t exist before

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize that the digital divide has evolved beyond basic connectivity to include the infrastructure and capacity needed for advanced technologies, creating multiple layers of digital exclusion

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Leon Cristian

Arguments

Countries face double digital divide – lacking both meaningful connectivity and infrastructure to power advanced technologies

The digital divide now includes not just connectivity but capacity to run AI, quantum computation, and blockchain technologies

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving away from traditional profit-centric business models toward more innovative, community-centered approaches that address affordability through structural changes rather than financing schemes

Speakers

– Christopher Locke
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Multiple business models beyond profit-centric telco models are needed, including co-op models for sustainable community networks

Focus should shift from device financing schemes to actually lowering initial device costs through local assembly and right to repair

Topics

Economic | Development

Key takeaways

Connectivity should be treated as a fundamental right, not a privilege, and embedded in development policies and human rights frameworks

The digital divide is becoming increasingly complex, extending beyond basic connectivity to include capacity for advanced technologies like AI and quantum computing

Community networks are viable alternatives to traditional telco models but require sustainable business models, not continuous grant dependency

Current measurement standards for connectivity are inadequate – meaningful connectivity requires daily access with minimum 4G speeds, not the current standard of internet use once every three months

Device affordability remains a critical barrier, with people spending 20-60% of household income on devices, exacerbated by 20-45% taxation rates

Universal Service and Access Funds are underutilized and lack transparency, with less than four out of 27 African countries being transparent about their use

Regulatory frameworks must enable community-centered initiatives through affordable spectrum licensing and support for diverse business models

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government, private sector, civil society, and local communities are essential for sustainable solutions

Social impact measurement and integration with social entrepreneurship are critical for demonstrating value beyond simple connectivity metrics

Resolutions and action items

Advocate collectively for policy incentives including access to universal service funds for multi-stakeholder projects

Collaborate to share disaggregated data on coverage gaps, affordability, and digital use to guide investment decisions

Develop local digital ecosystems by incubating local startups and encouraging device repair networks

Reform universal service and access funds to address demand-side issues like digital skills and affordable devices

Create enabling regulatory environments that support community networks through flexible spectrum access and license fee exemptions

Integrate digital inclusion in broader economic and social policies linking connectivity with digital literacy and local content

Establish public reporting requirements for universal service fund utilization and impact

Support development of local assembly and right to repair initiatives to reduce device costs

Unresolved issues

How to address regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies, particularly when companies like Starlink operate without local permissions

Specific mechanisms for ensuring long-term sustainability of community networks beyond initial grant funding

How to balance investment in infrastructure with necessary investments in rights protection mechanisms

Concrete strategies for reducing device costs beyond taxation reform, particularly achieving the promised affordable devices

How to address the emerging ‘double digital divide’ where countries lack both connectivity and infrastructure for advanced technologies

Specific metrics and standards for measuring meaningful connectivity impact across different contexts and communities

How to scale successful community network models like Kenya’s approach to other countries with different regulatory environments

Addressing the governance challenges in international crisis contexts where cooperation models are disappearing

Suggested compromises

Adopt multiple business models for connectivity including co-op models and community-centered approaches rather than relying solely on profit-centric telco models

Balance market-based solutions with public investment and public-private partnerships that include greater community participation

Use spectrum licensing as a development tool rather than primarily as government revenue generation

Combine infrastructure investment with capacity building in business training alongside technical training for community networks

Integrate device financing schemes with efforts to reduce initial device costs through local assembly and repair networks

Develop context-informed and people-focused solutions that adapt to specific country and regional needs rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

We’re still in the very early stages of Leo Internet. And not only is the price initially expensive, but also we’re increasingly seeing that as the networks become clogged, the prices sometimes are quite dynamic based on demand… in some African cities with Starlink, where they’re pretty much booked out.

Speaker

Christopher Locke

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged the common assumption that new technologies like LEO satellites are straightforward solutions to connectivity gaps. Locke introduced the complexity of dynamic pricing and capacity constraints that aren’t often discussed in connectivity debates.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from viewing LEO satellites as a panacea to understanding them as part of a complex ecosystem with their own limitations. It set the stage for discussing sustainability challenges and prepared the ground for later discussions about regulatory frameworks needed to manage these new technologies.

We need to stop having poor policies for poor people. You know, poor phones for poor people… There’s a big difference between you can afford a phone over three months and you can afford a phone now.

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Reason

This was a powerful reframing that challenged the entire approach to digital inclusion. Instead of accepting substandard solutions for underserved populations, Makwakwa argued for raising standards and addressing root causes of affordability rather than just financing schemes.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from incremental improvements to systemic change. It influenced subsequent speakers to think more critically about business models and policy approaches, moving beyond technical solutions to address equity and dignity in connectivity provision.

Starlink is operating in my country without permission… they said, I don’t need that, I don’t need to put an office in your country. I can operate and I can provide my services even if I don’t fulfill all their requirements.

Speaker

Leon Cristian

Reason

This concrete example exposed the power imbalances between global tech companies and national governments, particularly in the Global South. It illustrated how technological solutions can undermine sovereignty and regulatory frameworks.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical dimension to the discussion – the tension between connectivity solutions and national sovereignty. It deepened the conversation by showing how the digital divide isn’t just about access, but about who controls that access and under what terms.

I have been in one engagement with one government on the African continent where we are discussing digital inclusion for underserved communities and the feedback was from one member of parliament that look, do you really think my grandmother needs a smartphone?

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Reason

This anecdote powerfully illustrated the fundamental disconnect between policymakers and the reality of digital inclusion needs. It revealed how basic assumptions about who deserves connectivity access still need to be challenged at the highest levels of government.

Impact

This comment brought the discussion back to ground-level realities and highlighted that technical and policy solutions mean nothing without political will and understanding. It emphasized the need for advocacy and education at the political level, not just technical implementation.

Now the digital divide is not only about having or not meaningful connectivity, it’s also about having enough capacity to run AI’s, quantum computation, blockchains, cryptos… So there is another connectivity divide, there is another digital divide that is happening right now.

Speaker

Leon Cristian

Reason

This observation was profound because it revealed how the digital divide is not static but evolving and potentially widening. While efforts focus on basic connectivity, new technological requirements are creating additional layers of exclusion.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the entire discussion, forcing participants to think beyond current connectivity challenges to future technological requirements. It added urgency to the conversation and highlighted the risk of countries falling further behind even as they work to address current gaps.

We need to understand there are many business models to providing connectivity… Mimicking a small version of being a telco isn’t the way to build a sustainable community network. There are co-op models, there are many other models that allow us to develop that.

Speaker

Christopher Locke

Reason

This insight challenged conventional thinking about how connectivity services should be structured and funded. It opened up possibilities for community-centered approaches that don’t rely on traditional profit-driven models.

Impact

This comment redirected the conversation toward innovative governance and business models, influencing other speakers to discuss community ownership, social enterprises, and alternative sustainability approaches. It helped frame community networks as fundamentally different from commercial operations.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about connectivity solutions into a nuanced examination of power, equity, and systemic change. The speakers didn’t just present problems and solutions, but challenged fundamental assumptions about how digital inclusion should be approached. Cristian’s observations about regulatory power imbalances and evolving digital divides added critical complexity, while Makwakwa’s call to stop accepting substandard solutions for poor communities reframed the entire equity discussion. Locke’s insights about LEO satellite limitations and alternative business models grounded the conversation in practical realities while opening up new possibilities. Matimbe’s anecdote about political resistance brought the discussion back to the human and political dimensions that often determine success or failure of technical solutions. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from a typical policy panel to a critical examination of how power, technology, and equity intersect in the digital inclusion space.

How can we evaluate the impact of community networks and what specific metrics should be used to measure meaningful connectivity beyond basic access?

Speaker

Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu

Explanation

This is crucial for demonstrating the value of community networks to governments and funders, and for moving beyond simple connectivity statistics to measure transformative impact on communities

What are the specific business training components needed alongside technology training for sustainable community networks?

Speaker

Christopher Locke

Explanation

Understanding the business model aspects is essential for creating self-sustaining community networks that don’t require continuous grant funding

How can universal service and access funds be reformed to be more effective and transparent in supporting last-mile connectivity?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

Current universal service funds are underutilized and lack transparency, representing a significant missed opportunity for bridging connectivity gaps

What specific policy incentives and regulatory frameworks are needed to support community networks and alternative connectivity models?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Christopher Locke, Onica Makwakwa, Thobekile Matimbe)

Explanation

Regulatory barriers are preventing community networks from scaling and becoming sustainable, requiring specific policy reforms

How can device affordability be addressed through local assembly, taxation reform, and right-to-repair initiatives?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

Device costs remain a major barrier to access, and current approaches focusing on financing rather than reducing actual costs are insufficient

How can countries in the Global South address the emerging ‘double digital divide’ related to AI, quantum computing, and advanced technologies?

Speaker

Leon Cristian

Explanation

A new layer of digital divide is emerging where countries lack the infrastructure and computing capacity to access advanced technologies

How can accountability mechanisms be established for large tech companies operating in countries without local presence or compliance with national requirements?

Speaker

Leon Cristian

Explanation

Power imbalances between states and big tech companies are creating governance challenges, as illustrated by Starlink operating in Bolivia without permission

What are the best practices for integrating community-centered connectivity initiatives with social entrepreneurship and social enterprise development?

Speaker

Lisa Dakanay

Explanation

Understanding how to combine connectivity initiatives with social entrepreneurship could improve sustainability and social impact

How can we develop better data collection methods that are disaggregated by gender, income levels, and other demographic factors?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

Current data collection relies on national averages that mask inequalities and prevent targeted interventions for excluded populations

What are the sustainability models for community networks beyond the initial grant funding phase?

Speaker

Bara Kotieno

Explanation

While community networks can be established with seed funding, long-term sustainability remains a challenge that needs to be addressed

How can open source technologies and edge computing be leveraged to make advanced technologies accessible in remote and underserved areas?

Speaker

Lee McKnight

Explanation

Exploring alternatives to centralized, expensive technology infrastructure could democratize access to advanced digital tools

What social impact assessment methodologies should be adopted to measure the broader effects of community networks on health, education, and economic development?

Speaker

Christopher Locke

Explanation

Better measurement tools are needed to demonstrate the full value of community networks beyond simple connectivity metrics