Approaches Towards Meaningful Connectivity in the Global South

Summary

This discussion focused on approaches toward meaningful connectivity in the Global South, examining challenges and opportunities for bridging digital divides across Africa and Latin America. The panel, moderated by Thobekile Matimbe from Paradigm Initiative, brought together experts to analyze research findings and policy recommendations for achieving inclusive digital access.

Bridget Ndlovu presented findings from Paradigm Initiative’s research on Universal Service Funds across 27 African countries, revealing significant implementation challenges. The study found that while policies exist, actual implementation is lacking, with issues including resistance from telecommunications companies, lack of transparency, and insufficient proactive disclosure of fund information. Only three countries—South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria—make their fund amounts publicly known, highlighting widespread accountability problems. However, some positive examples emerged, such as Botswana’s public-private partnerships and Rwanda’s flexible legislation allowing funding through donations and grants.

Paloma Lara Castro from Derechos Digitales shared insights from their “Latin America in a Glimpse” project, which examined connectivity in Amazonian regions. The research emphasized the importance of meaningful participation by indigenous communities in policy design and implementation, noting that existing policies often fail to address intercultural factors and specific community needs. She highlighted how the same inequalities affecting other rights also impact internet access quality, with communities facing barriers including climate-related disruptions, lack of electricity, poor coverage, and high costs.

Pria Chetty from Research ICT Africa presented data showing that even with high smartphone penetration rates, meaningful digital inclusion remains elusive. Their research revealed that among micro-enterprises, despite 65% owning smartphones, only 38% use the internet and 39% are financially included. The situation is worse for female-owned, informal, and rural enterprises. Key barriers identified include affordability, with users often losing connectivity mid-month due to high data costs, affecting job seeking and education access.

Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change discussed digital public infrastructure, emphasizing the need for publicly accountable systems rather than market-driven solutions. She advocated for rejecting zero-rating services in favor of guaranteed internet access as a right, citing Kerala state’s constitutional right to internet access. The discussion highlighted the importance of local language support and community-based solutions over big tech approaches that often inadequately serve regional needs.

The panel concluded that achieving meaningful connectivity requires comprehensive approaches addressing policy frameworks, community participation, sustainable funding mechanisms, and recognition of connectivity as a fundamental right rather than merely a commercial service.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Universal Service Fund Implementation Challenges**: Research across 27 African countries revealed significant gaps in implementing Universal Service Funds, with lack of transparency, inadequate policy execution, and limited proactive disclosure of fund amounts and usage reports in most countries.

– **Barriers to Meaningful Connectivity in Rural and Marginalized Communities**: Multiple structural barriers prevent true digital inclusion, including high data costs, unreliable electricity, lack of relevant content in local languages, and inadequate infrastructure in rural areas, particularly affecting women and indigenous populations.

– **Indigenous Rights and Inclusion in Digital Policy**: The need for meaningful participation of indigenous communities in policy design and implementation, with emphasis on technological appropriation as part of self-determination rights, particularly highlighted through research in the Amazon region.

– **Moving Beyond Basic Access to Digital Inclusion**: The discussion emphasized shifting from simple connectivity metrics to understanding different levels of digital engagement – from barely online users to those fully embedded in the digital economy, with focus on micro-enterprises and intersectional inequalities.

– **Digital Public Infrastructure and Community Networks**: Exploration of how digital public infrastructure can support meaningful connectivity through accountable public-private partnerships, community networks, and locally-owned technological solutions that respect cultural contexts and linguistic diversity.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine approaches toward achieving meaningful connectivity in the Global South, moving beyond basic internet access to address systemic barriers, policy gaps, and the need for inclusive digital participation that serves marginalized communities, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, research-focused tone throughout, with speakers presenting evidence-based findings in a collaborative manner. While the content revealed sobering realities about digital divides and implementation failures, the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s insights and offering practical recommendations for policy improvements and community-centered approaches.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager for Programs, Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative; works on digital rights and digital inclusion across the African continent; Session moderator

– **Bridgette Ndlovu** – Partnerships and Engagements Officer at Paradigm Initiative; based in Zimbabwe; conducts research on Universal Service Fund implementation across African countries

– **Pria Chetty** – Executive Director at Research ICT Africa; based in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Kenya; works on digital and data justice research across the continent

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Policy Director at Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights); Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working at the intersection of technology and human rights

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Executive Director at IT for Change; works on digital public infrastructure and digital rights issues

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and made contributions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Bridget Lovo** – Partnerships Officer at Paradigm Initiative (mentioned in introduction but appears to be the same person as Bridgette Ndlovu, possibly a name confusion)

– **Revocato Sinkata** – Audience member from Tanzania with experience in the telecom sector

– **Nandini** – Audience member from IT4Change India who asked questions about public access and internet rights

# Discussion Report: Approaches Toward Meaningful Connectivity in the Global South

## Introduction and Context

This discussion examined approaches toward achieving meaningful connectivity in the Global South, bringing together experts from Africa, Latin America, and India to analyze research findings and policy recommendations for bridging digital divides. The panel was moderated by Thobekile Matimbe, Senior Manager for Programs, Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative.

## Universal Service Fund Implementation Challenges Across Africa

Liz Orembo, Partnerships and Engagements Officer at Paradigm Initiative based in Zimbabwe, presented research findings from their study of Universal Service Fund implementation across 27 African countries. The research revealed significant gaps between policy formulation and actual implementation.

The study found that while policies exist across various countries, there is a fundamental “lack of takeoff” when it comes to implementation. Countries are failing to adequately implement Universal Service Funds despite having established policy frameworks. Universal Service Fund contributions typically range from 1% to 3% of telecommunications companies’ revenue.

Key challenges identified include:

– Some countries, such as the Central African Republic, have failed to establish required committees for fund operation

– Active resistance from telecommunications companies who challenge compliance through legal action, as observed in Namibia

– Widespread lack of transparency in fund management, with 24 out of 27 countries studied not making their fund amounts publicly known

– Only three countries—South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria—demonstrate some level of transparency by making fund information available

The research also identified positive examples: Botswana has successfully leveraged public-private partnerships, while Rwanda and Egypt have shown flexibility in their legislation, allowing funding through diverse sources including donations, grants, and development partner collaborations.

## Indigenous Rights and Connectivity in Latin America

Paloma Lara Castro, Policy Director at Derechos Digitales, shared insights from their “Latin America in a Glimpse” project, examining connectivity challenges in Amazonian regions with particular focus on indigenous communities.

The research revealed that indigenous populations face multiple barriers to meaningful connectivity, including lack of coverage, high costs, climate-related disruptions, insufficient electricity infrastructure, and poor service quality. These barriers represent systemic exclusion from digital participation.

Castro emphasized that technological appropriation is an essential component of indigenous communities’ right to self-determination. Communities must have agency in how technology is adopted and integrated into their cultural contexts. Existing policies often fail to address intercultural factors and specific community needs.

A concerning finding was the absence of indigenous communities from key international policy frameworks. Castro noted that indigenous communities are “nowhere to be found” in the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper, representing a significant gap in global digital governance frameworks.

The research emphasized the importance of meaningful participation by indigenous communities in every stage of policy construction, from initial design through implementation and evaluation. Castro highlighted Chile’s public consultation process as a positive example of state efforts to legalize and support community networks.

## Research Findings on Digital Inclusion

Pria Chetty, Executive Director at Research ICT Africa, presented data challenging conventional understanding of digital inclusion. Her research revealed that high penetration rates often mask digital inequalities and that smartphone ownership does not necessarily translate to meaningful digital participation.

Key findings included:

– Among micro-enterprises, despite 65% owning smartphones, only 38% actually use the internet and only 39% are financially included

– Digital inequalities intersect across multiple dimensions, with female-owned, informal, and rural enterprises facing compounded disadvantages

– Affordability remains the primary barrier, with users frequently cut off mid-month due to high data costs

– Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent meaningful engagement when content is not available in local languages or culturally relevant contexts

Chetty emphasized the need for current, relevant data to inform connectivity interventions, noting that many universal service tenders rely on outdated census data.

## Digital Public Infrastructure and Rights-Based Frameworks

Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director at IT for Change, presented analysis reframing connectivity from technical infrastructure to fundamental rights. She introduced the concept of the internet as an “experience good,” explaining that meaningful connectivity requires full access rather than limited services.

Gurumurthy cited Kerala state’s constitutional guarantee of internet access as an example of rights-based approaches. She emphasized the need for publicly-owned protocols and strong vendor accountability in public-private partnerships, arguing that local organizations often outperform global technology companies in understanding local needs but lack access to scaling support.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Transparency and Accountability

Speakers emphasized the critical need for transparency in Universal Service Fund management and proactive disclosure of infrastructure and barrier data by all stakeholders.

### Meaningful Participation

There was consensus on the essential nature of genuine participation from affected communities throughout policy processes, not merely consultation or token representation.

### Affordability Challenges

All speakers recognized that high costs for devices, data, and services continue to be fundamental barriers preventing meaningful connectivity, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

### Community Networks

The discussion highlighted the importance of legal protection and recognition of community networks, with Chile’s legalization efforts cited as a positive example.

## Audience Engagement

During the question and answer session, participants discussed:

– The relationship between public access and full internet rights

– Taxation on technological gadgets and advocacy for tax holidays to improve affordability

– The need for holistic approaches that address both infrastructure and digital literacy

## Conclusions

The discussion revealed that achieving meaningful connectivity requires comprehensive approaches addressing policy frameworks, community participation, sustainable funding mechanisms, and recognition of connectivity as a fundamental right. The evidence from multiple regions strengthens the case for coordinated advocacy and policy reform, particularly around reforming Universal Service Fund governance, ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities, and addressing affordability through innovative mechanisms.

The speakers demonstrated that meaningful connectivity in the Global South requires not just technical solutions but fundamental changes in how digital inclusion is conceptualized, measured, and implemented, integrating infrastructure development with human rights frameworks and community-based approaches.

Thobekile Matimbe: All right, good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our session titled Approaches Towards Meaningful Connectivity in the Global South. And thank you for being still ready to engage in conversations on Thursday. We’ve got one more day to go, so well done to everyone in the room. My name is Tobekile Matimbe, and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative as senior manager for our programs, Partnerships and Engagements, and Paradigm Initiative being an organization that works across the African continent, promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. So our work really largely focuses on bridging digital divides, among other work that we do on digital rights. And today, as we are engaging in a very interesting conversation of bridging digital divides, I am joined by several experts who are going to be able to walk us through approaches towards meaningful connectivity in the global south. And that is a very pertinent conversation, at least when we are looking at WSIS and WSIS Action Lines, and where we have come from and where we should be going or where we are at now. So this panel will be able to unpack some of the challenges, some of the gaps, and be able to maybe hopefully come up with some critical recommendations going forward with regards to promoting meaningful connectivity, at least for the global south. Please help me welcome one of our panelists here who is joining online, that’s Bridget Lovo, who is a Partnerships Officer at Paradigm Initiative. She’ll be able to unpack some of the findings from the research that Paradigm Initiative has done. And I’ll allow her, when I hand over to her, to be able to unpack those findings. And also, I’ll ask you to also help me welcome to this panel as well. Right on my immediate left, there is Prya Chetty, who is the Research ICT Africa Executive Director. Welcome to today’s conversation. And next to her is Paloma Lara Castro from Direchos Digitales. And you are welcome to share your perspectives and I’ll allow you as well, as you dive into your reflections, to be able to even unpack further and introduce yourself even much more better than I have done now. And I’ll also ask us to appreciate and welcome as well, Anita Gurumurthy, who is the Executive Director for IT for Change. So welcome, please relax, and let’s have a very good chat and conversation about this very, very important aspect of connectivity in the Global South. So without further ado, I will, I think, start the conversation going. We just have a few, few minutes to unpack this very, very complex subject matter. I will dive right in and ask Bridget Lovell to walk us through. I know that today we are talking about towards meaningful connectivity for the Global South. And I know that you are coming from Paradigm Initiative and you have done some research as an organization unpacking utilization of the. where we are going when we look at that state of affairs. So over to you, Bridget.

Bridgette Ndlovu: Thanks a lot, Thobekile. And as Thobekile indicated, my name is Liz Orembo. I work with Paradigm Initiative. I am the Partnerships and Engagements Officer. I’m based in Zimbabwe. And just to really dive right into aspects relating to the Universal Service Fund, we did conduct a research that covered 27 countries within the African region. And we conduct this research on an annual basis. And key to the findings that we had in the 2024 report also partly reflect on some that came up in the 2023 report as well. So we found that when it comes to the implementation of the Universal Service Fund, there is really a lack of takeoff, if I may put it that way. There are policies that exist within various countries. But when it comes to implementation, there is so much limitations and countries failing to accurately and adequately implement the Universal Service Fund. We did see that there were countries like the Central African Republic in 2023. And also in 2024, they were meant to set up a committee that is meant to run the Universal Service Fund. But this has not happened. And we anticipate that even in 2025, this is something that will come up. Of course, our recommendations to these kind of countries would be that these committees would then need to be set up so that the Universal Service Fund is adequately implemented, and at least implementation takes off. There’s also countries like Namibia, for example, where telecommunications companies have been seen to be resisting compliance through legal action. Because of that, implementation has also not taken off. In 2024, we did find out that there is some bit of progress because Namibia has since gazetted the regulations for the implementation of the Universal Service Fund, but across board, we do see that there are some challenges with implementation of the Universal Service Fund. In countries such as Somalia, for example, there is no Universal Service Fund. In countries such as the Gambia, there are policies that support implementation of the Universal Service Fund, but our thinking is that this should not stop at policy level. Implementation should also take its course. When we look at other issues that have been coming up in our research is that there has been lack of transparency with regard to the implementation of the Universal Service Fund. So, when we looked at all the 27 countries, we did realize that in most of the countries, in fact 24 of the countries, the amount of that particular fund is not known, except in South Africa, Malawi, Nigeria. This already spells out that there is no proactive disclosures when it comes to sharing of information on the Universal Service Fund, and already this translates to lack of meaningful and Ms. Elizabeth Watt, chair of the UKIP. Thank you. Thank you very much. We also noticed that some of the funding that we see is not really being used for the implementation. As we see it, it could then affect how countries achieve meaningful connectivity. We also noted that in some of these countries, the fund exists, but when we really investigate, you find that in countries such as Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria, and Malawi, these are some of the countries that avail their reports, meaning that all the other countries do not avail their reports. And like I said earlier, that means that there is limited proactive disclosure when it comes to the Universal Service Fund. But of course, we noted that it is not all gloom and doom in all of the countries. Some countries have really demonstrated so much opportunities that could help the ensure meaningful connectivity. And we thought that these countries could be model examples of how other countries can take a leap on. For instance, in Botswana, they are already leveraging PPPs, public-private partnerships, and we think that this is something that other countries can do. We think that this is something that other countries can also adopt as well. So just to give an example of how they are doing it, through their Southern District Digital Empowerment Project, they are partnering with telecommunications providers such as Mascom, so that they are able to roll out specific projects under the Universal Service Fund. Of course, there are concerns. I mean, like I said, they do have positive aspects, but there are also some negative aspects. There are concerns also in Botswana relating to transparency, because not all the reports are available and publicly available for everyone to see. And because our research was using a specific index that is juxtaposed against the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights declaration on principles of freedom of expression and access to information, we did realize that proactive disclosures are really not sufficient in countries that we documented. Some key lessons were coming from countries such as Rwanda that are really flexible in terms of their legislation. Countries such as Rwanda have allowed the Universal Service Access Fund to raise funds through donations, grants, and collaborations with development partners. We also saw other strategies from countries such as Egypt. Countries such as Egypt have rolled out road infrastructure contracts. They’ve prepared these and through these road infrastructure contracts, they allow the development of the internet infrastructure. And of course, we have engaged with members of parliament from the DRC as well that have indicated that they are already having such plans to adopt the same strategies, strategies that will enable them to fix their roads, at the same time making sure that whoever gets a road infrastructure development contract should make sure that they also include internet infrastructure development within that aspect. And maybe also just to highlight two other points, I don’t know how I’m doing on time, but… Countries such as Malawi as well have legislation that allows them to be flexible. I’ll give an example of Malawi’s Communications Act, Section 160, which highlights that there should be parliamentary appropriations when it comes to implementation of the Universal Service Fund. So the policy in Malawi allows Malawi to get assistance from the parliament and also through grants, subsidies, gifts, donations, just as it is in Rwanda as well. However, there are major challenges because when we look at Malawi, parliament has so far not appropriated any funds towards the Universal Service Fund, which is really a huge challenge when it comes to implementation of the Universal Service Fund, as well as the broader, bigger picture that we envisage as civil society actors, that picture being achievement of meaningful connectivity by at least 2030. And when we see other countries, for example, as well, just emphasizing on implementation aspects, we do think that countries such as Malawi, for example, they do have the Universal Service Fund supporting community networks through the Yatu Yatu project that they’ve been undertaking. And because of that, I think this is also something to learn from, that other countries within the Global South can also learn from. So I will highlight other points at a later time. I hope I did well on time. Over to you, Tobegule, and thank you so much for your attention.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much for unpacking that, Bridget, and just walking us through some of the key elements of meaningful connectivity, or at least promoting it. And I think financing is one of the things that was coming out really loudly. and the staff member on the front desk where the full day begins. First, as you have talked about, we are looking at digital inclusion as a specific challenge. I would like to pass it on to You.

Paloma Lara Castro: You have been doing a lot on digital inclusion work in dads in America, so please walk us through that. The strides made towards connectivity. What are the gaps and what are the challenges? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the team for the invitation to participate in such an important space. I am the policy director. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience working in the intersection of technology and human rights. Within our area of work, we are very actively involved in discussions around policy at a global, regional and local level. Within this work that we are doing, we prioritize in our committee and our evidence-based arguments to all of our interventions in several processes such as the WSIS plus 20 review. Within this area of focus, we also work a lot within inclusion. To link it back to what we are talking about and also to the WSIS plus 20 review, I would like to share with you some of the findings we have had within our project called Latin America in a Glimpse, which focuses on a series of reports that investigates connectivity access in the Amazonian region. We have been working on this for a long time. We did a series of reports on connectivity sector in the Amazonian region. The way we worked in this project is we work with local partners that are actually on the field in Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil. Then we did a comparative report which highlights the commonalities and particularities of the region and the needs. Not only the gaps in access, but also what are the opportunities and opportunities within that broadcasting network. Then we also did a series of a series of collectives and Ms. Liz Orembo. We are looking at the risks and risks of Internet access that are identified by the communities themselves. This was very important to us to really gain perspective on what the communities needs are and then be able to translate that into policy recommendations. What we are recommending in this sense is that we need to take connectivity, again, from a meaningful perspective that takes into account the intercultural factors of this, so that we are thinking about policy in a situated and meaningful way. We are looking at the risks and risks of Internet access. We are looking at different other ways to connect, such as community networks, that are very, very essential to Internet access, but also meaningful access that takes into account what the actual needs of the community are. What we found is that the same inequalities that these populations encounter in the access of rights is also reflected in the quality of access to Internet. We also found that there is a lack of access to Internet, which is related to climate, for example, with drowns, or things that have to do with electricity provision. Besides that, we also found that there is a lack of coverage, and the costs are very high, so the populations are really unable to connect. What we see, and also is reflected in the communities’ expressions on this matter, is that there is a lack of access to Internet, and there is also a lack of access to access to health, education, freedom of expression, but also the way to organize the community. And look forward to how cultural issues can be taken into account in content production that is mostly Western production, that is leading to some certain effects, specifically on young population on their cultural identity. So, in order for policies to be adequate, and this is a very important matter, because it’s not that there aren’t any policies within the Amazon, but they’re not adequate, they’re not targeted specifically for the needs of the community. So, in order for this to happen, meaningful participation is key, and meaningful participation in every stage of the policy construction, from the design to implementation, that really takes into account not only the perspective, which actually consultation is a human right that is recognized internationally for indigenous communities, but that also looks forward to technological appropriation. And what we’re seeing is that technological appropriation is an essential part of the right to self-determination of these communities. So in order to actually achieve the human rights that are recognized for these indigenous communities, we have to advance towards technological appropriation that has as a central component meaningful participation. And then when we link this back to the WSIS Plus 20 review, we see that we need to really push forward the need to include these populations within the special recognition. For example, when we see the elements paper, we see that there are certain communities that are named or that are recognized, but indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in this recognition. And what this might translate into is that even if we apply international human rights law anyhow, regardless of the special recognition, maybe when we see implementation, this could lead to exclusion in the implementation. So it’s really important that we not only advance to recognition of meaningful connectivity, but also recognition of the vulnerable populations that are deeply affected by the lack of policies that are targeted measures and that take into account the intercultural factors and their needs within this spectrum. So besides the recognition and working to meaningful connectivity, we need to take into account situated policies that, again, integrate meaningful participation as a key element. So I’m going to leave it at this for the time being, but I’m really happy to continue this conversation.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you. Thank you so much, Paloma, for taking us in a direction that is really hammering in on the importance of inclusion. It’s not just about bridging digital divides, but it’s about actually ensuring that people are not left behind. It’s about inclusion, and that is actually a serious human rights issue. And where we have indigenous groups left out, no recognition, then even if we talk about meaningful connectivity, it’ll still be meaningful connectivity for some and not for all. That in itself is a problem, and I think you make a very good, valid point, especially also pointing towards what needs to also be included in the elements paper, at least when we’re looking at the drafting process that’s ongoing. So thank you for those reflections and giving us that overview, and also talking about policy issues as well and what policy should be able to do, how it should be able to be of great

Paloma Lara Castro: service in this conversation of bridging the digital divides.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, and I will ask, you know, a prayer to just walk us through your research findings as well, and I know that you’ve done a whole lot of work on this, and outlining as well priority, concerns for connectivity. I will move, step back again and move back to sub-Saharan Africa, and then just get some of your reflections based on the great work that you’re doing. Feel free as well to add on those good points on your profile that I might have left out.

Pria Chetty: Thanks so much, and thanks again for the invitation, Paradigm, to join this important conversation. And thanks also for painting that picture about the Universal Service Funds, because I think it gives us a reality check on something that we have pinned quite a few hopes on. It was seen as one of the interventions that we hoped could be a local intervention, locally designed and highly responsive to local issues, but clearly is failing to be successful. And so I think already that’s been highlighted. Greetings from Research ICT Africa team, and we are based in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Kenya, and we work across the continent doing various work across themes on digital and data justice. Today I’m really speaking about our after-access research work, and I think directly addresses some of the questions you raised, Tawakile. And in this work, very similar to Directors Digitalis, we have a local research team who also works with partners across the different countries and produces a range of survey instruments and a range of qualitative and quantitative data. And really the need is to try and unpack and maybe disaggregate issues around digital exclusion, moving beyond the connectivity nomenclature. I think we all agree that that’s quite outdated, and we want to move into meaningful connectivity, whatever that means, and to what digital inclusion really means. But it is a vexing challenge, it isn’t easy. This is potentially the wicked challenge of today, is to try and understand how do we go from where we started to where we’d like to be. And when I say this, I mean that we are speaking about, when we disaggregate the data, we’re speaking about populations who may be connected but barely online, those who are using digital services primarily for social uses, those who are using digital services somewhat productively, those who are using them innovatively, so able to tap into the innovation chains, and then those who are completely embedded in the digital economy in their country. And furthermore, and more interestingly to us now, as we look at the links between digital trade and digital inclusion, who are able to actively participate in the digital economy across the continent. And so as we ask these questions about digital inclusion, we perhaps get to a better picture of what it is that we’re striving for. And so what we find is that even where we see high penetration rates in many different African countries, we still see a masking of the intersectional digital inequality. And we speak about the intersection because it can be described in many different permutations and through many different combinations. One of the segments that we take an interest in is micro-enterprises, and because in various digital economy policies you’ll see quite a lot of hopes pinned on the segment and their growth and their trajectory. And so we take an interest in them, but one of the findings we have coming out of our survey is despite 65% of micro-enterprises owning a smartphone, only 38% use the internet, and only 39% are financially included. And this is exacerbated when we speak to the female-owned informal and rural micro-enterprises who are not using the internet and who say that they are unlikely to use the internet. Affordability, as colleagues have presented, still remains a primary barrier. So in Uganda, for instance, as we get into some of the qualitative results, when we speak to respondents, they cite data costs as being a top barrier, but also for consistent use. And so one of the challenges that they raise is because of the high data costs, somewhere across mid-month, they are cut off from internet services because of the data costs. So it could have been… and Ms. Elizabeth Nguyen. We have seen a lot of people who have been connected but not fully and consistently over the month, so not accessing the services consistently. This affects job seeking, education obviously, consistent access to online education services. And then as we look at some of the kind of structural gains in countries like Ethiopia, and some transitions in their policy environment, we still see that they are the least connected with 85% of the adult population offline. And this again exacerbated on the basis of gender, income and the urban rural divides and so their location. So even where digital infrastructure exists, when we do a comparative analysis across the reports, adoption and full digital inclusion is still held back by various factors like digital literacy, safety and trust issues, unreliable electricity, gender and also age. So I suppose the point of our work, and there’s very many other statistics and graphs that I can refer to, is to try and understand what we as communities and individuals in the region look like and what our experience of the internet is as you disaggregate the data. What are the barriers that we really face? And these include cultural and linguistic. So unless the content is relevant to us, it’s not appealing enough for us to access it. And unless it’s in a language that we can engage with, we’re not going to engage with it. And so we have this array of educational content in a school that is connected, that is just not being utilized. I think this paints a reality check, I suppose, for universal service funds and the models, but also for the priorities and their engagement within their ecosystem. So the question of proactive disclosure came up when we spoke about universal service funds disclosing and being transparent about how they’re performing. But they also have a huge dependency on proactive disclosure of data on infrastructure and barriers and school’s data, all of that. They have this huge dependency on proactive disclosure by others in the ecosystem in order to effectively do their work. So yes, mismanagement and technical capacity will be continuous concerns. But there is this access to data, I think, issue that’s going to be fundamental to how we reimagine these organizations, these institutions, but the local ecosystem that’s going to address this. And I think interesting for me, you know, listening to Paloma, to just say that these results resonate with the research that’s coming out from others in the Global South. And so bringing us here into this global forum, I think we can’t help but feel that our society is underrepresented and our needs are underrepresented. And I suppose the call for us is how do we leverage our rights framework to get closer to the kind of representation we need so that the response to some of these challenges can

Thobekile Matimbe: improve in their relevance. Thank you so much. And for also pointing us towards socioeconomic rights development, economic development, how, you know, the urban-rural divide really continues to, I think, isolate certain groups of women, for instance, looking at all the intersectionalities, women in rural areas, how can they access the digital economy? What is the digital economy if it’s just for a few in an economy, if it’s not for everyone? So I think that’s very valid. And also just, you know, stressing the point on, you know, proactive disclosures that are, you know, so important and not just within the management of the universal service funds, but even other, you know, sectors that are, you know, supposed to be feeding in information to ensure that there’s meaningful connectivity. Electricity, I think Paloma also mentioned the same thing, how does this work and what needs to be happening, you know, multi-sectoral, you know, discussions and synergies even at national level to ensure that, you know, all systems are going for connectivity. Yeah, you sort of touched on, you know, digital infrastructure and I would like to pass it on to Anita to just unpack for us how can digital public infrastructure, I know this is one of the most trending topics, DPIs, I hear DPIs everywhere, it’s very nice and good terminology, but how can that steer us towards meaningful connectivity and I’m hoping maybe there could be some, you know, positive vibes that we can get from your end. I know we’ve sort of, like, you know, moved through and pointed at some of the gaps essentially, but please feel free to go for it.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I think with that very important but somewhat sobering presentation and the way things are, I’m not very sure I can, all of my vibes will be positive, but I think it’s up to us in the room to take stock of reality and to forge the paths that take us towards a sensible future of meaningful connectivity. Building on these excellent, thoughtful and very, very evidenced presentations, I have very little to add, but maybe I can give you a flavor of where we are headed in the context of India and maybe, you know, some thoughts from my own organization about what is digital public infrastructure and what is public about digital public infrastructure. I think that is really the crucial question. So several years ago, maybe close to 18, 20 years ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India came up with an old economic conception called experience good. They said the Internet is an experience good. So in economistic terms, that means that the value of that particular resource is obtained through continuous use and the way in which you derive value through use. So the more you experience the Internet, the more you can shape its value, which basically means that you need to have it first to be able to make it a resource that can really drive your society, economy in progressive directions. So one of the important things is the way in which research like this is also indicating how redistribution can take place through extremely important centralized schemes and policies that allow us to take connectivity. I think the question is also about the way in which the market bundles in certain content, you know, what is deemed e-health, e-education, e-whatever, in the name of zero services. So I would really think that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India took a very strong stance on network neutrality, and I think that has stood the country in good stead. And of course, challenges to the neutrality principle of the pipes is constantly emerging in a scenario where mobile operators try, you know, their best to circumvent the law. But zero services need to be rejected. So what we are actually saying is the right to the internet, which is guaranteed as a right in one of the states in India, and in many countries in the world. So nationally we don’t have the right, but because of jurisprudence in one of the subnational state entities in the country, the state of Kerala has a right to the internet, which means that as a society and individually everyone has a right to the internet. That’s a beginning for the experience of the full participation that, Paloma, you were referring to into this world that is shaping opportunities, right? It’s shaping opportunity structures. So I think that we do need to think about what that would mean in the context of mobile connectivity. Could we have data allowances? Could telecommunications authorities use the use of funds to even negotiate with mobile operators? and Mr. Shailendra, the Chair of the National Bank of India. So, we are talking about the two-factor authentication, which is a guarantee that is provided by the Reserve Bank of India through a two-factor authentication, so that there is stability in banking transactions. So, we are actually talking about connectivity, stability, security and progress, which is contextually grounded in the rule of law and accountability. So, the thing is, what would it take to imagine MPSA and re-imagine it as a DPI, right, as a digital public infrastructure? Accountabilities, what kind of publicly-owned protocols may be necessary is a question that I am raising here. Of course, my third point would really be a very obvious state-citizen social contract connection, which is to say that for society-wide delivery of public services and our conceptions of digital infrastructure, meaningful connectivity, a government that is truly at your doorstep rather than you are running behind to establish, you know, through your biometrics that you are indeed you, you know, which is the kind of irony that happens often. What kind of vendor accountabilities can be programmed into public-private partnerships, especially when vendors get into the social welfare delivery system? And this is a big question, not just for developing countries, but for those of us here familiar with the robodebt scandal in Australia, that story is something that would keep you up, you know, it’s like a mystery novel, you read it, and I’m told that many bureaucrats actually spend time really wondering what will happen to their jobs because oftentimes vendors disappear without accountability and it’s really people… Now, my final point really is a bottom-up kind of culture which is then officiated and validated by the policy on the culture of data innovation. Because when you think about digital infrastructure, digital public infrastructure, the state is constantly in the business of digitizing its records. I know that there are ups and downs. Not all countries are at the same level, but it’s an inevitability. And in that context, I’d really like to say that we need to shift to publicly owned systems where we can look at language models and other such data-based AI models. Because research tells us that big tech companies may not consider them a priority, especially when the language is labeled a low-resource language, which is actually referring to women as victims. So it’s not a low-resource language. It’s simply spoken in our regions. And recently, one big company claimed to have an AI language model with state-of-the-art kind of machine translation in 54 African languages. And it was found to have many, many quality issues. And what this really shows, that local organizations in Ghana were outperforming the products. But venture capital usually moves in the direction of bigger companies, because they are seen to deliver on scale. So what really happens to startups and companies in the private sector in the region, which can work much better in the cultural context through, I think, accountable kinds of public tenders and contracts with the public system? and Ms. Elizabeth Koenig. I would like to start by saying that this is a very important question and research will be needed, I think, in the future to integrate what is called GovStack, right? All these different layers of public infrastructural services. So I would, you know, keep this, you know, keep the positivity

Thobekile Matimbe: out there but also say that lots of work remains to be done. Thank you. Thank you for taking us to a lot of work needs to be done which is stakeholders and why it’s important to have, you know, stakeholders coming to onboard and it’s not just, you know, a conversation for governments alone or for governments as well and, you know, in the private sector but also collaboration. You’ve touched on research and how it’s important and I think this panel has demonstrated, you know, findings from research and how that can be also useful to also inform some of the interventions towards meaningful connectivity. So thank you for that and for also articulating, I think, some of the strides in policy. You referenced the rule of law and I know that there’s a lot of jurisprudence as well around digital rights issues at least from India that we continue to find some good lessons there. I will open it up maybe for one or two questions maybe from the audience or contributions towards meaningful connectivity and then I’ll allow you to respond as you give your final remarks. All right.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Revocato Sinkata. I come from Tanzania. So this is just a comment specifically on the issue of universal services and I take note of the first speaker and I really agree with her. And having, you know, worked in the telecom sector for quite a number of time, I would like to add… and Mr. Ndidi. Thank you very much. I would like to share a few of the notable challenges that I think should be looked at when we are speaking of the meaningful connectivity. And mostly actually on the group south, we have to stress in the rural areas, because you know most of the telecom companies, they are concentrating in the urban areas and the rural areas. And the other challenge that I have seen over the issue when it comes to universal service levy is the issue of, you know, data. Most of the data that being used when it comes, you know, to most of the universal service, you know, tenders that are being, for example, in the case of Tanzania, you know, there is universal service authority, which, you know, advertises tenders. But when it comes to data, most of the data that being used, you know, is not being used in the rural areas. So, you know, when you advertise the tenders, and, you know, telecom companies bid, and the telecom, you know, they go on the ground, probably the reality is completely different. So you might be, you know, trying to extend the services, you know, in areas where maybe it’s area for pastoralists and there are no people who are living there. So, you know, there is a need for, you know, to have, you know, to strengthen, you know, the kind of data that, you know, is being provided, because most of them they depend on, you know, sensors, which might have been taken, you know, they are taken in intervals of maybe five to ten years. This is very critical, and I think this should be looked at. The other issue that is very critical is, you know, when it comes to data, you know, when it comes to data, things are very irregular, and I guess with data, you have to be careful about which service you want to offer, but the other critical is, you know, in rural areas, when it comes to UK , Mr. Communications, if I make an inference, no one really addressed it. Without having connectivity in the Global South and more mainly in rural and marginalised areas. Thank you. who pay contribution to the Universal Service Fund in global South countries, in most. All right, I’ll allow. All right. Good afternoon, I’m from IT4Change India and I have two questions to the panel. The first question is, how do you all see the continued importance of public access in the current situation? And my second question is, what new challenges do you see in terms of protecting the right to the full internet given there are zero services and similar restrictions in many contexts?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thanks. Thank you so much for those great questions and contributions. So I’ll allow the panel to answer that you can feel free to pick any specific question, but I know there was a specific question directed to you Anita, so you can always take that but I’ll start with you Bridget and you give your last remarks as well. Thanks a lot everyone for the comments and questions. I’ll just directly respond to questions on the Universal Service Fund. So within the African region,

Bridgette Ndlovu: contributions to the Universal Service Fund are made by telecommunications companies through specific percentages that they’re supposed to contribute. So most of these percentages range between 1% to about 3% where they’re supposed to contribute that specific amount to the Universal Service Fund. And then the other question was on taxation on technological gadgets. I do know that countries such as Malawi are already having specific strategies and advocacy initiatives. and Ms. Elizabeth Ndung’in. I would like to highlight the work that civil society is doing in the various initiatives where they are advocating for tax holidays on technological gadgets so that women and vulnerable groups are able to access these at minimal prices. And maybe just in closing, I would also like to highlight that there is a lot of work that we are in and as well as continuing to document such issues within the different countries where we operate in. Thank you so much for today and over to you, Thobekile.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Brigitte. It’s been very insightful. I’ll hand over. Sure. Okay. Yes,

Anita Gurumurthy: I think the previous speaker answered the question. In the context of India, there is the universal service obligation came into being through the new telecom policy in the late 90s and a percentage of the revenue earned by operators and the various licenses is set aside through a universal access levy that is imposed on them. It has been reasonably successful and it allows us to connect 2.5 lakh village points through broadband optic fiber. So it’s directly used for purposes of connectivity through a levy that’s collected from operators. If I could answer that question. I think I don’t remember the I mean, I think your first question, Nandini, was how do we continue to have connectivity and the second was full internet. I will take the second question, maybe because it’s not much time. I think the access to the full internet is a little bit like access to the rights that people have on all economic, social and cultural goods where there is a duty of the state to provide but it is often true, that states experience structural barriers in being able to fulfill their duty and obligation to cover everybody. So it is indeed a right that everybody carries, but I think in the context of the global politics and geoeconomics, it’s really important that we see that as a structural issue where the capacity of countries to be able to meet the obligations of its citizens is treated not just as a national issue, but as an international issue.

Paloma Lara Castro: Just really quickly, just to follow up on Anita’s point, as we’re seeing lack of or gaps in connectivity, especially in Latin America, what I can highlight is that this is not only deepening structural inequalities but generating new forms of exclusion, especially considering digitalization of public services are conditioning the connectivity to access the service. So that’s when also, not only, like Anita mentioned, they need to comply with international law, and as I mentioned, specific international law regarding indigenous communities, but also to push for community networks. And in this sense, it’s important to point out that there is a need for a legal protection of this access, not only for the recognition of community networks, but also for the sustainability. And just to highlight a very positive example, in Chile, for example, now the state is trying to legalize or to access community networks, and is giving serious public consultations to actually make sure, or at least to try to engage with different populations, which again, as I mentioned in my previous discussion, indigenous communities rarely make it to the policy tables, rarely make it to these type of discussions, not even locally, and even less internationally. So that is, looking back to what we can do as a civil society, it’s important to keep bringing these voices to this discussion, and keep pushing for recognition of rights in the diverse lived communities. And this relates directly to the WSIS core vision. and Ms. Stephanie Amaya. And the third is that we are also looking for the inclusion of people-centered and as well as multi-stakeholder. There is no human rights without multi-stakeholder participation, meaningful participation.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thanks. Thanks so much.

Pria Chetty: I wanted to respond to, firstly, the question around the need for sustainable data. And you said that, how do we make sure that we have current data and that we continue pointing at the national statistical authorities to say, look, you’ve got this sophisticated mechanism. We’re able to access the population. And is it now a time to mature that system and also get this kind of data? But it requires a kind of paradigm shift, which is like really getting to know the population and really ask them the questions that matter in order to make sure that the response is relevant. And that’s the harder problem to solve. So the mechanism exists sometimes in the national context, but not necessarily the willingness to try and get that kind of data to inform the interventions. On the funding of the universal services agencies, I think I would say from the South African experience and from some of the other neighboring countries, the challenge wasn’t actually the funding. And strangely, in that particular institutional context, it wasn’t actually the funding. Similar to India, we had an imposed levy from the operators. And so the money was there. We struggled when it came to governance. We struggled in terms of the choice of technology to be rolled out. There was a very early example of a kind of community network, but choosing the wrong technology, not matching it to the needs of the users in that community. So it goes back to this question of there is some kind of intervention, but it is not designed with the user in mind, or even the terrain, or even the needs. So there’s something in that that needs to be re-looked at. And I wonder also if changes in the partnership model for that could lead to something more sustainable to kind of force an interrogation of how it’s managed. And we have great lessons now from community networks. So maybe on the horizon, there’s something else that’s coming. And then finally, to your question, Anneli, I think I agree with what Anita was saying, is that I suppose we move past access to the internet or access to the data, but access to opportunity, as you mentioned as well. And so in the way that we envision what it is that must be publicly available, it isn’t actually access to the internet or access to data. It’s what that brings for a person to fully experience what it is that we want them to use these things to be able to do and change their life and have that transformative quality. And I think unless government and government’s partners appreciate that transformative nature, or what it is that could be the down the line result. We just don’t get closer. We stay in that infrastructure or policy or connectivity kind of narrative, but we don’t get closer to what it is that a young person in a village with several scenarios and prospects is facing

Thobekile Matimbe: and how they get to a better point. Well, thank you so much for taking us here towards meaningful connectivity. I think there’s a lot of great stuff that came from today’s conversation. And I think what has just come out is the importance of an enabling environment looking at policy and practice as well looking at people in the process, not leaving anyone behind and the role of different stakeholders. So this has been quite enriching. So thank you so much and thank you everyone for joining our session. Thank you. You remember, did you get? Thank you. I think it’s because they’re behind it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah. Thank you in advance for the report that all of you succeeded in your work. Thank you again. That was a lot of fun.

Agreement points

Universal Service Funds face significant implementation challenges despite policy existence

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of implementation takeoff despite existing policies across 27 African countries

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Summary

Both speakers agree that while Universal Service Fund policies exist and funding mechanisms can work (through operator levies), the primary challenges lie in implementation, governance, and management rather than policy formulation or funding availability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Transparency and data disclosure are critical for effective connectivity interventions

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of transparency with fund amounts unknown in 24 out of 27 countries studied

Need for proactive disclosure of data on infrastructure and barriers by ecosystem stakeholders

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that lack of transparency and inadequate data disclosure significantly hampers the effectiveness of connectivity initiatives, whether in Universal Service Fund management or broader infrastructure planning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Marginalized communities face systemic exclusion from connectivity benefits

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Pria Chetty
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Same inequalities in rights access reflected in quality of internet access for indigenous populations

High penetration rates mask intersectional digital inequalities across gender, income, and location

Importance of inclusion means ensuring no one is left behind in connectivity efforts

Summary

All three speakers agree that existing structural inequalities are replicated in digital access, with marginalized communities (indigenous, rural, women) facing compounded barriers that are often hidden by aggregate connectivity statistics.

Topics

Human rights principles | Development | Cultural diversity

Meaningful participation is essential for effective connectivity policies

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Need for meaningful participation in every stage of policy construction from design to implementation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration essential for meaningful connectivity beyond government and private sector

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective connectivity policies require meaningful participation from affected communities throughout the entire policy lifecycle, not just consultation, and that multi-stakeholder approaches are essential.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Affordability remains a primary barrier to meaningful connectivity

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Taxation on technological gadgets requiring advocacy for tax holidays to improve access

Affordability remains primary barrier with users cut off mid-month due to high data costs

Lack of coverage and high costs prevent meaningful connectivity in Amazonian communities

Summary

All speakers agree that high costs – whether for devices, data, or services – continue to be a fundamental barrier preventing meaningful connectivity, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that local, culturally relevant solutions often perform better than global technology solutions, but face systemic disadvantages in funding and recognition despite their superior contextual understanding.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Economic

Both speakers frame connectivity access as a fundamental rights issue, with Paloma focusing on indigenous self-determination and Anita on the right to internet as a foundation for full societal participation.

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Right to internet guaranteed in Kerala state demonstrates beginning of full participation framework

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Both emphasize that outdated or inadequate data leads to mismatched interventions that don’t address actual community needs, particularly in rural areas where conditions may have changed significantly since data collection.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Audience

Arguments

Need for current data from national statistical authorities to inform relevant interventions

Outdated census data used for universal service tenders not reflecting rural realities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Universal Service Funds are not primarily constrained by funding but by governance and implementation

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Countries like Botswana leveraging public-private partnerships as model for others

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected because Universal Service Funds are often discussed primarily as funding mechanisms. However, both speakers reveal that when funding is available through operator levies, the real challenges lie in governance, technology selection, and user-centered design rather than resource availability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Economic

Technology appropriation and local innovation are more effective than global solutions

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected in a global technology context where scale and standardization are often prioritized. All three speakers independently arrived at the conclusion that locally-developed, culturally-appropriate solutions are more effective than global technology products, challenging dominant narratives about technology deployment.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental challenges facing meaningful connectivity in the Global South, including implementation gaps in Universal Service Funds, the need for transparency and data-driven approaches, persistent affordability barriers, and the systematic exclusion of marginalized communities. They also agreed on the importance of meaningful participation, cultural relevance, and rights-based approaches to connectivity.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy and practice. The agreement across speakers from different regions (Africa, Latin America, India) and organizations suggests these challenges are systemic across the Global South. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated advocacy and policy recommendations, particularly around reforming Universal Service Fund governance, ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities, addressing affordability through innovative financing mechanisms, and prioritizing local, culturally-relevant solutions over standardized global approaches.

Different viewpoints

Funding vs Governance as Primary Challenge for Universal Service Funds

Speakers

– Bridgette Ndlovu
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Lack of implementation takeoff despite existing policies across 27 African countries

Funding mechanisms through operator levies can be successful but governance remains a challenge

Summary

Bridgette emphasizes funding and policy implementation as the main barriers, citing examples where committees haven’t been established and funds aren’t being collected. Pria argues that funding mechanisms can work (citing South African success with operator levies) but governance, technology choices, and user-centered design are the real challenges.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Scope of Digital Rights Recognition in International Frameworks

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Indigenous communities absent from recognition in WSIS Plus 20 elements paper

Structural barriers require treating connectivity obligations as international rather than just national issue

Summary

Paloma focuses specifically on the exclusion of indigenous communities from international digital governance documents and calls for their explicit recognition. Anita takes a broader structural approach, arguing that connectivity challenges should be addressed through international cooperation rather than specific group recognition.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Unexpected differences

Technology Approach – Infrastructure vs Rights-Based Framework

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Bridgette Ndlovu

Arguments

Internet as ‘experience good’ requiring continuous use to derive value and shape society

Countries like Botswana leveraging public-private partnerships as model for others

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Anita advocates for a more philosophical, rights-based approach viewing internet as an ‘experience good’ that requires continuous access to derive value, while Bridgette focuses on practical implementation models like public-private partnerships. This represents a fundamental difference in approaching connectivity – conceptual vs operational.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on identifying problems (lack of transparency, cultural barriers, inadequate funding) but diverge on root causes and solutions. Main disagreements center on whether funding or governance is the primary barrier, and whether to focus on specific group recognition or structural systemic changes.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely aligned on goals of achieving meaningful connectivity but differ on implementation strategies and priority focus areas. This suggests a healthy diversity of approaches rather than fundamental conflicts, which could strengthen comprehensive policy solutions if integrated effectively.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that local, culturally relevant solutions often perform better than global technology solutions, but face systemic disadvantages in funding and recognition despite their superior contextual understanding.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent engagement with irrelevant content not in local languages

Local organizations outperforming big tech in cultural context but lacking venture capital support

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Economic

Both speakers frame connectivity access as a fundamental rights issue, with Paloma focusing on indigenous self-determination and Anita on the right to internet as a foundation for full societal participation.

Speakers

– Paloma Lara Castro
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

Technological appropriation essential for indigenous communities’ right to self-determination

Right to internet guaranteed in Kerala state demonstrates beginning of full participation framework

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Cultural diversity

Both emphasize that outdated or inadequate data leads to mismatched interventions that don’t address actual community needs, particularly in rural areas where conditions may have changed significantly since data collection.

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Audience

Arguments

Need for current data from national statistical authorities to inform relevant interventions

Outdated census data used for universal service tenders not reflecting rural realities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Universal Service Funds across Africa are failing to achieve meaningful implementation despite existing policies, with lack of transparency being a major issue (24 out of 27 countries don’t disclose fund amounts)

High mobile penetration rates mask deep intersectional digital inequalities, particularly affecting women, rural populations, and micro-enterprises who remain underconnected

Affordability remains the primary barrier to meaningful connectivity, with users being cut off mid-month due to high data costs, affecting consistent access to education and job opportunities

Indigenous communities face systematic exclusion from connectivity policies and are absent from key international frameworks like the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent meaningful engagement with digital services when content is not locally relevant or available in local languages

Digital public infrastructure requires publicly-owned protocols and strong vendor accountability mechanisms to ensure equitable access and avoid corporate capture

Meaningful connectivity must move beyond infrastructure provision to focus on transformative opportunities and full participation in digital society

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential, but marginalized voices, particularly indigenous communities, are systematically excluded from policy discussions at all levels

Resolutions and action items

Civil society organizations should continue advocating for tax holidays on technological gadgets to improve access for women and vulnerable groups

Countries should adopt flexible legislation models like Rwanda and Egypt that allow diverse funding sources including donations, grants, and development partner collaborations

Universal Service Fund committees need to be established in countries like Central African Republic where implementation has stalled

Indigenous communities must be explicitly recognized and included in the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper and other international frameworks

Community networks require legal protection and recognition for sustainability, following positive examples like Chile’s public consultation process

National statistical authorities should be leveraged to collect current, relevant data about population connectivity needs rather than relying on outdated census information

Public-private partnership models like Botswana’s Southern District Digital Empowerment Project should be replicated in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to ensure consistent funding and governance of Universal Service Funds when telecommunications companies resist compliance through legal action

How to address the fundamental mismatch between infrastructure deployment and actual user needs, particularly in rural and pastoral areas

How to balance the digitalization of public services with ensuring that lack of connectivity doesn’t create new forms of exclusion from essential services

How to support local organizations and startups that outperform big tech in cultural contexts but lack access to venture capital

How to move from connectivity metrics to meaningful participation and transformative impact measurement

How to address structural international inequalities that limit countries’ capacity to fulfill connectivity obligations to their citizens

How to ensure meaningful participation of indigenous communities in policy processes when they are systematically excluded from decision-making tables

Suggested compromises

Adopting public-private partnership models that balance private sector efficiency with public accountability and transparency requirements

Using operator levy systems for Universal Service Fund financing while implementing stronger governance and oversight mechanisms

Focusing on ‘access to opportunity’ rather than just ‘access to internet’ as a framework that bridges infrastructure and social transformation goals

Implementing flexible legislative frameworks that allow multiple funding sources while maintaining accountability standards

Treating connectivity obligations as both national and international issues to address structural capacity limitations in Global South countries

The Internet is an experience good… the more you experience the Internet, the more you can shape its value, which basically means that you need to have it first to be able to make it a resource that can really drive your society, economy in progressive directions.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This reframes connectivity from a simple access issue to a fundamental prerequisite for societal participation. It challenges the traditional approach of gradual rollout and suggests that meaningful connectivity requires full access from the start, not limited or zero-rated services.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical infrastructure challenges to philosophical questions about what constitutes meaningful access. It provided theoretical grounding for rejecting zero-rating services and influenced the conversation toward rights-based approaches to connectivity.

What we found is that the same inequalities that these populations encounter in the access of rights is also reflected in the quality of access to Internet… technological appropriation is an essential part of the right to self-determination of these communities.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This insight connects digital exclusion to broader patterns of marginalization and introduces the concept of technological appropriation as a human rights issue. It moves beyond technical solutions to address structural inequalities and cultural self-determination.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from a technical problem to a human rights and social justice issue. It led other panelists to consider how existing inequalities are reproduced in digital spaces and influenced the conversation toward more inclusive, participatory approaches to policy-making.

Despite 65% of micro-enterprises owning a smartphone, only 38% use the internet, and only 39% are financially included… we’re speaking about populations who may be connected but barely online.

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Reason

This data point reveals the inadequacy of traditional connectivity metrics and introduces the concept of being ‘connected but barely online.’ It challenges assumptions about smartphone ownership equating to meaningful digital participation.

Impact

This statistic became a pivotal moment that shifted the entire panel’s focus from infrastructure availability to actual usage patterns and barriers. It influenced subsequent discussions about the need for disaggregated data and more nuanced understanding of digital inclusion beyond simple connectivity metrics.

There is really a lack of takeoff… There are policies that exist within various countries. But when it comes to implementation, there is so much limitations and countries failing to accurately and adequately implement the Universal Service Fund.

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Reason

This observation exposes a critical gap between policy intention and implementation reality across 27 African countries. It challenges the assumption that having policies in place is sufficient and highlights systemic implementation failures.

Impact

This comment set a sobering tone for the entire discussion and established implementation gaps as a central theme. It influenced other panelists to focus on practical barriers rather than theoretical solutions, and led to discussions about transparency, accountability, and the need for better governance mechanisms.

Indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in this recognition. And what this might translate into is that even if we apply international human rights law anyhow, regardless of the special recognition, maybe when we see implementation, this could lead to exclusion in the implementation.

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Reason

This critique of the WSIS+20 elements paper highlights how policy documents can perpetuate exclusion through omission. It demonstrates how seemingly neutral policy language can have discriminatory effects on specific populations.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical policy advocacy dimension to the discussion and influenced the conversation toward examining who is included and excluded in global policy frameworks. It led to broader discussions about meaningful participation and representation in international policy processes.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a technical infrastructure conversation to a comprehensive examination of digital justice, human rights, and structural inequalities. The panelists’ evidence-based insights created a cascading effect where each contribution built upon previous points to deepen the analysis. Anita’s ‘experience good’ concept provided philosophical grounding, Paloma’s human rights framing added moral urgency, Pria’s data revealed the complexity of the challenge, and Bridgette’s implementation findings grounded the discussion in practical realities. Together, these comments shifted the conversation from asking ‘how do we connect people?’ to ‘how do we ensure digital technologies serve human flourishing and social justice?’ The discussion evolved from technical solutions to systemic change, from universal access to meaningful inclusion, and from policy design to implementation accountability. This progression created a more nuanced understanding of meaningful connectivity as not just a technical challenge, but as a fundamental question of social justice, cultural preservation, and equitable development.

How can countries effectively implement Universal Service Funds given the widespread lack of takeoff and implementation challenges across African countries?

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Explanation

Despite policies existing in various countries, there are significant limitations in implementing Universal Service Funds, with countries like Central African Republic failing to set up required committees and others facing resistance from telecommunications companies

How can proactive disclosure and transparency in Universal Service Fund management be improved when 24 out of 27 African countries don’t disclose fund amounts?

Speaker

Bridgette Ndlovu

Explanation

The lack of transparency affects meaningful connectivity achievement, with most countries not making reports publicly available or providing proactive disclosures about fund usage

How can indigenous communities be meaningfully included in WSIS Plus 20 review processes and policy construction when they are currently not recognized in elements papers?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

Indigenous communities are nowhere to be found in recognition documents, which could lead to exclusion in implementation even if international human rights law applies

What research is needed to integrate GovStack and different layers of public infrastructural services for meaningful connectivity?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

Future research is needed to understand how to integrate various layers of digital public infrastructure services effectively

How can the quality and currency of data used for Universal Service Fund tenders be improved, particularly for rural areas where ground reality differs from census data?

Speaker

Revocato Sinkata (Audience member from Tanzania)

Explanation

Most data used for universal service tenders relies on outdated census information taken at 5-10 year intervals, leading to mismatched service deployment in areas like pastoralist regions

How can community networks be legally protected and sustained, and what models can ensure their recognition and sustainability?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

There’s a need for legal protection of community networks access, not only for recognition but also for sustainability, with Chile being cited as a positive example of state efforts to legalize community networks

How can national statistical authorities be reformed to collect more relevant and current data for digital inclusion interventions?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

There’s a need for a paradigm shift in data collection mechanisms to really understand populations and ask questions that matter for relevant policy responses

What new partnership models could improve Universal Service Fund governance and technology choices to better match user needs and terrain requirements?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

Even when funding exists, challenges in governance and inappropriate technology choices lead to interventions not designed with users, terrain, or actual needs in mind

How can public access continue to be important and protected in the current digital landscape, and what new challenges exist for protecting the right to full internet access given zero services and similar restrictions?

Speaker

Audience member from IT4Change India

Explanation

Questions about maintaining public access importance and addressing new challenges to full internet access rights in contexts with zero services and restrictions