Morning Kivuva,
Unfortunately I am on the other end of @Adam’s POV. The law must prescribe
in the narrowest terms possible the uses USF should be put to. I am
reminded of a recent order from the President that the USF funds be
appropriated to fight cybercrime since the funds are idle.
Secondly, I am quite uncomfortable with expanding the uses of the USF when
we have no evidence that we have finally achieved 100% penetration levels.
The amendment should be tailored towards demanding more transparency from
the Authority, tightening reporting standards and returns to Parliament.
Proposals on appropriating USF for capacity building especially for Members
of Parliament- I would also oppose those strongly. CAK has other sources of
funds besides USF – those can be appropriated for those other purposes.
Let’s dedicate USF to its original purpose until everyone is online. Then
we can talk about other extra-curricula activities.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 09:10, Adam Lane via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> My opinion would be that a law should not prescribe how the USF should be
> spent; instead the USF Advisory Council should be more representative of
> both industry and beneficiaries to give better suggestions on how the money
> should be spent both in terms of focus areas, as well as in terms of
> implementation approach (and maybe it needs more power to direct the
> purpose of the funds rather than just advise). It is also crucial to have
> stronger representation and engagement by ICT Authority, and maybe even
> Transport Authorities etc to have better synergies. It shouldn’t be that
> one funds 1.2m devices to primary schools, yet no-one funds internet to a
> single one of those schools.
>
>
>
> There should be a lot more transparency on what is discussed and decided
> in those meetings and how the USF is spent; the CA’s quarterly statistics
> are the perfect opportunity to also share on progress of how many places
> have been connected, and how many people have been using the
> network/services. No need to wait for annual reports nowadays.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Barrack Otieno via
> kictanet
> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2019 8:08 AM
> *To:* Adam Lane <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Barrack Otieno <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] KICA Amendments: Universal Service Fund use and
> reporting
>
>
>
> Well said Twahir. That is why i have a problem with 10% of 18 billion
> being allocated to Miscellaneous expenses. Ongeza Volume.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:03 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mwendwa,
>
>
>
> USF is a good idea BUT unfortunately as we know things Kenyan; are about *watu
> wangu* or *kwetu. *I shared an *analysis *
> <docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KzvbBqyDi9Mv-pu6c5bVDm1wYVJM-O1COJvj9mG7K5Q/edit?usp=sharing>earlier
> on how skewed the beneficiaries list was. If there was to be any sense on
> legislating on this then I think legislating on how beneficiaries are
> selected should be the thing. The very purpose of this fund was to ensure
> areas where it didn’t make economic sense for telcos, were covered.
> Seriously, what justification can we give to see areas that have
> perennially been marginalised be *AGAIN *marginalised on what had sort to
> level the ground for them. To name just a few counties with their
> allocations against their area (km2); Turkana (0 for an area 71,598km2),
> Narok (2 for an area 17,921km2 ), Tana River (2 for an area 35,376km2)
> compared against Machakos (69 for an area 5,953km2) and Kakamega (40 for an
> area 3,034km2). It is baffling! And to say that schools in the area were
> not e-ready I think is not a palatable excuse! The fund should have sort to
> e-ready them!
>
>
>
> Seriously as an Kenyan, I am ANGRY at what is there on the ground. Have
> been visiting institutions over the past few days and what I see is to say
> the least very heart breaking.
>
>
>
> Sincerity to the people we serve is the much sort for *pishori *we need
> to make this *biriani *(aka inclusivity) that we so badly need to partake.
>
>
>
> THK
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:35 PM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Barrack,
>
>
>
> In another thread, you said “part of the USF funds ( i propose 5 %)
> should be used for Capacity Building and Research for members of parliament
> and other key stakeholders on emerging issues such as OTTs. This will
> support Private Sector and Civil Society efforts. Academia can benefit from
> the fund to do Research.”
>
>
>
> Why would you propose the USF to be raided, while Parliament has its own
> budget?
>
>
>
> See my response inline, for your other initial remarks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 24 October 2019, Barrack Otieno <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Kivuva,
>
>
>
> I think only 5% should be used to fund other objectives of the fund 10 %
> for miscelleanous in a budget is extraneous. There are many interests
> salivating for the fund as we have observed in the recent past. The
> objective of the USF is very clear and the fund should be used to fullfill
> this fund. CA has whole department that can address quality control issues
> hence we don’t need to legislate this. I think Parliament should not be
> misused by selfish interests.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a very good observation, let QoS issues be budgeted and handled
> within main CA budget. But how do you arrive at the 5% to fund other
> objectives? You can imagine 5% of Ksh10B is Ksh500m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, 4:38 pm Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet, <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is a continuation of the discusion on the proposed amendment of KICA.
>
>
>
> The new amendments to KICA proposed by Hon. Elisha Odhiambo, MP, published
> on March 15th, 2019, seeks to substitute sub-section (2) of section 84J
> that deals with Universal Service Fund (USF), with Communications Authority
> (CA) mandated to provide annual reports to parliament on the utilisation of
> the USF.
>
>
>
> (2) The object and purpose of the Fund shall be to
>
> a) promote the availability of quality of service at just, reasonable and
> affordable rates for all consumers;
>
> b) increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services;
> c) advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including
> those in low income, and rural areas;
> d) increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools,
> libraries and rural health care facilities;
> e) provide equitable and non-discriminatory contribution from all
> providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal
> service programs; and
> f) support capacity building and promote innovation in information and
> communications technology services.
>
> (5) The USF shall be utilised by the Commission as follows
> a) 6% shall be used for ensuring the availability of telecommunications
> services to all consumers, including those in low income and rural areas;
> b) 20% shall be used for increasing access to telecommunications and
> advanced services in schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities.
> c)10% shall be used for furthering the other objectives of the Fund as the
> Commission may determine.
>
> The rationale of the bill is to prescribe how the USF is used and make it
> mandatory for CA to report annually on its usage.
>
>
>
> What are your thoughts on this new amendment? Does it cover all use-cases
> for USF e.g courier and news services? Are there other considerations you
> would want to be included in the bill?
>
>
>
> Warm Regards
>
> ______________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people’s times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
>
>
> —
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/twahir%40hussein.me.ke
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people’s times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people’s times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
>
>
> —
>
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254733206359
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kaninimutemi%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people’s times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
