The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Good morning everyone. Welcome to workshop 292. The workshop organisers are sitting here with our wonderful panel. I'm Jane. This is Senka. I'm going to give a quick overview of why we're here, in theory. And we'll talk more about it throughout the panel session. And Senka is going to spruce some panelists and then we'll get to the panelists and line up.
We have till 12:00 and two sets of speakers. Q&A in between and after each set of speakers. We have six speakers for around the world. We're very excited they are here.
We're here to talk about universal service or universal service and access funds.
These funds have been around for over 20 years. Some people are not aware after of that. They were originally created by regulator around the world to subsidize fixed networks, which are fibre networks that were in the ground. Some of you may only be familiar with mobile networks. There are fixed, mobile and satellite networks and original funds were meant to subsidize the six networks. They were developed in in fact with some of the big telcos that deployed the networks at the time. Over the years as technology changed and new technology has emerged, particularly mobile and other wifi. Mobile in particular has always been subsidized. If you receive phone bills still from your providers you, may see certain universal service taxes on your bills. At least in the United States you do.
In some other countries.
And you start to realise there are quite a few fees that build up. Generally that money went into funds throughout the year. Some of those funds have been very well administered. Some have been extremely corrupt. They have been used by some governments not for the purposes of building out networks. And there's been lack of accountability in some of those funds. Meaning providers were given the money to build out and they didn't build out to the rural, remote, unserved and underserved areas. If they had. We wouldn't be where we are today. We have about 2.6 billion offline. Building out certain places with fibre is just not doable from a geographic perspective. And different territory. And this is also I should say an urban, rural and remote issue. This is not just rural remote when it comes to universal service. There are some communities that have been what's called red lined. Excluded from connectivity. And that's a whole other issue we won't get into necessarily.
But the funds have been administered over the years by regulators and some cases by ministries. Senka wrote a paper recently for APC under a certain programme that is linked to the workshop discrimination. And you can see some of the great examples of different universal service funds from around the world.
We also want the give a shout out to A4AI and now it is GDIP. And that work has done so much work. And our first speaker was from that team in the past who's done research in Latin America on universal service funds.
A4AI team also did work in subsaharan Africa. Ways to connect women and girls. But also to broaden the funds. And it is something that we've all talked about is how to take those funds and distribute them to potentially internet exchange points, to community networks, which has been done in Argentina recently.
So that there is more diversification of those funds and subsidies out to other areas. So we have a wonderful range of speakers. From practitioners who have been in the field building networks to policy experts. To folks that have done extreme work on how to found networks. That's been. And work in nineby. Konstantinos has work in a policy expert and Senka is give you better bios. But we just want to set the stage but the idea is that we need to think of ways to reboot the funds, to create a new way of putting the universal service funds out there.
>> SENKA HADZIC: Hi and welcome to the session. I'm going to introduce the six speakers today. First is Nathalia Foditsch. Director of international programmes at connect humanity. She's a licensed attorney and expert in technology and communications policy and regulatory issues with over 15 years experience.
And Nathalia is joining us online from Brazil today.
Our second speaker, Konstantinos Komaitis is here in the room. And he is currently non resident Fellow and senior researcher at the Lisbon counsel and not resident Fellow at the digital forensic lab and ‑‑
Previously Konstantinos spent ten years in active policy development and strategy, as senior director at the Internet Society. And he's also a author and public speaker.
Our third speaker is joining us online today. It is Ben Matranga, managing partner of Connectivity Capital. An impact investment fund focussed on expanding internet access in developing countries.
Ben has nearly 20 years experience leading private equity, venture capital and depth investments in emerging markets.
Like Jane said, after the first three speakers, we will have a short Q&A session. And then we'll move to the second part of the session, which will be more focussed on specific sectors. So in that part, our ‑‑ well, first speaker in the second part is Teddy Woodhouse. Teddy is an ICD for development expert with almost a decade experience in public and non profit sectors. Currently, he's international policy manager at offcom, the UK communications regulator. And in this role he's responsible for offcom's engagement within the ITU. I believe Teddy is joining us from Geneva. Before Ofcom he was with the alliance for affordable internet.
After Teddy, Josephine here with us in the room. A digital inclusion and transformation consistent. One of the pioneers of the community networks movement in Africa. Currently she's the regional policy coordinator for Africa. Within APC lock net project. And also cochairs Africa community network summit and a member of the MAG, the IGF multistakeholder advisory group.
And Soledad Luca de Tena here in the room. A strategic programme manager within technology and development. Capacity building and policy advocate 15 years. She's former CEO of ward winning community based ISP in South Africa. And currently a specialist at giga, Chaz UNICEF ITU joint initiative aiming to collect every school in the world to the internet by 2030.
As you can see, we have a very diverse panel. From different stakeholder groups. Civil society. Private sector. Government. UN agencies. And I hope you enjoy the discussions and I will hand over to our first speaker. Nathalia Foditsch.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Thank you, Senka. First of all thank you so much to you and to Jane for organising the session. It is a pleasure to have so many of you ‑‑ well, I envy you a little bitase mentioned in the chat because I would love to be in Japan. But it is so nice to see you and ‑‑ Teddy. I know Anika, my former colleague. The as real pleasure.
I have been working with connectivity issues for around 15 years. Aim currently working for connect humanity, which is a philanthropic fund focussed on connectivity. Prior to that I was at A4AI. And as mentioned. And well, regarding the document that Jane has mentioned, that was a document that was published about two years ago. And it was focussed in Latin America. Latin America and Caribbean countries. In part ‑‑ we did that this partnership with the Internet Society. And in that document we came to the conclusion that, I mean, most ‑‑ most of the funding of universal service funds go to large operators. Right? So that is the first issue here.
This various types of stakeholders should be able to access the funds.
Another issue is that lot of the times, the dispersement rates are really low. So in the region Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru have high dispersement rates. However many of the country either were not using it at all or using for other purposes, such as creative accounting. So you use it for other purposes other than telecom policy.
For example, helping the country reach certain federal budgetary goals like surplus. Right?
From a perspective of equity and universality? As I was mentioning, there is a key issue on who is able to access these funds. Not only whether they are dispersed or not. As Jane has mentioned. Argentina had some recent ‑‑ about two years ago, recent legal changes that actually allowed networks to access those funds. However it just came back from the meeting with all of the stakeholders from the region. Last week I was there talking to them. And they said that, you know, this is not working that well any longer in the country.
So I mean, I don't have precise information but that is what I heard from them. From Argentinaen colleagues in the meeting last week.
So in the U.S. there is also $42 billion now to support broadband. Right? To underserved communities. However and the programme is called BEAD, broadband access, equity and deployment programme. However, Connect Humanity, the organisation I'm working for has recently, together with other organisations, U.S. has advocated for changes in how these firms are being designed to be dispersed. Because the smaller ISPs whenever they are trying to get access to funds, they have to get a letter of credit of 25% of the amount plus a 25% match requirement. And lot of times that amounts to a total amount that is much higher than what they can afford. So that basically shuts them out of the programme.
And similar fears to that happen, for example in Brazil. Brazil is going back to the Latin American examples is one of the countries that actually has ‑‑ is a pretty famous one. Because it had ‑‑ has had a fund for literally 20 years. However, the fund was completely dormant. It was being used for creative accounting purposes. However, two years ago we ‑‑ a new law was enacted in which finally, first of all the funds can be used towards broadband. Because prior to that it was only phone lines. Not really internet.
And then second, finally, we're advancing towards actually dispersing the funds. That have been accumulated for so long.
But then there are also fears related to whether all types of stakeholders will be able to access the funds or not. Whether it is just, like, same old, right? Like large operators only.
Just a quick overview of how that is going. Like you know, the national development bank is the financial agent behind it. So right now the BENDS which is the National Development Bank as the only financial agent responsible for the funds. There are ‑‑ there will be reimbursable and non reimbursable lines of credit. However the reimbursable ones are much clearer than the non reimbursable ones. And precisely the smaller stakeholders will be the ones that will benefit from the non reimbursable lines.
And this is actually they are going to finalise the details of how that is going to play out only next year.
And, well, I don't know ‑‑ how much more time do I have?
Well, and well, regards to.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Sorry to interrupt you. You have about a minute.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Okay. Regarding networks, it is something that used to be not even known by some of the public officials, even within the national regulator or the ministry. Right? So over the past two, three years, finally there is more awareness of it. And now finally there is a new working group that has been created within the national regulator ‑‑ I'm sorry. (Coughing).
And I actually have a sprained ankle and I'm taking a lot of medicine and ‑‑ this is my stomach basically..
I'm sorry.
So we hope that the ‑‑ we hope to create more awareness of this network through this working group that was recently created in the regulator, the national regulator. That's it for now. For the first round. Thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you Nathalia. Over the Konstantinos.
>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Thank you, Jane. Good morning everyone. Really good to be here and thank you very much. For asking me to come. And speak.
So I would like to start by saying that I think at least I will bring the perspective of Europe and what is happening in Europe, where discussions on infrastructure have really picked up again.
I think the covid pandemic did two things. First it made us all realise how important the internet is and made us survive what was an unprecedented and very difficult situation. But at the same time, it highlighted the need to have a conversation about infrastructure again. And also the political needle for this to happen.
In Europe at least, the way that conversations about infrastructure have been taking place for over a year and a half now, unfortunately, has taken a direction that is not really about how to create sustainable models to support infrastructure. But it is not in a way that is really premised on ideas of digital sovereignty and protectionism.
And for those of you who might be following a little bit what is happening in Europe, imI am talking of course about the "fair share debate," which effectively is this idea that tell co‑providers need to be paid. Or, you know, are entitled to payment. For the traffic they carry.
It is very unfortunate that in Europe this debate has been shaped the way that it has. Because it has been sensationalized and currently we're at a place it is not really fact anymore but purely emotional.
And what I mean by that is that, you know, the way the story has evolved. We're even seeing terminology being used that is, you know, basically completely mistaken and misinformation. For instance, companies like Google and Facebook and AWUS and Netflix are being referred to as large‑traffic generators. Which is fundamentally wrong because anyone who has spent at least a little bit of time in this space knows very well that the only ‑‑ it's users that generate traffic. That's it. Users want to access the services that are being provided by base companies. And they pay their ISPs in order to be able to access those services.
So effectively what tellco providers are asking is some sort of double payment. So really double dipping. Right? So we're getting what we want out of users but we're also going to be getting what we want out of those large ‑‑ very large companies. We're at a place and actually a lot has happened in the past 12 hours in Europe, at least.
Once the debate started and of course there was not a lot of information, because beyond the idea of give us money, there was not really a concrete plan as to how this money will be calculated, what sort of measures will be used, why USFs are not being utilised or part of the conversation. So by the time, however, everyone started engaging, I cannot remember. I've been doing this approximately 20 years. And by "this" I mean internet policy.
And I cannot remember another time in Europe where stakeholder that traditionally have been at opposing ends have come together in order to fight this. Because this model and this idea is really going to materially affect the way the internet works. It is going to affect the open internet. We are talking about changing here the way connection agreements are made. We're talking about minimizing and narrowing down a lot of the scope of IXPs, internet exchange points, which are effectively the place where interconnection happens.
And we are talking about of course, consumers and how they will be affected. Because someone will need to pay for all that money that will be spent.
So we have spent a year and a half fighting the commission on this. There was never a proposal. There was a consultation. That opened up in February and ended in May. And yesterday, of all days, after four months of waiting, patiently ‑‑ or impatiently in my case. The commission released its results. Of course there is no consensus about the fair share proposal. So for the time being it is being shelfed. However we do know that there is going to be some sort, most probably some sort of a policy recommendation. We know the commission is not really willing to give this up. And it is going to continue.
And before I wrap up a little bit of self ‑‑ not really a self pitch. But umm, because Europe did it and that is has been one of the unintended consequences O. or perhaps even intentional. Lot of other jurisdictions have started picking this up. Brazil. India, South Korea. The Australia. Somebody pinged me on twitter. And many other jurisdictions. Some places in the Caribbean are starting to pick up this conversation as well.
And the thinking is, if Europe does it ‑‑ which is a democracy, which is the biggest rating block the third largest economy in the world. Why shouldn't we do it? It must be a very good idea.
It is an awful idea and we need to resist this global trend. Because one of the side effects is going to be that if this thing goes through in many jurisdictions, ‑‑ we are talk about the internet, right so as part of that and all these concerns A coalition of global Civil Society organisations released statement today calling out on the government to resist such policies because of the adverse effect they might have on users as well as the open internet. And I'll stop here and happy to take any questions.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you Konstantinos. And one more speaker. And I would pause it and we might want to talk about this after Ben speaks. Is it triple dipping if you get money out of users, get universal service funds and then you put a tax on people who write on top of ‑‑ well carry your traffic for you in some instances.
Any event. We're over the Ben Matranga. And Ben and his colleague Anoop put together with Connect Humanity, the Internet Society and Association for Progressive Communications and Mozilla. Last year a great ‑‑ particular these smaller, medium‑sized ISPs which are both commercial and non commercial.
Ben we are going to turn it over to you and Ben is another online speaker.
>> BEN MATRANGA: Thank you, Jane. And thank you Senka for allowing me to join. We're excited to be here. My name is Ben Matranga. Managing partner at Connectivity Capital. An investing fund. We mobilise capital from the private sector. And work buy and large with public sector private partners. So development finance institutions to mobilise capital to expand internet access access.
Have investments in over 1515 countries. Broadly Africa and Asia.
We're, at a place now where we really don't have all of the tools to reach 90% plus of the people on this planet with broadband access. And that is pretty, you know, exciting, bold. But also limiting. And what I mean by that is, you know, this is not a technological problem. This is not kind of a physics of how we promulgate, you know, the characteristics of an IP‑based network. This is not a question of whether we do fibre or wireless or what kind of motive of transportation of how we get data to people.
That will all be solvedded by actors on the ground that is closed to the problem. We really see that is a coordination. And then an access to capital problem. And if we can solve those two problems, we will see access to broadband increase, you know, in vast slots the globe.
I think I want to break down both of those things. First coordination and then access to capital. And I'll start with access to capital. The way we view connectivity writ large, I think one is important to accept and understand, something we already intuitively get. The idea of dual ecosystem of connectivity. That means every person has two forms of connectivity. They have one form which is mobile which is connected to the person, which is optimised for go anywhere you want. You can take it on the go. It is amazing what you can do when we look at migration patterns in places like Kenya and what you can do because of the mobile phone. Because you can ‑‑ if your life, you know, you can kind of call your mom on her birthday, to send mobile money transfers. Everything that is kind of those smaller data uses. Its done a fantastic job over the last decade.
We like to call that the first wave of connectivity in emerging markets. But there is limit to that leapfrog. And the second form or connectivity which is predominant. We're all using right now. Is broadband connections. And broadband for us is uncapped, always on. It is thinking about the internet and thinking about the data not as kind of some episodic thing that you do. It is just always there.
And when it is always there, it becomes utility. We like to see over time is the pricing for that service no longer becomes a luxury good. But it is a commodity. You don't even think about the price to transact on it and today in most parts of the world, for the vast majority of people, data is still a luxury good. And our mission is make it commodity everywhere in the world so people can jump online whenever they want and interact however they choose and then exit and know the internet is still going to be there when they are done.
Now, I think you know what I really want to hit the point on is kind of the challenge of blending finance and how we use blending finance with private sector partners to expand access in remote parts of the world.
I think the challenge with blending finance is less that it is needed. You know the track record of using blended finance and universal service funds in Europe and United States is pretty universal. You know, you take most sections of the population and they require some form of subsidy.
I think the bigger challenge in emerging markets is who pays for it and then how much blending is needed. The stark reality is in most of the countries we operate in, the governments have a tonne of pressure on their budgets. And that's to provide for social goods and services, health care, education, et cetera. And there is constraints on those parts. And it seems to have shaken out that providing additional subsidy for telecoms is something's always one of those things that is just not the coalition of actors there to provide that subsidy that you would have in other sectors.
The good news that the cost to actually build these networks is falling through the floor. You know, it kind of global supply chains have reacted. And the cost to build the network even a fibre‑based network in most of these markets is, you know, extraordinarily cheaper than it was even, you know, five years ago.
So less subsidy is needed. And how is that subsidy then provided for? Our belief is that governments may be able to provide some subsidy. The exciting subsidies we see are coming around anchor institutions. When we talk about anchor institutions we think about these as universities, community centres, hospitals. Et cetera. And.
And that w that does in terms of network architecture is pulls what we like to think of as the trunk, the kind of fat part of the network, your backhaul distribution, into new places. And it just lowers the landed cost of bandwidth to get into new communities. Then that kind of ground game that ISPs can build off of, it drops their price to then reach the end consumer.
In certain markets we're most excited about seeing the potential of that. Giga has certainly done that as scale and certain African markets.
Once you get the landed cost of bandwidth into new community, by and large ISPs are extraordinarily creative. They are probably, you know, riding on the backbone of that infrastructure even before most of the public sector clients know it. It is extraordinarily crafty and kind of fast moving entrepreneurs that do that and when they see the cost of bandwidth drop they know the ‑‑ that they can deliver that service to any consumers.
Now the second part of the question is who. And I think, you know, building a broadband network really comes down to what we like to think of as revenue density. The cost to denser populations is always going to be less. And that is why kind of the need for thoughtful public policy of how we think about the amount of subsidy needed to reach some of those lesser dense populations comes into play.
Good news I think in emerging markets we're not even there yet. There is still a lot of runway the move with private sector builds in these ‑‑ in most of these markets. You know, you take a country, even like South Africa for all intents and purposes you know, feels well developed as a brick is kind of, you know, solid, second world country. Still has broadband penetration rates that are just around 15%. Right? So there is just a lot of movement to go to get an uncapped always on connection and everyone is home.
I think what is critical for us and I think just want to end on this point and this is something that A4AI, Alliance for Affordable Internet really hit on early on with the importance of meaningful connectivity. You know, what is broadband and why is it important? And the pandemic certainly hit that home for a lot of us.
You know, you can't. You are only going to use a sliver of the internet if you have episodic ‑‑. . You are certainly not going to have a call like this. And we'll be on the call an hour and a half. That will consume about a gig and a half of data. Just example of reality for people that want to be able to participate. You do need that uncapped, always on connection. We think that is kind of the way what customers will demand in these markets.
With that I'll send it back to Jane and Senka.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you, Ben. And I should have said earlier when we started. Thank you to the host country. The connectivity here has been amazing. So thank you to the ‑‑ to our hosts here in Japan as well.
And we're very lucky, as Ben said. That we can have this call.
We have about 10 minutes for Q&A. And we've just heard from Ben, Konstantinos and Nathalia. There is a theme we could pull out on subsidization and public policy. And I would multistakeholder participation in policy making. Because Ben, you, as a finance expert, certainly could not only are you helping subsidize networks but you are working with governments in public sector organisations to help them flip the policy so it is not just them making the decisions without talking to experts.
I would ask you all and Konstantinos was just talking about Europe. Subsidization of connectivity has been going on a long time especially in some of the biggest networks in the world. The biggest ISPs. You know, why wouldn't we want a strong public policy, multistakeholder consultation to shake the policies to either develop funds, to have right policy put in place?
Nathalia, I'll start you. Connect Humanity is doing great work to connect with funds and also work with work with public policy folks. And you have recently something out in letter of the United States. And talk to us about and we'll give it a minute each. Talk us to about what you think can be done to improve multistakeholder consultation on some of these really critical issues. Particularly USFs. Ben when it comes to just financing in general. And Konstantinos, how this relates to fair share in subsidization as well.
So Nathalia, to you.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Regarding the fair share, I'm also following that closely. Following the debate closely as Konstantinos mentioned. It's become a really strong topic in Brazil too. Recently had a consultation national regulator.
Now they are rumours that they will propose that big techs contribute to the USF too. As, like, one potential solution for that ordeal. And then regards to the consultations, well, what are that fears that smaller ISPs in Brazil have is that the money is not going to be dispersed at a fast enough pace. And whether the ‑‑ they are actually going to be able to access them or not.
We should have more participation at the design itself off this details of how the money will be dispersed. Which is not ‑‑ I mean there is some multistakeholder participation. But it is limited to particular institutions that are part of established group of ‑‑ an official group. But not all stakeholders are represented there. Right?
I mean, I'm talking about the Universal Service Funds now. And as ‑‑ and also there are issues with double or triple dipping, as you mentioned. Potential overlaps in incentives. Right? That large companies get. For example, like we had recently the 5G spectrum option. And it was actually option in the lower price. And now they have the large operators that actually got the spectrum have to cover schools. However they are also getting public funds from the Universal Service Funds to connect the schools. Right? So that is an issue.
And for that particular type of example, we need a stronger public involvement. And involvement from different stakeholders to make sure that, you know, there is more transparency. And actually the funds are actually used and not ‑‑ there is like not double or triple dipping in those funds. That's it, thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you Nathalia. And you have hit on something I'll segue to Konstantinos on. For years and years we all talked about best practises and consultations. Which is transparency, publishing the different proceeding results that you have got. So if you have contributed to the proceeding. And then working with a large range of stakeholders so tomahawk hopefully have a better policy in place. Konstantinos, have you seen that recently?
>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Short answer, yes.
So to me it has been quite remarkable experience, especially Europe has been quite remarkable experience in the way this has been handled. Because we did have a public consultation process. FYI this was an exploratory consultation. Meaning that it is a tool that the commission uses in order to be able and identify whether it is actually an issue before they proceed to actual drafting of legislation.
And according to its own tool box, the commission's toll books. And the consultation comes back and they are against it, they should not really proceed with legislation. Is all that there was a little bit of a hazy moment in Europe. Because really did not understand what is happening and why this is happening.
But even beyond that, I just want to make a couple of points here. The first one is that there is not a clear policy objective. Why we're doing this. Especially in Europe. Connectivity issues in Europe are not as ‑‑ of course there are connective issues. But in terms of fibre, we are actually meeting the targets. In terms of 5G coverage. We're actually meeting the targets in Europe. And also there has been a study by a weak consensus on behalf of the commission and European Union that actually said even though the targets are met, consumers are not using them. They are not making use of the services because they don't know they exist. They haven't seen the utility yet and so on and so forth.
So we're at a place where we're actually meeting those targets.
Second point I want to make is that telcos are making money. Right? It is not that they are not making money.
The question here is and the policy seems to be and that was always an issue for me and a question that has never been answered. The policy always seemed to be to try to make big telcos ‑‑ because we're only talking about big telcos in Europe. As big as big tech.
Right? And I do appreciate that in the internet environment, telcos might not be as big as big technology companies, but that is their issue to solve. This is not a public policy issue that requires regulatory intervention.
The other thing that I want to make is about the diversity of the infrastructure. And the point that the compilation seems to be missing. When it comes to the internet, one of the things that ‑‑ one of the most basic rules is that no network is more important than another. And what the commission seems to be implying is that access network seems to have some sort of priority and privilege over other networks. We know that when it comes to internet infrastructure, it is extremely diverse. And everybody contributes their own share.
What do I mean? Telcos invest in upgrading networks. Technology companies invest in creating CDNs and data centres in order to facilitate the traffic and make sure users get access to the content they want and services they want in a much faster and more reliable way.
In fact, the OACD is working on a report. And they will be coming out. Most probably coming out next month, where it makes exactly that point about broadband infrastructure. It tries to demonstrate the diversity of actors that are participating. And the report will identify, of course, telecom providers. Of course big technology companies.
But then you have tower company, hedge funds, pension fund, municipalities. That they are all being part of this infrastructure ecosystem.
So it is very important ‑‑ and I will keep on repeating this. Because I believe that it gets missed in all this noise. We need to talk about infrastructure. Right? Our reliance on the internet will only increase.
But pitting technology companies against telcos is not the way to do this. The only way to do this is to collaborate. And only to collaborate. USFs might provide that framework to collaborate. And yes we need to change a lot of things. I heard transparency, the word "transparency" being thrown out. Definitely transparency.
We have a mechanism. In some cases it has worked. The USFs. In some other cases may not have worked. Let's all work together in order to try to figure out how to strengthen it, boost it and actually facilitate this infrastructure building.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you Konstantinos. And Ben off the theme of collaboration but in a different way. A financial collaborative sense. Of Universal Service Funds being part of a capital stack for investment.
Can you just pull a little bit on that a little bit more? And why that is part of the potential blended finance stack.
>> BEN MATRANGA: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Jane.
And I think you know the reality is universal service funds are, most governments in in the world utilise them. It is a pot of capital that just exists in most of the markets. Even the lowest end countries that we finance projects in.
So you know, the money is there. The challenge is always how does it get out of the end users? And I would just plug one more time the report Jane mentioned. We wrote a report with APC Connect Humanity, ISOC, around financing mechanisms. And one of the things we really highlighted was getting in the weeds of what a subsidy looks like.
And the real importance what subsidy is understood ever understanding what we would in finance called the difference between capital expenditure and operational expenditure. But it is really kind of what is it one time versus the ongoing costs of subsidy.
When you are doing subsidy‑type programmes T ongoing costs are the ones that tend to be tougher. Because do they go on in perpetuity? When do they expire essentially?
Was one‑time costs you can get your head around right at the build. The great thing about one‑time costs is you can drastically lower the number when you have coordinated builds. So the cost to actually build multiple different areas when you are doing it at once, when you are doing it up front is actually quite a bit cheaper.
What we call truck rolls. Bringing out a crew, mobilising resources to continue builds after the fact? It can be extraordinarily expensive.
I think the key with capital ‑‑ cap cap ex is understanding the types of numbers we're talk about. We just pout out two loans. One in South Africa, where we look at the core cap ex of a network. Putting out about $80 per user. 80 U.S. dollars per use tore provide core network cap ex to build out in these markets.
The subsidies needn't be very large. We're talking kind of in the range of 10‑20% is typically what was done in the United States. You know, so in a situation like that, where, you know, talking $20 a user to be able to bring broadband services.
In India, it is even less. And in India they are doing fiber at such tremendous scales. This is durable, long‑dated infrastructure that is in the ground that will exist in perpetuity.
I think the last point I would just make is, understanding the difference ‑‑ and this is where public policy really is needed and is challenging. Is how you divide different geographic areas. The way we typically think about any given geographic area is it falls into one of four economic bucket. One is that they are great economics, solid returns. The other is marginal economics. The other is insufficient economics and the other is permanent subsidy required.
The ones that are solid economics are by and large ‑‑. Topos already there. They are there at scale. With great ‑‑ those are by and large solving themselves. And no one would be surprised if you looked at the maps of those. It is in the CBD. It is in the highest most populated parts.
The second phase T marginal economics. By and large the builds are happening. It is the longer duration capital that really constrains those.
The way capital formation works in most emerging markets is long‑term dated capital. And especially in high‑inflation environments like now, it does kind of constrict the ability to build to some of those projects. And that is where, you know, mechanisms of international finance that are still private sector like can really increase the build there.
The next bucket marginal economic, that is where you do need USFs to come in. And those are communities predominantly impoverished. A whole host of kind of other challenges. But by and large that if you can get that subsidy in there you can build out to places. And I think the smartest subsidies that we're seeing are focussed on those areas.
Last is insufficient economics. Part so just deep rural remote areas. And, you know ‑‑ I think ‑‑ the good news is as a percentage basis, those are almost always single digits any given country. So there is kind of a needed discussion about permanent forms of subsidy needed. But it includes that both one‑time and ongoing subsidy.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you, Ben. And I would throw in, if we're going to have permanent subsidy, midterm, short‑term, long‑term. We're going need a little more accountable in some countries. If a provider is given certain amount of subsidyisation, it would be good to know what they actually did with the money.
And good segue over to Teddy. The next set of panelists are Teddy Woodhouse. Josephine, and Soledad Luca de Tena.
Thank you to Teddy and Ben because it is very late where they both are. And Nathalia. And we appreciate your being so fresh and giving us great data at a tough hour.
So Teddy, over to you. You are in Geneva. We appreciate that. And you are with Ofcom, the UK regulator for those that may not be familiar with Ofcom.
>> TEDDY WOODHOUSE: Thanks so much, Jane. Absolutely pleasure to be joining you all. No matter what time zone. It is worth the effort. I'm Ofcom the UK regulator. I want to focus a bit on what the regulators role in trying to achieve universal service and what that looks like.
Because this nuance to what a public policy role and what a regulators role is going to be. So focusing in on that regulator role, which is the stuff I love, I'm hoping we can get into that.
In the UK's experience, one of the key nuances that defences the UK market is we have a universal service obligation, rather than a universal service fund.
So what that means is it is actually implemented that there is an obligation on two providers in the UK. BT and KCOM, which are kind of chosen by geography, who have an obligation to provide universal service to broadband in certain geographic areas they are assigned to. Rather than necessarily a central fund that disperses the funds out. The way the obligation works in the UK is created in 2018 through legislation and then 2019 Ofcom creates the implementing forces as the regulator of one of the expectations of this. And this has expectations around the speeds. There is a minimum definition there.
And then also kind of naming who this will sit on. So the way it works is for a user if they don't have a decent broadband connection another home. They can request to either BT or KCOM, depending on the country they live, for a coverage to be provided to them.
They have to ‑‑ if coverage gets provided to them, they pay no more than what an average commercial consumer would pay. But the bill up to 3400 pounds gets covered for now. And if it is more than that and for some truly remote and rural parts of the UK it is going to be more than that. So then there has to be a question of, okay, how does that access get paid for? Whether by the consumer or other public financing mechanisms that exist in the UK. And that is where it then starts to lean into the government work that kind of happened in this sector.
So it is a brief description how the universal service altercation works in the UK. So that is one model of approaching this question of "how do we connect everyone in the world?"
Some of the other parts live in the UK market that are going to be relevant to how we understand this issue are things like the shared world network. Which is a kind of agreement essentially between the UK government and network operators here ‑‑ mobile network operators here in the UK to build out into rural areas set by targets that are monitored by Ofcom regulators. The regulators role is actually this kind of transparency and enforcement role of making sure that what gets agreed to and what the expectations are in terms of rural coverage are being met.
And it is important here to think about the driver that is the benefit of having four major operators all working together on this programme is you have the prospect for competition, which can be really thorny issue. When you are trying to think about universal service in rural areas and feel like if you get coverage of any kind, it is great. But then it is oh buttable there is only just one. So now you are creating conditions for a monopoly. And how do you address that by design. Also interesting question when you think about universal service.
Another programme in the UK and this is operated by Ofcom is the social terrorists programme. So this one works with fixed broadband. Where essentially Ofcom's regulator negotiated with broadband providers throughout the UK on a specific tier of packages that are more affordable, targeted towards low income households. So if someone is on universal credit here in the UK or receives another type of public benefit, they become eligible for this programme. And again, it has expectations of minimum speeds and performance for the network so that people are still getting a good user experience. Even in these conditions where you are trying to use kind of a public intervention to provide connectivity.
And so I'll stop there just because I also want to hear from the other two panelists. Personally, I think they are going to be incredible and they are also onsite. So that is much more interesting.
But what I'll just say is from the UK experience, some of the things they hope are have the transferable lessons that make sense are things about you have to have a role of different stakeholders and particularly a role between the regulator and ‑‑ is really important. The universal service obligation for example was designed so it is actually an application base. So BT and KCOM come forward and say we want to provide and feel we can meet the obligation knees areas. So that was something done at an earlier stage so that it works for consumers a the later stage when they are requesting access.
It is also about analysing the market and this builds a bit into, you know, Ben's four categories of economic investment here. Things like this shared world network here in the UK. Builds out what is feasible with no interventions and doesn't need something. But what are the areas in the country we need to do intervene and set targets? And last part is about adapting and iterating as you go through. So this is actually going to be one of the upcoming issues for the UK. What are expectations around speed and performance? And if we need to revise the universal service definition of broadband.
So currently it is 10‑megabytes per second is the minimum download speed. Does that need to increase to a higher number potentially in the future?
So that's hopefully just a few examples and kind of bits of wisdom that we can share from the UK experience. But I'll hand over to my other panelists and thank everyone for their time.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you, Teddy. And you gave us a lovely segue with the point you just made. On adapting and iterating.
I had experiences years ago I worked with regulator who is thought the rules were in place and things didn't need to change. And of course with new technology and new types of networks being deployed and new ways to subsidize networks or help capitalise them, in Ben's case, and others. It is really important we look at regulatory flexibility. And I think many people will call it fit for purpose regulation, which has to change over time.
Josephine I know in Kenya, there's been great work being done with the regulator. I know from a community networks perspective you have perspectives on universal service. We're turning it to you now to hear more from your perspective. And from on‑the‑ground perspective. Thanks.
>> JOSEPHINE: Thank you. In general, currently in Africa, 37 countries have been able to establish USF. Some are still in progress. And with regards to how they are set up, those are independent, sort of independent agencies. And others are housed within the regulator. And I think similar to other continents as well. Gross challenges around dormancy. In as much as many of them are established not at the funds and not dispersed. Issues around transparency, impact and sustainability of the some of the projects that the USFs undertake.
For example, you would find that in some countries, the setup infrastructure. But there is no ownership of that infrastructure beyond those funds. Some undertake projects such as setting up a digitalisation centres, which after handing to the communities there is no follow up. So you find this lies dormant.
And so in trying to, you know, unlock USFs, especially for community networks, it really begins at first understanding that majority of our African countries do not recognize community networks as complementary access models.
So this means that automatically you are locked out from accessing this funds. Kenya is an example where there has been good collaboration between the regulator and Civil Society organisations.
In 2020 during the pandemic, I think the silver lining was that we realise that as much as we are talking about these technologies such as AI IOT. We had a huge percentage of population which is still unconnected.
So as part of the COVID‑19 responses, the government looked at how it can be able to support last‑mile connectivity. And so together with APC and ketoner net with support from the government we started looking how can community networks be license order introduced into the telecommunications market structure. And this was resulted into the development of a community network service provider license, which addressed issues around affordability.
Because at $155,050 annual ‑‑ $50 is quite affordable for ‑‑
And it came at a good time. Because 2021 was just the end of the cycle for the strategy plan in Kenya. So we began engaging on how then can community networks be able to benefit from USF. So one of the issues that came up was for to you access USF, you also had to contribute to the USF. And the license for community networks exempted community networks from contributing to the USF.
So one of the arguments that came up was that since community networks do not contribute to the USF, they should not be able to benefit from the USF.
So together again providing technical assistance and contributions to the USF process, engagements with the local community networks, we were able to advocate for the removal of that clause. And so in 20 ‑‑ within the draft framework, 2022, 2026. The regulator looks to establish 100 community networks. Which I think was a great milestone. In terms of the wins for community networks.
And this really helped in terms of advocacy across the continent. Because at least now we have a reference point with other regulators. And last year we had the Malawi regulator visit. The Kenya regulator, just for an exchange. And from that, now we think the Malawi strategic plan. They are now looking to support a community broadband network. So for them it is community networks but community broadband networksem.
But even beyond Kenya we've also seen success in Zimbabwe as well where there is that close collaboration between the community network there and the regulator.
So what is the role of CSOs? I think first is raising awareness. Our regulators still are not aware of community networks. There is still lot of misconceptions around what community networks are and what they are not. So there is need for that raising awareness, capacity building as well. We've had workshops, together with the ITU in Kenya, Nigeria and Cameroon also just to raise awareness around the licensing framework. And also how USFs can be able to support community network.
Kenya, for example, even though we have a license and within the framework of the strategic plan they would like to support community networks, the regulator still does not understand how that is going to happen. So beyond that, they still need for hand holding as to how we can be able now to, you know, structure it. You know, how much does a community network need? How much funds can they absorb which is feasible? And beyond that I think is also the providing technical assistance, where resources are available.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Wow. Showed out the multistakeholder model and work the Kenyan regulator and also this is good news about Malawi, Zambia, and Cameroon. Exciting. And wonderful people working in Kenya and these other countries.
So this is a really interesting ecosystem of work that has to happen. And it is not done overnight.
Sole, we're going to turn it to you for the perspective of from an intergovernmental and your experience.
>> SOLE LUCA DE TENA: Thank you. The need for more transparency. And the need for different stakeholders to be involved and informed. Yeah. To attain digital inclusion.
I want to share with you what we're doing in giga. That speaks to the these two points. And also go a little bit deep into one of the success cases.
So initially ‑‑ oh, essentially, Giga is a global initiative by two UN agencies. UNICEF and ITU. Focussed on connecting all the schools in the world by 2030. And I think it is really important to understand here schools as a marker of community. As Ben mentioned as an anchor of community.
Often not only for access but also to access digital literacy and tools. They also function as hubs during social services or shelters in times of disaster and emergencies. To better understand the unique position of intergovernmental stakeholders, let me just explain how ‑‑ okay. From Giga's perspective we're leveraging UNICEF's presence in 190 countries. Decades of a wealth of know‑how working with critical issues with children, youth and education. And of course, ITUs in unique position within the telecommunication sector across the world.
So together we work with a ministry of education on one side, ministry of ICT, private sector, and Civil Society organisations. But okay, what do we do? And how can we help revitalize USF?
Giga works in the access layer of the digital divide, accessing tools that create a common language, evidence and bring together best practises. We do this with three main areas of work. Advocacy, technical assistance and procurement. If you can see my slide here. Yes I'm also everyone is highlighting Brazil somehow. It is a good example.
So what you see in front of you is every dot represents a school. So roughly 138,000 schools. And the color indicates the connectivity status.
Green dots are good connectivity. Red dots are no conductivity. And this data gets updated every four hours. We're also working on the yellow dot, which is whether it is enough or not.
So using this map I want to just go over the three areas of work that we have. Right?
In many cases stakeholders don't hold the same information and don't understand the same information. And this map shows very quickly where the need lies and how large the need is.
So I'm going refer back to the Brazil case that Nathalia mentioned, where UNICEF joined ‑‑ UNICEF Brazil and Giga joined forces to advocate for this reform of the USF. And from 2020‑2022, eventually succeeded in this reform of ‑‑ I don't know if Nathalia mentioned but it was a $24 billion cumulation over 20 years of funds.
Essentially, these changes did lead, at least at some level, to improve focus mechanism for disperse funds, reducing regional inequalities and as pertains to our focus, right, unlocking this commitment to connecting schools. And this translates into about $675 million for school connectivity, which is about 18% of the annual fund.
In technical assistance I wanted to highlight, firstly, this map. Knowing what the state of connectivity is. Giga has mapped 2.1 million schools in 138 countries. In some cases no ‑‑ the governments don't have full databases of these schools. So we're using machine learning AI to identify schools as well.
And to date, this has just been started. We've mapped 20,000 new schools in eight countries.
Then understanding connectivity status. We've worked together a user device app that sends measurements through. And there are about 80,000 schools reporting connectivity status near realtime. But also going further from ISP perspective the quality of services and the status. And we're working with several ISPs currently who are sharing their network data.
And so in triangulating that experience and quality, we're really getting a sense of what the connectivity reality is.
This also other tools for improvement of procurement and management of public connectivity contracts. Which for many governments is very complex. So briefly, connectivity credits is a way to incentivise connecting the difficult areas, or the high‑risk areas. You know, technically or financially. I think Teddy mentions went into that quite well.
And Giga counts what also ‑‑ it is another project, to support the management of high volumes of contracts.
Lastly. In procurement. So initially Giga connected 5 1/2 thousand in 2020 creating a basis for beta procurement practises. And now it is focussed on recommendation, templates, assistance to support more efficient school connectivity.
I want to mention two brief examples. Kyrgyzstan with the ministry of education T contracting was able to reduce cost of connectivity by 43%. Representing about a saving of $250,000 per year. And in Rwanda, it was able to catalyse a cost decrease of 55 percent. From $20 per MBPS to $9. And improve the speed from 5 to 52Mbps. And first. Giga helps to unlock so far $1.7 billion for financing school connectivity in a blended format. And in addition to the case in Brazil they mentioned earlier. Also been able to help unlock $5 million for a loan for Sierra Leone and 100 million for Nigeria.
And these different areas of work support one another. So if are effectively revitalized, focus on is imperative that we look at the life cycle. That we look at coordinated planning. That we look at a deployment and monitoring of, you know, is the ‑‑ I mean, are they connected? Are they staying connected?
And yeah we hope that Giga can help with this.
Thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you, sole. This is exciting work that the two UN agencies are doing with as sole indicated of course with the regulators policy makers and others to help bring about change and how connectivity is being distributed and also financed.
We do have some online questions. We'll ask peach participant and then open it up to the floor here. And in Kyoto but also the online floor.
Teddy, one quick question for you. Has Ofcom's provided universal service funding to community‑based networks? Or municipal networks or whatever the correct terminology, in the UK?
>> TEDDY WOODHOUSE: When we talk about universal service programmes it is not so much the Ofcom is providing the funding ourselves. We kind of see our role as you know creating the market conditions for network providers to exist. So when we about community networks or at nets here in the UK it is about creating market conditions so communication providers of all variety of types can succeed.
So in part aspects of having a regulatory framework that is simple enough that anyone can do it. No matter whether they have a huge legal team or a really small operation. But also, you know, looking at other aspects of how, you know, market competitors work with each other. And so to, you know, provide internet services throughout the country. So that relates a lot to how we understand, you know, wholesale services and separation from BT from open reach and how the process is managerred from a regulatory process.
BT being a retail operator and Open Reach more of an open access network that other networks with ‑‑. That relationship is really important to making sure it is working correctly so that you have a competitive and diverse market of different providers. But a what we're having as a really positive experience in the UK is this diversity of market players. Hopefully in part of because of Ofcom's role but there are other aspects of play as well.
That, you know, enable consumers to have a good and affordable experience in terms of broadband services.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you, Teddy. Important differential between the fact that you are not dispersing funds. You have an obligation and you are look at market conditions which is great from the regulatory perspective. Sharp contrast to what Konstantinos experienced recently.
Josephine on setting the stage and working with regulators. What would your advice be to CSOs who work regulators and help influence policy.
For those in the room who have done this. I'm looking at some. It can be tricky if you are not experience in working with government. So what would you suggest Josephine?
>> SOLE LUCA DE TENA: I think in our case a lot of, I would say, patience, first. Patience. Because an experience that we had in 2019 with one of my colleagues was that is we were trying to get in just having meetings with the regulators. The doors keep or just being slammed on us.
But I would say 2020 was when things began to shift. So and 2017, 2016. 2017. So it's first I would say patience. So it is not ‑‑ patience and resilience.
But I also think is you mentioned something that it is ad advocacy stem type of advocacy. In our case we really built on the collaboration that was existing between the UK digital access programme with a regulator in Kenya. And so that helped in terms of, one, building sustainability into some of the programmes that they support. Because if there is no policy change, then even if you are building capacity or you are building networks, then there is no sustainability to that.
So I would say also looking at who else is in the ecosystem has those types of relationships. And can be able to introduce you or bring you into the room because they have a sort of validity. Yeah. Can see like even our collaboration with the ITA, for example, also helps in terms of advocacy efforts.
And also there is no need to recreate what is already existing. So in our interventions, for example, we also built on lot of experience from other countries and other regions as well. So this resources exist. So more partnerships and collaborations with other existing players and stakeholders within the ecosystem.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: That's awesome. And thank you. That is a shout out to FCDO as well who you worked with closely this ITU and go UK. 2 for 2 here.
And also, your point about data. Getting the case studies out there. And segueing over to you, Sole on the data side. Help us with some of the, sort of, insight you have on what Giga ‑‑ you think Giga could do more in the future of working with countries to ‑‑ to highlight the importance of that ecosystem and funding and data.
>> SOLE LUCA DE TENA: Thanks, Jane.
Yeah, I mean, ecosystem. I really also appreciate Josephine's mention of the need for different stakeholders.
Also gathering experience. And that is the privilege we are in the position to have. Right? We're these two different agencies that pull on already‑existing relationships with at least two ministries. Already creates a channel of communication. And I think we are working more on that. And I think we can work more. And I think. I go back to my struggle. Not only now but also previously in my life as a community network practitioner.
Around creating a common language. And you know, that's not just between government, private sector and Civil Society, which we know, you know, kind of are driven by different things. And speak to the same issues in different ways.
But also between government departments. Right? Different foci and different ways to explain or different ‑‑ I suppose, challenges. So I think Giga is in a very good position to create, I think, I hope that the map illustrated, you know, the kind of simple tools of trying to understand the same problem. Trying to understand that based on facts and evidence and cases. So I think, yeah, I think that what we can definitely bring to the table is a common language. Not only across different departments in public sector, which are natural, umm, interlocutors. But also with public ‑‑ sorry, private and communicate‑based organisations.
Thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Excellent. Thank you very much. We have about 12 minutes for some Q&A.
Is there anyone ‑‑ I think there is a question. Let me give Carlos a microphone. Carlos was there a question online?
Is there anyone in the room that would have ‑‑ oh. Erik. Okay.
So we have two questions in the room. And e we did have a question online I think. We have three questions. Okay. And would we just say, if you could ask concise questions, so we can give like a minute of an answer so we can get everybody in.
Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Regarding the Giga project. Says help low the cost of schools in some country. Can you explain how that happens?
And also, the mention this tool for global or big contracts. One of the challenges and some of the difficulties is that the government usually do all those big contracts. But they are sometimes small providers in close to the communities that can bring different cost or cheaper cost or better access to these schools.
So I know how is this dealing with this?
And the other was with the first questions. The model of ‑‑ yeah, has lot of complaints about the concentrations of these platforms. And I think it is not only affected the carriers but also affecting the content creators and so on.
Do you think ‑‑ or what would be the ideas to change this or sort of allowing to spread more ‑‑ to spread the money they get instead of the concentration they already have?
>> AUDIENCE: Hello everyone. From Civil Society in Paraguay. Perhaps a question for Josephine and Nathalia I think.
We've seen a lot in Paraguay, which is where I'm based. Denaturalisation of the universal service funds for funding surveillance and security programmes throughout the country. First I'm quite curious to see if there are other examples. Nathalia I think in the beginning was mentioning how USF sometimes is used for other purposes.
But perhaps you can talk more about that as well. Because we're quite curious and see if other countries also have the start of initiatives that are quite different from the purpose what the USF was created.
Particularly in Paraguay we've seen that USF funds have been used to acquire surveillance and biometric techtology to be deployed in the streets of the capital and other cities.
Thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Any other questions in the room? Please just ask the question and then we'll do a collaborative answer.
Okay.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. The speakers and online and offline for such interesting insights. So I have a question. I think it was Ben and financing. I liked the different tasks spoke to in terms of investment economics. So I have a question.
To what extent does public and private sector financing, which of these models influence the costs are related to entry into the ecosystem by community network.
So there a linkage between the model of character finance and whether it is private or public? And the barriers of entry for community networks.
And also then, general question then to the whole team. Because I have a sense that we can ‑‑ and I think someone talked to talked to that. The same objective but using different tools. So how can we maybe from the experience of the community networks, is there a sort of a one size fits all kind of model? Senior there room to appreciate the context and listen in especially from public sector perspective and see how you can plug in. Thank you. Approximate
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. We also have community network in India. And community owned ‑‑.
One of the things I struggle a lot is how to ‑‑ I mean, when do the community take operational ownership? And how is that possible?
So with this we struggle in terms of what internet is for them. And when Sole mentioned common language, thinking for us internet is hypertext, hyperlinks.
So if you don't have the text in your repertoire. How do you do hypertext, hyperlink? What is internet for these people? Are we stagnated? Are we stopping the idea of what internet is? Or can we push this to community networks on like who are the push this internet idea itself to people. Network like 3 billion meme. That's ‑‑ and maybe this connection is also about hardware. Not only but services, the idea of internet or.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you. Thank you everyone for those great questions. And if we could do speed round on your answers. A minute. Sole over to you on Giga.
>> SOLE LUCA DE TENA: Thank you. Thanks Erik for the question. How did the lowering costs happen? I have that.
I think essentially it is about being better informed. You know what does the internet actually cost? Better access to understanding technologies in certain cases and what the options were.
So some of it has to do with conditions. So longer to contracts. Better pricing. As well as what you mentioned of bigger contracts. Right? So demand aggregation. And better supported I think is one of the key elements. Yeah. An informed ecosystem. I would say.
And in terms of contracts, I think it is exactly to your point. It is not about making bigger contracts the whole time. But I have experienced it both now and previously as a community network. How difficult it is for public institutions to manage contracts. And they don't have just one.
Whether it is municipality or nationally managing, hundreds and hundreds of contracts.
Do they pay on time? Because they don't know how to manage that.
So the idea here is not to exclude small operators. I think on the contrary, it is by helping to manage those contracts effectively, seeing that and linking that perhaps to the connectivity status. Okay, I can see it is connected still. Yes you get paid.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Okay.
>> SOLE LUCA DE TENA: Thank you.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Sorry to cut you off. Paraguay, question on denationalisation. And Josephine and Nathalia. Nathalia, you have one minute.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Regards to the question on Paraguay, I cited the case on on Ascension.
And I remember that was one of the motion extreme cases we have found. However there are other cases too which, I mean, it was unclear whether the impact of the use was as relevant as wanted. But I remember the Ascension case, that is probably the one our colleague is referring to was cited specifically in the report.
And well I had more things to say but I guess we don't have time.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Josephine.
>> JOSEPHINE: Yes. I think definitely relocation of funds. But the challenge also within Africa, I think just currently reviewing study on that, is that there are nuclear reporting or how the funds are spent. It is also difficult to track exactly where the money went to.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Back to accountable. Ben there was a great we question on the issues you raised. If you could give a minute.
>> BEN MATRANGA: It was a question about the cost of capital. And, you know, we're in a place right now in the world where interest rates are higher than ever been before. So we're just seeing a delay on builds across the globe.
And unfortunately that hits emerging markets the hardest.
What I would say to great operators. One of the key data points when we finance a project is what we think of as kind of a maniacal focus on reducing the cost of service delivery. Just give you an example on this panel. Teddy had mentioned how in the UK there is a subsidy little over 3,000 pounds. And part of that is just the cost to build in those markets is lot higher.
In the United States is it is lot higher than that. And because the tradeoff between capital and labour and market where is labour is more expensive. Tell all the emerging market provider, first if you need capital please knock. We're here to lend.
But it is that focus on utilising the services that you have which are lower cost of labour to get that cost of install down. And that is how you can deliver in the 10‑15‑dollar range which is what we see as kind of the way to unlock access and that lower economic strata.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: And given there is so much interest online and in the room. We may start up a listen or a group based on this workshop to continue this conversation. There is one about co. Comish. And I would just say that Teddy and Konstantinos. 30 seconds if you want to give us a tweet. Because I want to make sure everybody got a last question in. Konstantinos, 30 seconds?
>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Thanks, Jane. So the only thing I will say here is that let's have a conversation on infrastructure. Let's use what we have as tools. But let's make sure that we make them ‑‑ we build them up in a way that everyone can participate. And there are accountability mechanisms for not misuse and mismanagement of the funds.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Teddy? Back over to you.
>> TEDDY WOODHOUSE: Thanks. Jane. I'll try to be quick. Didn't realize I was going to have the honor of being the closing speaker on this part.
But I guess the think I would stress is really important is regulators thinking about level playing market field ‑‑ a level field for the market for communication providers of all types.
Part of that is also providing research and facts and evidence that, A, make the regulators decisions more robust and understandable. But also can help others in the sector understand what are the factors at play, where is service not as good as it should be, what are ways it can be improved.
So I think that is also a really important aspect to consider as for kind of looking at a holistic image of what are the challenges we face in connecting the world.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Thank you so much. I would just like to give everybody round of applause. Thank you to the wonderful panelists. You were excellent.
(Applause)
Yay. And to Senka, so much for not only the paper she helped draft ‑‑ write. But also the great organisation of this panel. Thank you all very much. This was excellent. And thank you to Carlos for being our online moderator. Thank you everyone, have a good day.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Can I say something real quick?
No ‑‑
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: By everybody. She was talking again.
>> DR. CARLOS BACA-FELDMAN: Now we can't listen to you.
>> NATHALIA FODITSCH: Well it's okay. No I was just going to say they met Seoul at IGF 2017. And today I learned that it is world mental health day. Yesterday like the 10th of October. And guess she doesn't even remember the conversation we have. But she recommended a book called the body keeps the score, which I have read. And it is really good. And I recommend to everybody else. Because today is world mental health day.
And I saw Sole at the session. And I haven't seen her since IGF 2017. So that is why I'm bringing that up. Thank you.