internet governance and service provision in zimbabwe

1

This document has been produced by DiploFoundation with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the author and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union or DiploFoundation.

Internet governance and service provision in Zimbabwe

Rumbidzayi Gadhula, Zimbabwe

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the involvement of Internet service providers/Internet access

providers (ISPs/IAPs) in the Internet governance process, the impact on service provision by the ISPs/IAPs, the

response to legislation and/or policy by the ISPs, and the effects on infrastructure development and access.

In this regard, questionnaires were sent out to various ISPs/IAPs. The survey results were analysed according

to policy development inclusiveness, infrastructure development, accessibility, service/customer retention,

and innovativeness. The findings revealed that the governance process has not been inclusive as it has been

dominated by government. Other findings showed that more regulations on the sharing of the available

infrastructure and providing a more even playing field are necessary. The current licensing fees have a

negative impact in terms of costs of access to the consumer and providers’ ability to further upgrade/develop

infrastructure. Innovation by providers has been possible and the restrictions seem not to be prohibitive

in terms of value added services, which was a measure for innovation. Finally, infrastructure development

policy is not an important factor in infrastructure development for providers.

The drafting of a national information and communication technology (ICT) strategy has been welcomed by

most people in the ICT industry as a means to show government commitment to the development of ICT in

Zimbabwe. The national strategy is expected to give rise to action, which will encourage the growth of ICT

and Internet development. This paper aims to encourage genuine commitment towards recognising other

stakeholders’ role in the Internet governance process and ensuring multistakeholder participation.

Keywords: ISPs; IAPs; service provision; infrastructure development; Zimbabwe

Introduction

The government of Zimbabwe has taken mea-

sures and drafted legislation to promote the

expansion of network infrastructure and improve

Internet access in Zimbabwe. One such exam-

ple is the recent digging along the main trans-

port networks by Internet service provid-

ers (ISPs) to lay down fibre network cables in

an effort to increase accessibility for users.

As the government formulates policy on Internet

access, however, it is unclear whether ISPs

are being consulted. The conduct/response

of ISPs has been such that it has been dif-

ficult to determine if there is a policy they

adhere to. This paper will attempt to fol-

low the current governance that Zimbabwean

ISPs operate under and their influence on

the service they provide in the country.

ISPs are the major stakeholders within national

boundaries, as they provide the gateway to

Internet access for education, industry and

all the other sectors. It is therefore impor-

tant to determine the involvement of the same

ISPs in the development of policies that affect

them as stakeholders, (owners of equipment

and providers of internet service) and even-

tually their activity, willingness and commit-

ment to the Internet governance process.

According to the Herald, the Postal and

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority

of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) was reported to

have been sitting on more than USD$20 mil-

lion under the Universal Services Fund, which

the government – through the Ministry of

Finance – has since developed a plan for (The

Herald, 2010). This indicates disjointed efforts

in the planning of national Internet devel-

2


opment projects among the relevant stake-

holders. There seems to be no common pur-

pose or policy in these processes, and research

into the policy or regulations regarding secu-

rity, access, and ISP governance is required.

Background

There has been an increasing effort for an

all-inclusive Internet governance process in

both developing and developed countries.

However, most developing countries – partic-

ularly in Africa – seem to still use the govern-

ment approach, which involves the govern-

ment as the sole policy authority. Zimbabwe is

one of many African countries that have only

recently come up with a national ICT plan.

This plan includes the development of a cyber

law framework, e-governance laws, connectiv-

ity, and access provision. Various complaints

among stakeholders about the conduct of other

stakeholders requires investigation to determine

points of departure and areas at which to con-

centrate efforts for the successful development

of the Internet (Technology Zimbabwe, 2010).

Broad objectives

This paper seeks to act as an informant to

policymakers on the role and varied inter-

ests in the Internet governance process. It

will attempt to investigate other stakehold-

ers and their interest and perceived value to

the process, as well as analyse public policy

in Internet-governance-related laws to deter-

mine their value and influence on Internet

access as indicated by their contribution to

Internet connectivity, access and security.

Research questions

This paper will seek to answer

the following questions:

● How inclusive is the governance process for

ISPs and regulatory authorities?

● How are the roles of ISPs and regulatory

authorities meshed in the Internet gover-

nance process?

● How has Internet governance impacted the

provision (implementation of services) of

services by ISPs (infrastructure development,

access, security)?

● How have ISPs responded to policy and

regulations on infrastructure development,

access, and security?

Purpose of the study

The general consensus (at the global level

through such organisations as the Internet

Governance Forum (IGF) and the Internet

Society (ISOC)) is that there is a need to iden-

tify all stakeholders in the Internet gover-

nance process, and to consult with them and

ensure their active participation. This is neces-

sary in order to develop proper Internet gov-

ernance policies that will encourage the devel-

opment (through concerted efforts) of the

Internet’s infrastructure, its security, and access

to it by the global community. ISOC has signed

an online petition asking the UN to set up an

open and inclusive process that will allow full

involvement of all stakeholders (ISOC, 2010).

This study of the Internet governance process in

Zimbabwe seeks to analyse how the process has

taken place and how it has impacted the current

infrastructure development, security, and accessi-

bility of the Internet. The results should encour-

age an assessment of the regulatory issues and

policies on ISP governance and encourage stake-

holders to work together and agree on a course

of action for Internet growth and development

Research scope

This paper will seek to determine and anal-

yse the Internet governance process in rela-

tion to Internet development in Zimbabwe.

Literature review

The regulation of ISPs has an impact on Internet

growth in any given country. The influence of

legislation and regulations – which can either

enable or restrict the expansion of Internet devel-

opment and growth, access, and security – is

3


of great importance in determining the pro-

visioning of services to a country’s citizens.

‘The UNECA (2004), states that contrary to pop-

ular belief, the making and shaping of policy is

less a set of organised, predictable and rational

choices than a complex, often unpredictable and,

above all, political process (UNECA 2004:9). The

point is made by Ikiara et al., (2004) and Soludo

et al., (2004) that there are several theories and

approaches to public policy making. One of the

most popular to-date, especially among econo-

mists, is the Rational Comprehensive Model, also

said to be one of the oldest. This model sees pol-

icy as a smooth, linear, hierarchical and essentially

rational process consisting of two phases: policy

formulation and policy implementation. In the for-

mulation stage of this model, experts, (technical,

subject matter, policy) statisticians and research-

ers identify the problem, analyse the options using

the most sophisticated, up-to-date and appli-

cable knowledge available’ (McGee, 2004).

‘…Poor implementation of policies has been one

of the main weaknesses in the country’s eco-

nomic policy process. This is due to a number

of factors, including too much concentration of

decision – making at the Office of the President,

corruption and mismanagement of national

resources, inadequate supervision of the pub-

lic sector workers, inadequate checks and bal-

ances and weak reward and punishment mecha-

nism in the public service’ (Etta and Elder, 2005).

As the Internet becomes more and more

vital to the development of a country, (cover-

ing political, economic and educational fac-

ets of life), Internet governance becomes even

more important and crucial to development.

The policymaking process becomes a pivotal

point on which developmental issues hinge.

Methodology

Introduction

The objective of this study is to determine the

current role of regulatory authorities and ISPs

in Internet governance, how this has impacted

the governance process and how ISPs have

responded to policy and regulations on infra-

structure development, access and security.

This paper seeks to further analyse the dispar-

ity in the implementation of regulations (or

the lack thereof) in relation to the policies.

Design sampling

Respondents were selected from across the ISP

spectrum and asked to respond on behalf of their

organisation. These included Internet access pro-

viders (IAPs) and ISPs that are currently oper-

ating within the country. Respondents were

expected to be familiar with and have an aware-

ness of both the regulation they operate under

and the technical aspects of their infrastructure.

Seven IAPs and ISPs indicated they would take

part in the survey. Out of the seven question-

naires sent out to participants, five were returned.

● 71.4% participants responded to the ques-

tionnaire

● 60% of respondents were IAPs

● 20% of respondents were ISPs

While responses from all the IAPs and ISPs

would have been more representative of

the true nature of the regulations imple-

mentation and their involvement in the

Internet governance process, some partici-

pants did not manage to answer the question-

naire within the time limit for this research.

Data collection

An online survey1 was designed and sent

out to participants. Responses were ren-

dered online, making them easily accessi-

ble. Reminders were sent out to respondents

and the data were collected online. Secondary

data from the regulations under which ISPs

operate were also collected from the reg-

ulatory authority’s (POTRAZ) website.

1 http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=qx6xdgpfwwedd0p878093

4


Results analysis

The survey was analysed under policy develop-

ment inclusiveness, infrastructure development,

accessibility, service/customer retention, and

innovativeness.

Policy development

● 60% of respondents want a multistakeholder

approach to Internet governance with 40%

preferring that the regulatory authority to

control (Figure 1).

● 60% feel the government is dominant in

the Internet governance process, 20% say

the dominance is diminishing, and another

20% think the government’s role is minimal

(Figure 2).

● 60% think the call by the regulatory body for

a consultative meeting with other partners

was good as it encouraged participation by all

stakeholders, while 40% believe it was long

overdue and consultations should be done

more widely (Figure 3).

Future Internet governance process

● 80% of respondents feel it is very important

to have a multistakeholder opinion and 20%

think it is important (Figure 4).

● 20% are very optimistic of achieving con-

sensus among multistakeholder governance

forum, 20% are mildly optimistic, 20% are

optimistic, and 20% are pessimistic. Overall,

there is 80% optimism (Figure 5).

Infrastructure development

● 100% of respondents feel it is important to

have consensus on governance for Internet

development (Figure 6).

● 60% of organisations do not have an IPv6

transition plan (Figure 7).

● The legacy and cost of compatible infrastruc-

Figure 1. Survey response to the question: Who should lead Internet governance issues in Zimbabwe?

Figure 2. Survey response to the question: What is the government’s current role

when it comes to Internet governance in the Zimbabwean context?

5


Figure 3. Respondents views on the POTRAZ consultative meeting.

Figure 4. Respondents’ views on importance of multistakeholder opinion in Internet governance.

Figure 5. Respondents’ optimism on achieving consensus among multistakeholder forum.

Figure 6. Importance of consensus on governance for Internet development.

6


Figure 9. Respondents’ opinions regarding existence of telecommunications monopoly in Zimbabwe.

Figure 8. Respondents’ view on limitations to Internet development.

KeyA – Increase in the number of

players\competitionB – Regulations on the leas-

ing of infrastructureC – Government intervention on

international carrier tariffsD – Reduction of licensing fees

Figure 7. Response on organisational IPv6 transition plan.

ture, as well as the lack of technical skills are

major limitations (Figure 8).

● There is no monopoly, but the playing field is

uneven (Figure 9).

● All respondents agree with the rationalisation

of duplicated infrastructure as per the cur-

rent government policy (Figure 10).

Accessibility

● Regulations on the sharing and leasing

of infrastructure, as well as reduction of

licensing fees, were cited as the most impor-

tant factors for Internet access costs reduc-

tion (Figure 11).

● 40% had <5% of their customers in remote

areas, another 40% had 5–10%, while 20%

had 11–20% (Figure 12).

7


Figure 10. Respondents’ view on infrastructure rationalisation by government.

Figure 12. Organisations’ customers from remote areas.

Figure 11. Respondents’ view on Internet access costs reduction.

KeyA – Legacy\cost of compatible infrastructureB – Lack of technical skillsC – Partners with incompatible infrastructureD – Lack of demand

The cost of Internet access is still high

with remote areas still lacking access.

Service/customer turnover

● Customer turnover has been less than 10%

for 80% of respondents (Figure 13).

● 60% have challenges in meeting customer

connection needs (Figure 14) with high

access costs, and bandwidth is the major

reason for customer turnover (Figure 15).

While rationalisation is due, current infra-

structure and service offered by the pro-

viders do not meet customer needs.

Innovation

● A mixture of value added services indicates

provider innovation (Figure 16).

● Customer needs, organisation initiatives and

global trends drive infrastructure develop-

ment (Figure 17).

8


Figure 13. Respondents’ customer turnover rating.

Figure 14. Respondents’ opinion on their current infrastructure’s ability to meet customer needs.

Figure 15. Respondents’ response on reasons for customer turnover.

Conclusion

Key findings

● The governance process has not been inclu-

sive as it has been dominated by government,

yet there is a move towards inclusiveness of

all stakeholders which is very much wel-

comed by respondents.

● The regulatory authority has not been con-

sulting with other stakeholders, that is, ISPs/

IAPs who are very willing to participate in

the governance process.

● Current regulations are good in terms of

rationalising infrastructure, but there should

be more regulations on the sharing of avail-

able infrastructure and providing a more

even playing field.

● The current licensing fees have a negative

impact in terms of costs of access to the con-

sumer and the ability of providers to further

upgrade/develop infrastructure.

9


Figure 16. Response on value added services offered by the respondents.

Figure 17. Response on drivers for infrastructure upgrade/development.

KeyA – Customer needs/demandsB – Global trendsC – Local trendsD – Policy\regulatory complianceE – Organisation Initiative

● Restrictions have not been prohibitive,

regarding value added services, and provider

innovation has been possible.

● There is some effort towards enabling access

to remote areas. Policy on infrastructure

development is not an important factor in

infrastructure development for providers.

Recommendations

The regulatory authority needs to consult more

widely with and involve all stakeholders in gov-

ernance issues for Internet development. There

should be a drive towards infrastructure devel-

opment for better Internet service and a mul-

tistakeholder body established to drive such

issues would be beneficial to the consumers

and help create a level field among providers.

Countries in a similar situation can gain insight

and perspective on the effects of their policies on

Internet development (infrastructure and access),

and formulate ideas on how to draft policy to

encourage participation by other stakeholders.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to everyone who has helped me

in writing this paper, in particular Jean Paul

Nkurunziza and Chipo Kanjo for provid-

ing feedback, and to Mufaro, Rufaro, and Jesse

for being so understanding and cooperative.

Abbreviations and acronyms

ICT – Information and

Communication Technology

IG – Internet governance

IPv6 – Internet Protocol version 6

ISOC – Internet Society

ISP/IAP – Internet Service/Access Providers

10


POTRAZ – Postal and Regulatory

Authority of Zimbabwe

UN – United Nations

UNECA – United Nations Economic

Commission for Africa

References

1. Boakye K (2005) CTO Internet Governance Survey.

Available at www.uneca.org/disd/events/accra//

InternetGovernance/CTO%2520Internet%2520

Governance%2520Survey.ppt [accessed 19 April

2011].

2. Etta FE and Elder L (eds) (2005) At the Crossroads:

ICT Policy Making in East Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: East

Africa Educational Publishers Ltd. Available at

http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/219-8/ [accessed

14 April 2011].

3. ISOC (2010) Internet governance compro-

mise reached. ISOC Monthly Newsletter.

December. Available at http://isoc.org/wp/

newsletter/?m=201012 [accessed 14 April 2011].

4. Technology Zimbabwe (2010) Full text on ZOL

press statement on ‘Potraz accused of inaction’.

Technology Zimbabwe, 13 October 2010. Available

at http://www.techzim.co.zw/2010/10/zol-state-

ment-potraz-inaction/ [accessed 14 April 2011].

5. The Herald (2010) Over US$20m lie idle at Potraz.

Available at http://zimvest.com/over-us20m-lie-

idle-at-potraz [accessed 19 April 2011].

6. Zvikarakadzo (2010) POTRAZ and Broadlands in

row. Technology Zimbabwe, 14 February 2010.

Available at http://www.techzim.co.zw/2010/02/

potraz-and-broadlands-in-row/ [accessed 14 April

2011].

internet governance and service provision in zimbabwe

Documents