planning for progress 18134042

8/13/2019 Planning for Progress 18134042

1/74


2/74


3/74


4/74

Disclaimer

The info rmat ion contained in this publ icat ion is prov ided by the lead author, and does not engage or represent the opin ions of the International

Telecommunicati on Union (ITU ), t he United Nations Educational, Scienti fic and Cultural Organiza tion (UNESCO) , the membership and staf f of ITU and

UNESCO, the Broadband Commission Secretariat or Cisco.

All rights are reserved. No part of this publ ica tion may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prio r writ ten authorization of ITU or

UNESCO. Denominations and classifications used in this publication do not imply any opinion concerning the legal or other status of any territoryor any endorsement or acceptance of any boundary. Where the designation country appears in this publication, it covers countries and territories.

Printed at: International Telecommunication Union, Place des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, July 2013.

A b o u t


5/74

A c k n o w l E d g e m e n t s


6/74


7/74

FOREWORD

Dr Hamadoun I. Tour, Secretary-General, ITU 02

John Chambers, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Cisco Systems 04

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 06

1. INTRODUCTION 08

2. WHAT IS A PLAN? 10

3. THE ROLE OF POLICY LEADERSHIP 20

4. SCOPING NATIONAL BROADBAND PLANS: WHAT DO PLANS COVER? 24

4.1. The Efficacy of Plans 26

4.2. Lifespans of Plans 29

4.3. Definitions & Benchmarking 31

5. DO NATIONAL BROADBAND PLANS MATTER? 34

5.1. Choice of Model 36

5.2. Results for Fixed Broadband 38

5.3. Results for Mobile Broadband 40

6. FINANCING PLANS AND PPPs 42

7. CONCLUSIONS 48

8. APPENDICES 52

Appendix 1: Broadband Plan Development Progress 53

Appendix 2: List of National Broadband Plans 54

Appendix 3: Descriptive Statistics for Regression Variables 64

Appendix 4: Results for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Panel Regressions 65

T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s


8/742

Foreword


9/743

In 2011, at the Broadband Leadership Summit, theCommission endorsed a set of advocacy targetscovering broadband policy, affordability anduptake. This report looks specifically at the firsttarget, which calls for broadband policy to be made

universal by 2015, and examines the importance ofpolicy leadership and the effectiveness and policyimplications of national broadband plans.

The repor t is a combinat ion of comparative research,country case studies and statistical analysis withthe main finding being that the presence of a nationalbroadband plan can lead to a significant increase infixed and mobile broadband penetration.

As a result of its research, debates and analys is,

the Broadband Commission believes that the fullbenefits of broadband are most likely to berealized where there is strong partnership betweengovernment, industry and other stakeholders, andwhere policy-makers engage in a consultative,participatory approach.

In reading this report, let me encourage you to thinkabout ways in which broadband development can beaccelerated in your country, to bring the benefits toall citizens and to deliver a better f uture for everyone.

As Co-Vice Chai r of the Broadband Commission for

Digital Development, it is a g reat pleasure to publish

this report prepared in conjunction with Cisco

which demonstrates the importance of national

broadband plans in helping to bring the benefits ofbroadband to all of the worlds people.

Th is report is part of the ongo ing work of the

Broadband Commission, which was c reated in 2010

by ITU and UNESCO in response to UN Secretary-

General Ban Ki-moons call to step up efforts to

accelerate progress towards meeting the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs).

As a high-powered plat form of key poli cy pionee rs,industry executives, thought leaders and academics,

the Broadband Commission has campaigned

actively to raise awareness of the social and

economic benefi ts enabled by broadband networks,

applications and services including improved

health and education services; a better standard

of living; greater empowerment; and enhanced

national competitiveness.

Broadband is a great deal more than just a technology indeed, it is the gateway to a bright future where all

countries can compete in the online digital economy;

where governments can deliver innovative new

e-government services; where the imaginations and

skills of todays children will deliver the inventions

and innovations of tomorrow.

Dr Hamadoun I. Tour

Secretary-General of ITU,Co-Vice Chair of the

Broadband Commission


10/74

Foreword


11/745

John Chambers

Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer, CiscoSystems, Inc.

While private sector companies develop anddisseminate the innovations that advance societies,governments play a critical role by creating an overallvision for how technology can accelerate nationaldevelopment. National policy is crucial for setting an

open and competitive playing fie ld where the best ideasprosper. Market-based structures and incentives allowfor innovation to flourish and benefit a ll stakeholders.And governments that pr io ri ti ze economic and socialdevelopment underpinned by policies that incorporateinformation and communications technologies (ICTs),particularly broadband, best position their countriesfor development.

National broadband plans are an important mechanismfor governments to set this v ision and strategy of how

technology can move their own country forward.Among ICTs, broadband adoption has demonstratedthe greatest impact on GDP growth and the use ofbroadband at the individual level has changed ourlives in a myriad of ways. By prioritizing broadband,setting targets such as adoption, speed and quality,and identifying the critical policy measures to beimplemented, governments signal not only theirintention to create a dynamic environment wherebroadband can growth, but also their commitment toserve their constituents.

Th is following report clea rl y deta ils how nationalbroadband plans play a positive role in countrydevelopment and articulates the crucial el ements of asuccessful broadband plan. We hope this documentcan serve as a guide to all countries and help pavethe way for increased emphasis on how broadbandInternet is a tool for the betterment of our global societ y.

The Internet is the most transformati ve technology ofour generation and its development, even from theearliest days, has benefited from close partnershipbetween government and private sector companies.That is why we are very pleased to cont inue our

deep collaboration w ith the ITU/UNESCO BroadbandCommission for Digital Development in our sharedgoal of fostering an Internet that benefits all ofhumanity. For nearly 30 years, Cisco has been at theheart of Internet infrastructure moving the world toIP. Beginning as a multi-protocol routing companyin 1984, we have focused on market transitions tohelp usher in successive waves of technologicalbreakthroughs from the transition to Internetprotocol (IP) routing to voice-over-IP telephony tothe explosion of cloud-based video over fixed and

wireless networks.

We have always believed that the Internet willrevolut ionize the Way We Work, Live, Play, and Learn.Th is has never been truer than it is today, with cloudand mobility coming together to deliver the Internet ofEverything and unprecedented new opportunities.

Today, we be li eve we are in the midst of the nextmajor evolution of the Internet an Internet wherepeople, processes, data and things all connect overan intelligent network that we call the Internet ofEverything. Previously unconnected objects, suchas automobiles, medical devices and industrialmachinery, are increasingly linking to the Internet. Butcurrently still less than 1% of all physical objects areconnected to Internet. As this share rises, societies,economies and individuals will reap further benefitsfrom network ef fects and increases in productivi ty.


12/74


13/747

In todays digital era, the role for broadband and thebenefits of broadband connectivity in underpinninga countrys progress have never been greater.That is why ITU and the ITU/UNESCO BroadbandCommission for Digital Development have conducted

research into the role of policy frameworks forbroadband, in conjunction with Cisco.

Th is Report fi nds that there has been strong recentgrowth in Plans, with some 134 Plans in force by mid-2013. Plans may take different forms (e.g. legislation,policy framework, strategy and/or regulations) andvary in emphasis (e.g. IT, Information Society, ICT,Digital Agenda, or Broadband). Plans prior to 2005tended to focus on Information Technology (IT) orInformation and Communication Technologies (ICT).

The Informat ion Societ y proved most popu lar as thefocus of Plans in 2007-2008, with broadband growingsharply as the focus of Plans from 2008 onwards.Most recently, Digital Agendas account for a small,but growing, number of Plans. However, all of thesePlans share a common emphasis on the vital role ofbroadband in underpinning national competitiveness,and aim to extend national footprint of broadbandnetworks and usage of broadband-enabled servicesand applications.

Al though the nature of the Plan clea rl y matters (withimportant differences in status between bindingstatutory requirements, broad policy guidance ordetailed regulations), this Report finds that the exactname of the plan or policy framework may not matteras much as other factors, such as political support,buy-in, quality (comprehensive, clear identification ofpriorities), and e nforceability.

The ful l benef its of broadband for enhancing nationalcompetitiveness and empowering citizens are mostlikely to be realized where the re is strong partnership

between government, industry and other stakeholdersand where governments engage in a consultative,participatory approach to the policy-making process,in conjunction with key stakeholders.

There is a need to move from si lo th inking to a morecomprehensive point of view encompassing dif ferentsectors, in recognition of the nature of broadbandas a cross-sectoral enabler. Implementation is still

an issue, with broad-based buy-in by differentstakeholders critica l to a Plans success. Some Planshave been produced as landmark events to helpclarify mandates and/or put regulators on the map.

In a fast-changing technological environment, Plansshould be regularly reviewed and updated. ThisReport finds that the average lifespan for supersededPlans is 8.4 years, while the lifespan for existingPlans currently in force is 7 years. Given evidenceof such long lifespans, it is likely that Plans needto be updated more regularly to take into accountthe rapid shifts in the industry in revenue, pricingand technology. Revisions every 3-5 years are likelyto balance the costs involved in policy-making withdevelopments in a fast-changing industry.

Research conducted for this report suggests thatthe introduction or adoption of a broadband planis associated with 2.5% higher fixed broadbandpenetration, and 7.4% higher mobile broadbandpenetration on average. This result is consistentwith a National Broadband Plan focusing effortsacross industry in coordination with policy-makers,emphasizing the role of broadband as a nationalpriority, and signaling national commitment to theroll-out of broadband.

The same research also found that a compet it ivemarket is also associated with a higher broadbandpenetration, with a stronger impact for mobilebroadband competitive markets may be associatedwith broadband penetration levels some 1.4% higheron average for fixed broadband and up to 26.5%higher on average for mobile broadband (wheremarkets are generall y more competitive).

Broadband Plans are one key means of dialogue,which should seek the views and engagement of all

key stakeholders. Ultimately, there is no single wayto improve broadband; there are many different ways,with different success factors, depending on existingcountry circumstances. Broadband Plans shouldbe viewed as part of a process towards buildingconsensus around a vision for the development ofbroadband within a society, rather than the finaloutcome itself.


14/74

INTRODUCTION


15/749

As countr ies libera lize thei r markets and integratethem into the global economy, their industrialperformance increasingly depends on thecompetitiveness of their firms both local andforeign-owned. Firm-level competit iveness

determines the ability of economies to grow, createjobs, and increase exports. Compet it iveness is vi ta lacross all sectors of the economy as firms faceintensifying competition, both in their domesticmarkets and abroad.

Governments face a range of policy choices as theyseek to raise national competitiveness. While short-term competiveness can be improved temporarilythrough actions such as wage cuts, looseningenvironmental standards, lowering taxation or

the introduction of subsidies, the advantagessuch policies confer are at best transient. Rather,sustained competitiveness requires adopting long-term strategies to raise efficiency, boosting levelsof skills and technology, and investing in criticalinfrastructure for a countrys long-term future.

Today, Information and Communication Technologies(ICTs), and especially broadband networks andservices, are vital for countries economic growth1.They enab le fast and ef ficien t communicat ionsacross countries and continents, driving successin todays global economy. Not only that, but ICTproducts and services are part of the higher-valuehigh-tech sector in their own right, the sectorwhich is growing fastest in international trade, andwhich can sustain faster growth in incomes. It isthis dual role of ICTs and broadband as enablersleveraging technological competitiveness acrossother sectors, as well as an economic sec tor in theirown right which makes ICTs critical for the overallcompetitiveness of nations. Broadband is essentialfor generating new skills and generating economic

growth and technological change across the entireeconomy from agriculture to finance, education,healthcare and modern services.

To acce le rate the impact of ICTs and broadband ongrowth of nations, more can be done to liberalizetelecommunication markets, encourage investment,make services more affordable and promote ICTskills and technological capabilities. Incentivesare needed to build out broadband infrastructure,encourage the development of broadband-enabledapplications and services, and build ICT skills andtechnological capabilitie s among firms. The questionis how best to achieve this.

1 See, for example, Qiang & Rossotto (2009) and the World Banks Information &Communications for Development Report 2009, which suggests that increases inbroadband infrastructure are positively associated with an increase in economic growth.

Th is report examines the use of National BroadbandPlans (NBPs) as one of the key actions to maximizethe impact of broadband. Given what is now knownabout the benefits of broadband, the impact of and need for coordination between Government

policies and commercial strategies in the roll-outand use of ICTs have never been greater. A growingnumber of countries now recognize the importanceof policy leadership and a clear cross-sectoral visionto maximize the economic and social returns toICTs, as shown by the strong recent growth in thenumber of countries with National Broadband Plans.

At the Broadband Leadersh ip Summit in 20112, theBroadband Commission for Digital Developmentadopted four targets, the first of which calls for

countries to adopt a National Broadband Plan.Spurring broadband adoption through policy actioncan accelerate the spread of benefits from high-speed connectivity. However, government actionmust be targeted and carefully reasoned so as notto induce unintended outcomes such as crowdingout private investment or inhibiting innovation andcompetition.

Policy-makers can play a powerful role in spurringbroadband adoption by focusing on policies by:

maximizing the positive outcomes (such asinnovation, investment, access to information); or

preventing negative activity (e.g., unfair pricing,consumer exploitation, breaches of pri vacy).

Effective policy-making promotes the positiveoutcomes, while minimizing cumbersome, confusingand/or changing regulations.

Th is Report prov ides an over view of the recentgrowth in National Broadband Plans. It examinesthe characteristics of what a good plan comprises

and what can determine maximum positive impact,with reference to examples. While exploring thecentral question of whether Plans matter, andwhether Plans really have succeeded in making adifference, the repor t finds compelling evidence of asignificant impact of broadband policy leadership onbroadband adoption.

2 Held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2011. More information about the summitis available at www.broadbandcommission.org/LeadershipSummit.aspx
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/LeadershipSummit.aspxhttp://www.broadbandcommission.org/LeadershipSummit.aspx


16/7410

What is a Plan?


17/74


18/7412

Plans setting out policy guidance and/or the policyframework for telecommunications, ICTs andbroadband can take several forms, with the choiceof vehicle for policy depending on market structure,country circumstances and the institutional context

(Figure 2.2). Plans also vary from presidentialdecrees to detailed vision documents, universalservice directives or tangible laws and regulationspassed by legislative measures:

Legislation

Enacted through Laws, Bills, Acts, or ExecutiveDecrees, legislation carries obligatory status asa legal requirement or onus, usually approved byconstitutional or executive bodies of State. SuchActs set out the framework wi th in which te lecom

services are governed, as well as certain obligationsof the State and other actors. In some countries,a constitutional right has even been established inrelation to telecom services, defining the right ofcitizens to access telecom or broadband services.

Historically, telephony, and subsequently,telecommunication sectors, were usually governedby legislation in many countries, which definedthe responsibilities of the State as owner andoperator of national infrastructure. As such, Actsmay take more time to formulate and be approved,but they often carry compulsory requirements,adding impetus to implementation and for enacting

concrete change. Some countries have succeededin maintaining their legislative bills for a considerablelength of time (e.g. the United States, whichstill maintains its 1996 Telecommunication Act).

However, as the number of countries with regulator ybodies has increased, following market liberalization,the number of countries in which telecommunicationservices are governed solely by a legislativeTelecommunication Act has dropped. More countrieshave brought in regulation and potentially moreflexible policy instruments. The use of dif ferent policychannels in addition to existing legislation can offergreater flexibility, but also carries the potential forconfusion or overlapping responsibilities.

Plan, Policy or StrategyTh is form of policy framework does not genera ll ycarry compulsory requirements, but sets out apositive vision for the development of broadbandand ICTs within a nation. It may not originate with thelegislative, it should hopefully take less time (since itis not compulsory legislation), although participatoryand consultative approaches needed to gain broadsupport and buy-in may not ultimately prove anyeasier. In terminology, the difference between a plan,policy or strategy is still hotly debated, with someviewing Strategy (or White Papers) as high-levelprinciples, while policies spell out the policy measuresfor how the strategy is to be implemented. The OECD
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en


19/7413

considers strategy and Plans as synonymous, notingthat Broadband Plans typically conta in infrastructuredeployment targets aiming to expand the footprintof broadband networks nationally (Box 1).

Regulation

Focusing on universal service obligations (USOs) inparticular, but also including a package of relatedregulations focusing on aspects of price andaffordability, consumer protection and competition.Even though all countries and most Plans share goalsof widespread availability of affordable broadbandinfrastructure, not all countries actually have USOsin force (e.g., Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexicoand South Afri ca).

Some countries have preferred to handle theirrequirements for the deployment of broadbandby reinforcing or extending existing universalservice regulations for example, Andorra, SaudiArab ia , Swit zerland, and Taiwan (PoC). Th is takesadvantage of existing policy frameworks whichare already known to stakeholders and may avoidcreating another layer of policy, potential confusionand/or inconsistencies between old and new policyframeworks. The OECD (2012) notes that the decisionto extend USOs to include broadband dependson a cost-benefit analysis6. Another aspect to thiswhich some countries have adopted is to extendtheir Universal Service Definitions (USDs) to include

6 Calvo, A. G. (2012), Universal Service Policies in the Context of NationalBroadband Plans, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 203, OECD Publishing,available from: www.dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en

broadband (e.g., Argentina, Canada, Ghana, India,Malaysia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia).

Programmes

With greater focus on enactment and implementation,

programmes to deploy broadband are usuallymechanisms for funding and oversee ing the roll-out ofbroadband, and/or building demand for broadband,sometimes for specific sectors. Countries mayextend existing USF programmes or commitments.

A basic legal right

According to ITU data, some twent y countr ies havealso made broadband and/or Internet access aright either as a basic legal right, citizens rightor constitutional right (all of which carry different

connotations, according to the legal framework inthe country of origin). These include Costa Rica(2010), Estonia (2000), Finland (2010), France (2009),Spain and Switzer land (Box 2). The OECD notes thataffordable access to basic communication servicesirrespective of income, location and physicalability have been considered a crucial componentleading to greater social equality, leading some toconclude that universal service or its componentsare a basic right , as the inabilit y to access or use agiven telecommunication service could create socialexclusion. This debate has extended to includenotions of Internet and broadband access as a humanright, although this is more controversial (Box 2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-enhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en


20/7414
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdfhttp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_TheNewInternetWorld_Report_2011.pdf


21/7415

The choice of whether a Broadband Plan shou ldhave statutory status, be updated as regulations oras a Plan (one-off or a rolling Plan) depends on theobjectives, time and resources available. Countrieshave faced a similar conundrum with regards tospectrum while the roles and responsibilitiesfor spectrum are often defined by legislation, thedetailed allocation of spectrum is often defined byspecific regulations, which can be updated morerapidly and regularly.

These policy tools are not exclus ive, wi th manycountries adopting a combination of measures ina pragmatic approach to whatever works best.The review of the experience of di f ferent countr iessuggests that there is no single or correct way to improve broadband; many different wayshave proved successful, in response to differentmarket situations.

For example, the Republic of Korea began early withstrong State involvement prioritizing the developmentof informatization and digital industries. TheGovernment introduced the 1995 Framework Act onInformatization Promotion, which was revised severaltimes, including in 1999 and 2006, followed by theFirst Master Plan for Informatization Promotion andCyber Korea 21 setting out a vision for the twenty-first century. ICT policy in the Republic of Koreahas been characterized on regular and heavyState involvement.

The Un ited States , however, has ma inta ined itsoriginal Telecommunication Act from 1996. Althoughthe U.S. has regulated voice services, data service(including the Internet) have essentially flourishedoutside existing regulatory frameworks, until thelaunch of the U.S. National Broadband Plan by theFederal Communications Commission ( FCC) in 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html%3F_r%3D0


22/7416

In an effort to speed broadband deployment furthe r,President Obama issued an Executive Order18 in2012 to accelerate the construction of broadbandinfrastructure throughout the U.S. by implementinga dig once policy for the U.S. Federal Government.Brazils National Plan has been signed into effect bya Presidential Decree to enforce it (Box 3).

Ultimately, while the nature of the Plan clearlymatters (with differences between binding statutoryrequirements, broad policy guidance or detailedregulations), the exact name or focus of the planor policy framework may not matter as much asits political support, buy-in by all stakeholders, itsquality (including comprehensive, clea r identificationof relevant issues and prioritie s), and implementation.

Indeed, Pyramid Research concludes clear planswith multiple layers of resource support are mostlikely to succeed.

The nature of the Plan also varies sign if icantlyaccording to who developed them, who owns themand who is responsible for implementation and/or follow-up. The development stage is crucial forsoliciting buy-in from all par ties, including government,businesses, civil society and individuals. The degreeto which the plan was craf ted based on consultationoften impacts whether key constituents supportthe final outcome.

More often than not, the final authors of the planare tasked with implementing its recommendations(although there are examples of plans that originatein one body of government and task other agencieswith specific directives such as Malaysia).Sometimes, the development of a Plan can helpclarify the mandate or responsibilities of differentinstitutions in the policy landscape. It may also proveto be a landmark event helping put a new Minister

or newly-created regulator on the map, although itcan also create institutional rivalries between thedifferent bodies vying for visibility or even territory.The ab il it y to implement the ideas generated in theplan is predicated on the implementing agencyspurview in policy making and their capacity to enactchange. It often depends on the existing institutionalcontext for the Plan and responsibilities betweenexisting stakeholders (Figure 2.2).

18 We Cant Wait: President Obama Signs Executive Order to Make BroadbandConstruction Faster and Cheaper, 13 June 2012, White House pressrelease, available at: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613

Figure 2.2: The Institutional Context and

Enabling Environment for Policy

The des ign, the deg ree of consul ta tion employed, theefficacy of the implementing agency and the type ofpolicy vehicle used to present the plan all contributeto the overall immediate impact of the plan.

Plans have changed focus over time. Earlier policymeasures produced between 2000 and 2008generally tended to focus on the broader ICT/ITor the Information Society issues (as indicated bythe blue and purple areas shown in Figure 2.3). Agrowing number of policy measures and Plansbetween 2008-2013 have focused explicitly onbroadband (shown in pale blue in Figure 2.3), whileeven more recently, plans have focused on broader,cross-sectoral considerations of the Digital Agenda19(shown in grey in Figure 2.3). Plans prior to 2005

tended to focus on IT/ICT. The Information Societywas most popular as the focus of Plans in 2007-2008, with broadband growing sharply as the focusof Plans from 2008 onwards. Most recently, DigitalAgenda account for a smal l, but growing, number ofPlans. Although clearly related, National BroadbandPlans focus mainly on infrastructure, while DigitalAgendas include broader addi tional considerat ionsof content, services and applications.

19 Examples include Chiles Digital Agenda 2004, Digital Czech Republic 2011,Estrategia Ecuador Digital 2.0 in 2011, Frances Digital Plan 2010, Digital Gabon2011, Greeces Digital Strategy 2006, Hungarys Digital Renewal Action Plan2010, Italys Italia Digitale plan 2010, Mexicos Digital Agenda 2011, OmansDigital Strategy, United Kingdom 2005, Uruguay Digital Agenda 2008-2010.

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Developme nt,in WEF GITR 2013.

Legislation

LegislatorsJudiciaryLaw enforcement-

Agenci esPolice

Regulation

ICT regulatorData protection agencycompetition agency

CIRTs/CERTsInternational &regional organizations

Operations

Network&service providers

Ven dors

Research institutesStandardizationorganizations

Policy

Ministry of I CT/Communications

END

USERS

Ministry ofinternal affairsOther Ministries
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/13/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-signs-executive-order-make-broadband-const?goback=%2Egde_135547_member_124845613


23/74


24/7418


25/7419


26/7420

The Role of

Policy Leadership


27/7421

Policy leadership can help highlight the role ofbroadband in national development, provide anenabling environment for private investment,coordinate dialogue and encourage work acrossdifferent sectors and Ministries. Over recent years,

policy decision-makers, a growing number ofcommunications Ministries and national regulatorshave made broadband a policy priorit y. The numberof broadband plans and policies, as tracked by ITUand the Broadband Commission, has more thandoubled since December 2009 (Figure 3.1). Thenumber of countries with national broadband plansexploded with a step-level increase in 2009-2010,when at least a dozen countries included broadbandnetwork investment in their countercyclical fiscalstimulus measures20 with broadband infrastructure

investments a priority component in many countrieseconomic stimulus plans21.

20 State of Broadband 2012, UN Broadband Commission 2012.

21 Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic Growth, ITU, Geneva(2009): www.itu.int/osg/csd/emerging_trends/crisis/confronting_the_crisis_2.pdf

By the sta rt of 2013, some 134 or 69% of countries hada national plan, strategy, or policy already in place topromote broadband (excluding the telecommunicationpolicies and Information Society strategies in Figure2.3 above); while 12 countries or 6% are planning to

introduce such measures in the near future (Figure3.2). However, 47 or a quarter of all countries stilldo not have any broadband plan, strategy or policyin place (Figure 3.2). Of those countries with plans,achieving progress in implementation may be morechallenging or slower than envisaged. The numberof national regulatory bodies also continues to grow by 2013, 160 countries had national regulatorybodies, up from 152 in 2008 and 124 in 2002 (ITUTrends in Telecommunication Reform 201322).

22 ITU Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2013, ITU, Geneva.

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digi ta l Development. Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digi ta l Development.

Figure 3.1: A Growing Role for

Policy Leadership

Figure 3.2: Status of Countries/NBPs,

Start 2013

Numberofcountrieswit

hNBPs

2006

2010

2007

2011

2008

2012

2005

2009

2013

17

3138

53

64

102

123

133 134

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes

134; 69.4%

No47; 24.4%

Planned12; 6.2%
http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/emerging_trends/crisis/confronting_the_crisis_2.pdfhttp://www.itu.int/osg/csd/emerging_trends/crisis/confronting_the_crisis_2.pdf


28/7422

Important differences in approach are evidentbetween regions (Figures 3.3 and 3.5). Europehas a marked preference for National BroadbandPlans, with 38 or 88% of European countrieshaving a Plan and/or universal access and service(UAS) definition (Figure 3.4). Africa was well-endowedwith national plans from early in the first decade ofthe new millennium, partly because ICTs have beenincluded in IMF/World Bank Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs). The region with thefewest National Broadband Plans is the Arab States,which have generally revised their Universal ServiceObjectives (USOs) to include broadband. The Americasand Asia-Pacific were the regions most likely to makeuse of both a Plan in combination with aUAS definition (Figure 3.4).

More and more developing countries are includingbroadband in their definitions of universal service.In 2010, 99 or just over two-thirds of the 144developing countries had a universal access/service (UAS) definition. Of those, 49 had included

Internet dial-up within their definition, but only 36out of the 99 countries included broadband in theirdefinition of UAS. This is a dramatic improvementon the situation just f ive years ear lier, in 2005, whenjust 21 developing countr ies included In ternet dial -up in their UAS definitions and only one includedbroadband. Including broadband in definitionsof universal access and service signals a policycommitment to digital inclusion for all. However, thismay not always find favour w ith the private sector. Ina consultation carried out by BEREC in 2012 on itsdraft Broadband Promotion Report, several privatesector companies expressed their concerns thatuniversal service may not be an appropriate toolto achieve broadband targets. BEREC noted thatthis is an issue to be decided by Member States inview of their specific national circumstances, andexpressed its willingness to work with the EC toestablish guidelines for minimization of any eventualmarket distortions arising from the implementation ofUniversal Service measures23.

23 Pages 4 and 5, BEREC Report of the Consultation on the Draft BERECBroadband Promotion Report, February 2012, available from www.berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-report

NBP - yes

NBP - planning

NBP - no

No data

Figure 3.3: World Map according to status of National Broadband Plan (NBP)

Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Regulatory Database; The State of Broadband 2013 (forthcoming). Countries aiming for a Pla ninclude Azerbaijan, Be nin, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cuba, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Microne sia, Senegal, Solomon Isla nds, Togo and Vanuatu.
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-report


29/7423

Figure 3.5: Regional Status of Countries with NBPs

UAS definition includes broadband

Both a plan and UAS definition

National Broadband Plan

Yes

2228 27

38

6

23

12

20

3

4

Af rica Amer icas Europe OceaniaAs ia0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 3.4: Regional Differences in the Choice of Policy Instrument

Af ri ca Amer icas EuropeArab States As ia-Pac if ic CIS0%

10%

30%

20%

40%

50%60%

59%

69%

52%

66%

33%

88%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Planned

No

Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Regulatory Database.



30/7424

Scoping National

BroadbandPlans: What do

Plans Cover?


31/7425

Nearly nine Plans out of ten reference broadbandinfrastructure deployment targets. Consistent withoriginal visions of Plans as blueprints for extendingthe national footprint of broadband infrastructure,88% or nearly nine-tenths of all Plans address thenationwide deployment of infrastructure, including

universal service (Figure 4.1). Two-thirds of all Plansreference the delivery of public serv ices and adoptionof broadband services and apps, while 58% of Plansreference household ta rgets.

However, recently Plans are extending to consider awealth of other issues, consistent with a move fromconsideration of just infrastructure to cross-sectoralissues, reflecting broadbands vital role in leveragingprogress across other sectors. Examining in moredetail the sectoral goals contained in the National

Broadband Plans, education is the top priority inmost Plans, referenced in 86% of all Plans around the

world24. Around 80% or four-fifths of all Planscontain references to e-government and citizenparticipation and employment, reflecting the utilityof broadband networks for accessing informationand government services, creating and accessingjobs, and participating in ci tizen processes. Th ree-

quarters or 75% of all Plans address health andhealthcare delivery. PPPs, technology transferand innovation are referenced by six out of tenPlans, while issues of accessibility, environmentalsustainability, poverty reduction and gender arereferenced by a much smaller proportion of Plans,at around a third of all Plans (Figure 4.1). ICTs arethemselves important drivers of innovation, whichcan boost service delivery25. Here, more than ever,the vital importance of broadband as a cross-cuttingplatform for the delivery of services in many other

sectors is apparent.

24 For a good overview of the issues and considerations raised for the effectiveintegration of broadband into education, see the Technology, Broadband andEducation report of the Broadband Commission Working Group on Education,chaired by UNESCO, February 2013, at: www.broadbandcommission.org

25 Shaw & Lanvin (2012), Broadband, Inevitable Innovation and Development,WIPO/INSEAD Global Innovation Index 2012: Stronger Innovation Linkages forGlobal Growth.

Figure 4.1: What Exactly do Plans Focus on?

0%

Natio

nwid

einfra

stru

ctur

e

E

duc

atio

n

Gov

erna

nce&

citi

zenpa

rticip

aton

Emplo

yment

Health

Ad

optio

nof

public

apps&

servi

ces

Tech

nology

tra

nsfe

r

PPP

s

Youth

Acc

essibilityf

orP

WD

s

Pov

erty

red

uctio

n&

food

sec

urity

Gender

Oth

er

10%

30%

20%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%88% 86%

82% 81%75%

66% 65% 64%

45%

37%31% 29%

14%

100%

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Developme nt.
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/http://www.broadbandcommission.org/


32/74


33/74


34/7428
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6009%29http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/publications/trends12.html%0D


35/7429

4.2. Lifespans of Plans

In a fast-changing industr y, Plans should be regularlyreviewed and updated. Over the sample of Plansanalysed, of those countries that have updated theirPlan, the average lifespan of a superseded Plan(which has been replaced or updated) was 8.4 years.Of those countries with Plans currently in force byApri l 2013, the average age of an ex isting Plan st il lcurrently in force is 7 years by 2013, despite massivechanges in the industry since 2006. In an industryundergoing rapid change and seismic shifts inrevenue, pricing and technology, policy frameworksare likely to become outdated more rapidly, andneed to be updated more regularly.

Around fi f ty countr ies have in troduced Plans for aspecific time pe riod set out in the title. The durationsof these rolling plans differ between 3-14 years, w ithfive-year periods proving the most popular timespan28.

28 Thi s finding concurs with Pyramid Researchs findi ng tha tfive-year Plans are most popular in Latin America PyramidResearch, Latin America Telecom Insider, Vol.3, No.9,National Broadband Plans Show a Diversity of Methods buta Unity of Purpose, December 2011.

Indeed, this was the length of time mandated by theeEurope Plus Plan for Action, which required eachountry to establish five years plan from 2001 (e.g.,as followed by Poland, with its ePoland Strategyfrom 2001-2006). Over twenty countries with rollingplans opted for a five-year period for their rollingplan (Figure 4.3). Time periods sometimes followparliamentar y or political terms of office, where thereis clear ownership of a Plan.

While some countries have carried out direct updatessimply rolling forward existing Plans, most countriesrefine the focus of their Plans. For example, the

Philippines Digital Strategy 2.0 replaced the formerPhilippines ICT Roadmap after five years. Whilethe new Plan builds on its predecessor with similarstrategic thrusts, the new Plan contains a more in-depth focus on specific areas (Box 5).

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Developme nt.

Figure 4.3: Duration of Rolling Plans

4

7

22

2 1 2 4

6

03 4 5 6 7 8 9 >10

5

10

15

35

20

Duration (years)

Numberofcountries


36/7430
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/broadband/BB_MDG_Philippines_BBCOM.pdf%20%0D


37/7431

Source: Philippine Digital Strategy 2011-2016 and Philippine Strategic Roadmap for the ICT Sector 2006-2010; TheEconomic Impact of Broadband in the Philippines case study, available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/broadband/BB_MDG_Philippines_BBCOM.pdf

4.3. Definitions and Benchmarking

Without data, there is no visibilit y. Without visibility,there is no inclusion (UNDP Human DevelopmentReport 1995). Without data, it is difficult, if not

impossible, to make a convincing case for the stateof digital connectivity across a nation, and theinclusion of remote or marginalized communitiesin ICT policies, plans and strategies. Movingfrom ideas to action, however, requires detailedplanning, choosing viable options and determininghow best to fund investments in a self-sustainingmanner. Observations need to be substantiated bybenchmarking, quantifying the scope and intensityof the digital divides ac ross a country, and evaluatingthe challenge in bringing all regions or communitiesonline to achieve equality in digital opportunity.Benchmarking and comparison with internationallycomparable ICT indicators is helpful in informingICT policy-makers, telecom operators, business andcustomers themselves, to enable them to asserttheir right to ICT access.

A considerab le number of plans include researchto make the case for the benefits of broadbandand benchmarking to evaluate where broadbandconnectivity is good within the national footprint,and where it needs to be improved. Some four-fifths

or 80% of all Plans refer to the nationwide roll-outof broadband infrastructure, and the majority do

so through the use of benchmarking or situationalanalysis and targets. Some Plans refer to broadbandgenerically or sometimes define broadband (usually

in terms of access speeds). Many Plans set targetsfor coverage or the statement of an aspirationalgoal for a minimum speed (for example, the UnitedKingdoms Digital Agenda defines a nationa l minimumspeed of 2 Mbps see Box 7).

To date, national broadband plans of ten prov idetargets for rolling out broadband to populations orpriority groups and communities often in phaseswith rolling targets for specified years; oftenwith specified speeds; sometimes for specifiedtechnologies. Countries have vari ed in the boldness oftheir targets (Box 6). Targets may be defined in termsof population coverage (e.g., in Estonia, EstWin is aPPP that aims to make 100 Mbps wide-band Internetavailable to every citizen by 2015), households orpremises passed (e.g., Brazil, Germany, Finland) orgeographical area (e.g., the UK ).

In contrast to positive analysis of the present or futuredesired situation, some Plans go one step furtherand benchmark existing gaps in terms of deficienciesor problems encountered and the additional action

or investments needed to bridge the gaps. Oneexample is the UKs Digital Britain Plan (Box 7).


38/7432

Source: ITU research.

Note: Australias targets specify 100% geographic coverage, with 93% at 100 Mbps and 7% at 12 Mbps.The EU has a dua l obj ect ive for 2020 of 30 MB for all EU households and 100 MB for 50% of EU households. [HH] denote s ahousehold target.

Finland 2016

Denmark 2020

Aust ra li a, US

Sweden 2020

Sweden 2015

New Zealand 2019Germany 2014 [HH]

Spain 2015

Europe 2020 [HH]Paraguay 2014

Colombi a 2014

Brazil 2014 [HH]

Spain 2011Slovak Republic 2020

Aust ri a 2013United Kingdom,France,

Europe 2012

Europe 2020

0

0

10

40

80

20

50

90

30

70

60

100

20 40 8060

Broadband Speed (Mbps)

Coverage

(%populationorhouseholds)

100

Figure 4.4: Targets Set by NBPs


39/74


40/74


41/7435

A mounting body of ev idence is demonstrat ingthe impact of NBP implementation on broadbandpenetration. The mention above of Koreas earlyleadership in IT promotion and planning is an often-cited example. Since the mid-1990s when Korea

began its first information infrastructure initiative, thecountry has become a world leader in broadbandadoption. This development has spurred economicgrowth across a range of sectors and since 1995,Koreas per capita income has more than doubled(from $11,620 in 1995 to $25,050 in 2012) accordingthe IMFs World Economic Ou tlook (April 2013).

Singapore is another example, as the small islandstate has had national IT related plans in place since1985 (starting with the National Computerisation Plan

and most recently the iN2015, issued in 2006). Overthis period the country has significantly advanced itsICT environment. In 1980 Singapore was still at anearly stage in ICT development as it had only 22.2fixed lines per 100 people; substantiall y below othercountries such as Australia (32.3 fixed lines per 100people) and New Zealand (36.1 fixed line per 100people). But today, Singapore stands atop severalmeasures of ICT and broadband adoption, such as the

2013 Networked Readiness Index where Singaporeranks second worldwide out of 144 countries.

Other country examples include Spain, where PlanAvanza, launched in 2005, has been cred ited wi th

helping to double Internet usage and broadbandfixed line penetration, as well as driving a culturechange that is spurring broadband adoption29.

In addition to anecdotal examples, the BroadbandCommission has investigated the role of NationalBroadband Plans in driving broadband penetrationin both fixed and mobile broadband subscriptionsthrough statistical analysis. Based on simpleobservation of the statistics, those countries withNational Broadband Plans are observed to have an

average fixed broadband penetration of 12.7%, or8.7% higher than countries without a Plan, whichhave an average fixed broadband penetration of4% (Figure 5.1, left chart). For mobile broadband,those countries with National Broadband Plans areobserved to have an average mobile broadbandpenetration of 27.5%, or 18.6% higher than countrieswithout a Plan, which have an average mobilebroadband penetration of 8.9% (Figure 5.1, right chart).

29 Lanvin, Torres Mancera, Busquets. Promoting Information Societies in ComplexEnvironments: An In-Depth Look At Spains Plan Avanza. Global IT Report 2010.Chapter 2.1. WE F.

Figure 5.1: Differences in Broadband Penetration According to the Presence of a NBP, 2013


0% 0%

NBP - no NBP - noNBP - yes

Ave rage level of fi xed broadband penetrationaccording to existence of NBP

Ave rage leve l of mobi le broadband penetrat ionaccording to existence of NBP

NBP - yesGap Gap

2% 5%

4%10%

6%

15%8%

20%10%

25%12%

30%14%


42/7436

However, these simple descriptive statistics give noindication whether having a Plan in place activelydrives broadband penetration higher dif ferences inincome between countries mean that Figure 5.1 mayimplicitly just divide the group into higher-income

countries which can afford to roll out broadband anddesign a Plan, and lower-income countries which areless able to roll out broadband and less likely to beable to afford to consult on a Plan, or introduce one.

In order to examine the interplay of many differentvariables and their relationship with broadband, theITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission and Ciscodeveloped a model investigating how fixed andmobile broadband penetration varies with economic

level of development (income), geography, regulation,competition, the presence or absence of a NBP andprivate sector participation and their role influenc ingthe uptake of broadband

5.1. Choice of Model

The anal ys is was conducted through econometricmodeling using panel regressions of up to 165countries based on data for a ten-year period from

2001-2011, testing linear correlations betweenbroadband penetration and NBPs using panelregressions and Generalized Least Squares (GLS)estimation, assuming fixed effec ts (Box 8).

One potential problem is endogeneity (or reversecausation) in some instances, rapid growth inbroadband penetration could create incentivesor otherwise induce countries to introduce a NBP having first experienced the initial benefits ofbroadband, Governments or regulators may be

encouraged to introduce a Plan as a means offacilitating further growth in the market.

Panel data regressions are a powerful statisticaltechnique which can help address this problem byexamining variations in a cohort of data observationsover a time period to examine the relationshipsbetween variables more closely. Panel regressionsalso minimize problems of omitted variable bias(the omission of important variables) and multi-collinearity (the co-variation or inter-dependence ofvariables modeled as independent).

Panel regressions have the advantage of discountingknown and unknown country fixed effects theseare structural or geographic framework conditions(e.g. institutional environment) which generally holdconstant over the time period examined. Suchbackground fixed effects may be important for eachcountry, but they do not enter into the variationsstudied across the cohort, as they hold constant.

Fixed and mobile broadband penetration weremodeled as two separate dependent variables,as they follow distinctly separate growth patterns

fixed broadband has been available for severaldecades (through various technologies), while mobilebroadbands growth curve only started in 2001 andshows stronger growth since 2007. Fixed and mobilebroadband were therefore modeled separately toavoid losing important variations in the model throughaveraging distinct phenomena together. Box 9presents the results for fixed broadband penetrationand Box 10 for mobile broadband penetration.

It is well-established that broadband penetration

varies with levels of national development, therefore,Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita wasincluded in the model to control for the differencesin economic resources between developed anddeveloping countries that play a role in drivingpenetration levels up. The presence (or absence) of aNBP was included in order to assess the environmentof policies devoted to broadband in a country.

Differences in levels of urbanization reflectgeographical barriers or isolated localitiesthat could affect the costs and deployment of

broadband, especially fixed. This variable controlsfor demographic changes (e.g. migration) thatcould increase urban population and therefore raisedemand for broadband that does not derive fromnational policies, GDP per capita or competition.

The degree of compet it ion (for both the fi xed andmobile market) was represented by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which is commonly acceptedas a measure of market concentration. Moreconcentrated markets (and less competitive markets)

are represented by a HHI approaching 1 (for a fullmonopoly).


43/74


44/7438

The regu la tory variab le is included to assess theimpact of regulation on broadband penetration. Asit is difficult to quantitatively measure the quality ofregulation, this variable was a simple binary variablefor the presence (or absence) of an independent

regulatory authority.

Domestic credit to private sector (Pcredit) is a proxyvariable used to assess how active a role the privatesector plays in a country. It includes estimates ofassets available to the private sector (e.g. loans,purchases of non-equity securities, trade credits and

other accounts that establish a cla im for repayment).

5.2. Results for Fixed Broadband

For fixed broadband, the panel regression modelfor 158 countries has a high explanatory powerof 70% and the majority of variables included aresignificant (Box 9 and Appendix 4). NBP is highlysignificant in the model and to have a positive effectin Pf. Factoring out the effects of all other variables,

countries with a NBP are found to be associatedwith a 2.5% higher fixed broadband penetration withall other variables are held constant. Notably, theNBP coefficient is the largest absolute coefficient.

GDP per capita is an important variable, as itcontrols for differences in income between countriesthat could be responsible for driving penetration up.Al though the ef fect of simply GDP per capi ta whenall the other variables are held constant is positiveand highly significant, it is not in fact sizeable.

Urbanization has a highly signif icant coef ficient of 0.6,suggesting that a 1% increase in urban populationis associated with an increase of +0.6% in fixedbroadband penetration. This finding of a significantrelationship reflects the problem of last-mileconnectivity in remote areas, and suggests that thecosts of deploying f ixed (wired) broadband in isolatedareas are a ma jor barrier to boosting f ixed broadbandpenetration in a countr y.

The resu lts of the ef fects of compet it ion in the fi xed

broadband model are interesting. The sign of thecoefficient in Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)of the fixed broadband market is, as expected,statistically significant and negative, suggesting thatmore concentrated markets for fixed broadband areassociated with lower fixed broadband penetration.

The move to a HHI of 1 (or monopoly market ) isassociated with a reduction in fixed broadbandpenetration of 1.4%. A competitive market istherefore a relevant variable and plays a role indriving broadband penetration.

The presence of a regu lator is not sign if icant inthe model, and is not associated with higher fixedbroadband penetration, when all other variables areheld constant. This does not mean that a regulatordoes not affect levels of penetration. The model onlyhas data for the presence or absence of a regulator,which fails to reflect the complexity and quality ofthe regulatory environment. This does not excludea role for the regulator in driving change via anyof the other variables for example, the Body ofEuropean Regulators for Electronic Communication

(BEREC) has suggested that one of the NR As mostimportant role [in formulating strategies to promotebroadband] is to increase competition by makingaccess possible for entrants30.

Domestic credit to the private sector is foundto be highly significant in the model, with apositivecoeffi cient of 0.08, suggesting that countrieswith a larger proportion of financial activities(which may translate into greater investment) havehigher fixed broadband penetration. The estimationsuggests that an increase of 1% in the domestic

credit to the private sector as a share of the GDP isassociated with fixed broadband penetration 0.08%higher on average, ceteris paribus.

30 Page 16, BEREC Report of the Consultation on the Draft BEREC BroadbandPromotion Report, February 2012, available from: www.berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-report
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-report


45/7439

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development.


46/74


47/7441

Source: ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development.


48/7442

Financing Plansand PPPs


49/7443

National Broadband Plans usually set out a visionfor the development of broadband within a country,but there is a need for funding to turn this visioninto action, and plans should also contain solidconsideration of the financing and investment driving

growth in broadband. Plans can help mobilizeresources from the public and private sectors forinvestment and expansion of broadband services for example, by raising awareness of the importanceof broadband, by demonstrating commitment tothe development of the ICT sector, or by clarifyingexpectations vis a vis the role of the State comparedwith the role of the private sector. One key issueis whether public agencies should participate indevelopment of broadband; and if so, should therebe partnership wi th private players?

The World Bank (2012) notes that, for broadbandnetwork investments, the private sector will leadthe necessary investment, but it cannot do it alone.Governments must create the enabling environmentand, under the most challenging conditions, beprepared to lead31 . Following the financial crisis,as many as fifty Governments identified investmentsin broadband infrastructure as a key component oftheir economic stimulus plans, par tly due to evidencesuggesting multiplier effects to investments inbroadband infrastructure32. However, given the sloweconomic recovery, and with many Governmentspursuing austerity measures, the question of how tofund the broadband deployment persists, especiallyfor harder-to-reach rural and remote areas.

There is a sign if ican t body of evidence to sugges t thatprivate and competitive markets have successfullyaccelerated service delivery to a large majority ofcustomers, accelerating market growth, enhancinginnovation, boosting subscriptions and reducingprices33. However, evidence is growing that private,

competitive market provision does not a lways providelast-mile access to every subscriber, mainly dueto the higher marginal costs of providing last-mileaccess, which increase dramatically for connectingup the last subscribers, threatening the commercialviability of servi ng these areas (Figure 6.1).

The UKs Digi ta l Br itain Plan acknowledges theemerging industry consensus that despite welcomeinvestment and competition, the economics of NGN

31 Partnerships for Broadband: Innovative public private partnershipswill support the expansion of broadband networks, Doyle Gallegos,June (2012), available at:www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdf

32 Confronting the Crisis: ICT Plans for Economic Growth, ITU, Geneva, 2009.

33 ITU World Telecommunication Development Report 2002: Reinventing Telecoms,at: www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_02/

broadband deployment mean that there will remainup to a third of the country both homes andSMEs not served in the way that the rest of thecountry is by the fixed telecom market (Box 11),effectively acknowledging that it may not prove

commercially v iable to provide the entire country withbroadband, leaving up to one-third of the countryto be financed and/or serviced with broadband byalternative means.

Most Plans acknowledge the costs and difficultiesof universal service indeed, this is the specificproblem which many Plans aim to address. Themarket segment or proportion of a country that isdifficult to serve in a commercially viable way variesbetween different countries according to population

distribution and geography. This proportion thatmay prove commercially unviable to connect canbe defined by market share, size of anticipatedrevenues, % population, or geographical coverage for example, it is identified as one-third of thegeographical area of the country in the U.K. (Box 11)or the fina l 5% population coverage in Finland (Box 12).

In its 2012 consultation, BEREC also noted thatthere is a clear role for both private and publicinvestments to incentivize broadband promotion. Inorder to promote an effic ient use of public money, toavoid a crowding out effect of private investmentsand to prevent market distortions, public fundsare expected to focus in geographic areas whereinvestment in normal market conditions is notfeasible and or/in demand-side activities that couldenhance broadband adoption and usage34.

Indeed, one difficult y with proposing more extensiveState funding is that private players may becomereluctant to invest, if they get the feeling that Stateis moving in the so-called crowding out argument

that public sector investment may discourage theprivate sector from investing (although relatively fewPlans consider this argument directly in these terms).In view of scale of investments needed for NGN, aswell as the objectives (e.g., programmes and projectsto connect schools), many Plans neverthelessenvisage some sort of State involvement, with themain differences between Plans evident in themechanisms chosen.

34 Page 8, BEREC consultatio n; available at: www.sberec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-report
http://%20http//siteresources.worldbank.org/http://%20http//siteresources.worldbank.org/http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_02/http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/51-berec-report-on-the-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-broadband-promotion-reporthttp://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_02/http://%20http//siteresources.worldbank.org/


50/7444

Among the Plans rev iewed, near ly ha lf ci te the use ofPPPs to fund broadband deployment, while around40% envisage the use of Government grants andother direct financial subsidies. A quarter cite the useof USFs and a fifth the use of a dedicated broadbanddevelopment fund (Figure 6.2). In a recent ITU studyof PPPs, government grants were used to supportaround half the broadband projects identified in thereport35. The Arab States stand out for recourse toPPPs, while Europe is the region where countrieshave resorted least to the use of USFs, partly dueto geography and competition concerns (Figure6.3). The World Bank (2012) notes that PPPs take avariety of forms, including privatization, Initial PublicOfferings (IPOs), management and concessioncontracts, Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) andnetwork leasing36.

35 Developing successful public-private partnerships to foster investment in

universal broadband networks, ITU (2013).36 Partnerships for Broadband: Innovative public private partnerships

will support the expansion of broadband networks, Doyle Gallegos,June (2012), available at: www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdf

BEREC and the FTTH Council (2012) note that PPPsshould (a) properly identify economic and socialtargets (b) effectively match the resources andcompetences of different partners and (c) designa network in line with different areas geographicalconstraints and (d) define the expected demand andservices required.

In view of the costs of connecting the last subscribers(Figure 6.1), and given that the significant investmentsand extensive benefits of broadband connecti vity, it islikely that both public and private sector involvementmay be needed. Policy-makers and industry shouldensure solid consideration of financing mechanismsis included in broadband Plans, as nationalcompetitiveness is at stake.

Figure 6.1: The Costs of Connecting the Last Subscribers

A compar ison of marg inal connect ion costs for connecting the las t subscr ibers reveals some interes tingtrends. Although satellite may have higher overall costs per subscriber for connecting subscribersinitially, the marginal costs of connecting additional subscribe rs are zero. Conversely, fibre and wireless

may have lower costs for the bulk of first subscribers to be connected, but for the last subscriber s tobe connected, the marginal costs escalate quickly. The graph below demonstrates the step changesin incremental roll-out costs once fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) and fibre-to-the-home (FTTH), wirelessand satellite reaches 60-70% population coverage.

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0Capiralcosrperpr

emisesactivated

($perpremises)

Fiber Wireless

Satellite

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Premises covered (%)

Source: the Broadband Stakeholder Group, quoted in the Digital Britain Plan.Note: Amounts quoted in UK pounds sterling.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/1221297_Broadband_PolicyNote_LowRes.pdf


51/7445


52/7446

Figure 6.3: Means of Financing the Broadband Plans, by Region 2012

Af rica Arab States As ia & Paci fi c Europe The Americas

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Government grants of other direct financial subsidies

Public-private partnerships (PPPs)

Other, please specif y

P

ercentageofresponses

Universal service fund

Dedicated broadband developement fund


Figure 6.2: Means of Financing Broadband Plans, 2012

0%

19%

Dedicatedbroadbanddevelopment fund

Universalservice fund Government grantsof other directfinancial subsidies

Public-privatepartnerships

(PPPs)Other

25%

25%48%

33%

20%

10%

40%

30%

60%

50%



53/7447


54/7448

cONCLUSIONS


55/7449

There has been strong recent growth in Plans, wi thsome 134 Plans in force by mid-2013. Plans maytake different forms (legislation, policy framework,strategy and/or regulations) and present a differentfocus on different aspects (IT, Information Society,

ICT, Digita l, Broadband). Plans prior to 2005 tendedto focus on IT/ICT. The Information Society was mostpopular as the focus of Plans in 2007-2008, withbroadband growing sharply as the focus of Plansfrom 2008 onwards. Most recently, Digital Agendasaccount for a small, but growing, number of Plans.However, all these Plans share a common emphasison the vital role of broadband in underpinningnational competitiveness, and a im to extend nationalfootprint of broadband networks and usage ofbroadband-enabled services and applications.

Al though the nature of the Plan clea rl y matters (withimportant differences in status between bindingstatutory requirements, broad policy guidance ordetailed regulations), the exact name of the plan orpolicy framework may not matter as much as otherfactors, such as political support, buy-in, its quality(comprehensive, clear identification of priorities),and enforceability.

The fu ll benefi ts of broadband for enhancingnational competitiveness and empowering citizensare most likely to be realized where there is strongpartnership between Government, industry andother stakeholders and where Governmentsengage in a consultative, participatory approachto the policy-making process, in conjunction withkey stakeholders.

There is a need to move from si lo th inking to a morecomprehensive point of view encompassing dif ferentsectors, in recognition of the nature of broadbandas a cross-sectoral enabler. Implementation is still

an issue, with broad-based buy-in by differentstakeholders critical to a Plans success. SomePlans have been produced as landmark eventsto help clarify mandates and/or put regulatorson the map.

In a fast-changing technological environment, Plansshould be regularly reviewed and updated. Giventhe average lifespan for superseded Plans of 8.4years and for existing Plans currently in force of 7years, Plans should be updated more regularly to

take into account the rapid shifts in the industry (inrevenue, pricing and technology). Revisions every3-5 years are likely to balance the costs involvedin policy-making with developments in a fast-changing industry.

Research conducted for this report suggests that acompetitive market may be assoc iated with a higherbroadband penetration, with much stronger impactfor mobile broadband (competitive markets may beassociated with broadband penetration levels some

1.4% higher on average for fixed broadband and upto 26.5% higher on average for mobile broadband).

The introduction or adoption of a broadband planis associated with 2.5% higher fixed broadbandpenetration, and 7.4% higher mobile broadbandpenetration on average. This result is consistentwith National Broadband Plans focusing effortsacross industry in coordination with policy-makers,emphasizing the role of broadband as a nationalpriority, and signaling national commitment to theroll-out of broadband.

Broadband Plans are one key means of dialogue,which should seek the views and engagement of allkey stakeholders. Ultimately, there is no single wayto improve broadband; there are many different ways,with different success factors, depending on existingcountry circumstances. Broadband Plans shouldbe viewed as part of a process towards buildingconsensus around a vision for the development ofbroadband within a society, rather than the finaloutcome itself.


56/7450

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHYCalvo, A. G. (2012), Universal Service Policies in the Context of National BroadbandPlans, OECD Digit al Economy Papers, No. 203, OECD Publishing, available from:www.dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en.

ITU World Telecommunication Regulatory Survey and Database.

ITU Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2012.

ITU Measuring the Information Societ y 2012, ITU, Geneva.

The State of Broadband 2012: Ach ieving Digi ta l Inc lusion for A ll , repor t by the ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development.

Pyramid Research, Latin Amer ica Telecom Insider, Vol.3, No.9, National BroadbandPlans Show a Di versity of Methods but a Unit y of Purpose, December 2011.

World Economic Forum Global Information Technology Repor t 2013, Chapter 1.3by Cisco.

World Economic Forum Global Information Technology Report 2013, chapter bythe Broadband Commission for Digital Development.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94gz19flq4-en.


57/7451

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSBEREC Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication

BPO Business Process Outsourcing

CEO Chief Executive Office r

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLS Generalized Least Squares

HHI Herfi ndahl-Hirschman Index

ICTs Information and Communication Technologies

ISOC Internet Society

ITU International Telecommunication Union

IXP Internet Exchange Point

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NBP National Broadband Plan

NGN Next-Generation Network

NRA ` National Regulatory Authority

NSO National Statistical Office

PPP Public-Private Partnership

SMEs Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises

SMP Significant Market Power

UAS Universal Access and Service

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

USD Universal Service Directive

USF Universal Service Fund

USO Universal Service Obligations


58/7452

Appendices


59/7453

Appendix 1: Broadband Plan Development Process

There is no sing le method to create a national broadband plan. Just as a policy may be mostappropriate in one context but ill advised for another, the process for developing a nationalbroadband plan will depend on unique political and economic characteristics of a country at aparticular point in time. However, the steps below can be used as a guide to consider the variouselements of a national plan, as well as the sequencing in plan development.

1. Determine the convening and implementing bodies as detailed in this report, theconvening and implementing agencies play crucial roles in the success of the plan. Theju risdic tion of the implementing agency (e.g., government ministry, regu lator, legislat ivecommittee) will determine if the policy recommendations in the plan are immediatelyactionable. The more the actions identified in the plan fall under the purview of theconvening and/or implementing bodies, the greater the likelihood of impact of the plan.

2.Identify the consultative approach the extent to which stakeholders are supportiveand informed of the details of the plan will impact the ability to implement the plan.The ex tent of consul tation in plan development ranges from informat iona l (pub licannouncement of the completed plan with very limited input except from groupsassociated with the convening agency), consultative (one or more time windows open forpublic commentary on a published draft plan) or active participation (iterative processof consultation through workshops, public consultations and joint reviews of drafts).

3. Landscape assessment, benchmarking and identification of binding constraints assessing the degree of broadband adoption, benchmarking versus relative comparatorsand identification of critical binding constraints are all necessary in order to develop arelevant courses of action in the national broadband plan. Broadband and ICT adoption

should be measured, as well as the various components of infrastructure (international,national and access capacities and prices), market structure (in wireless, wireline andbroadband) and technologies utilized, as well as relevant business and regulatory factors.

4. Goal setting once a rigorous assessment of the broadband landscape is complete, aswell as benchmarking versus relevant comparators, those components factor into theestablishment of goals and targets for the national broadband plan. Plan goals gain muchattention so it is important to set feasible targets based on rigorous analysis. Goals tend to focuson coverage/adoption, speed targets (important to consider not just download speeds butupload and latency) or economic impacts (such as employment targets or industr y building).

5. Identify possible policy interventions once the constraints to broadband marketdevelopment have been highlighted, the next step is to match possible policy interventions.Th is includes reviewing best practices as we ll as various menus of policy in tervent ionsthat apply to particular bottlenecks and constraints in the market being reviewed.

6. Match and filter policy actions on the basis of impact and feasibilit y while some actions maybe very impact ful, they may require significant investment (either financial or poli tical will).Other actions may be more feasible though impac t may be less. The process of filtering thedifferent policy options available leads to the final recommendations put forth in the plan.

7. Plan launch and implementation the launch process may include a window of publicconsultation while the completed plan is still in draft form. A high level launch can help to

draw attention to the overall goal of focusing on increasing broadband adoption and spurpublic interest and momentum that feeds into the implementation stage.


60/7454

Economy Policyavailable?

Yearpolicy wasadopted

Ti tle/detai ls

Afghan is tan Yes 2008 Afghan is tan National Deve lopment St rategy: 1387 1391 (2008 2013)

Albania Yes 2008 E-A lban ia

Algeria Yes 2008 E-A lgr ie 2013

Andorra Yes 2009 Universa l Access Service

Ango la Yes 2010 White Book of Informat ion and Communicat ionTechnolog ies, Li vro branco das Tecnologias daInformao e Comunicao LBTIC

Antigua & Barbuda Yes 2012 GATE 2012

Argent ina Yes 2010 Plan Nacional de Telecomunicac iones - Argent inaConectada

Armenia Yes 2008 Government Of Republ ic Of Armenia Decree No35On Approving The Information Technology Sector

Development Concept PaperAustra lia Yes 2010 National Broadband Network

Austria Yes 2010 Broadband Austria - Brei tband st rategie 2020

Azerbai jan Planning

Bahamas Yes 2003 Policy Statement on Electronic Commerce and theBahamian Digital Agenda

Bahrain Yes 2010 National Broadband Network for the Kingdom of Bahrain

Bangladesh Yes 2009 Broadband National Policy Act 2009

Barbados Yes 2010 National Information and Communication TechnologiesStrateg ic Plan of Barbados 2010-2015

Belarus Yes 2011 National programme on accelerated development ofservices in the field of information and communicationtechnologies for 20112015

Belgium Yes 2009 Belgi : digitaal hart van Europa

Belize Yes 2011 ICT National Strategy

Appendix 2: Selected Economies With National BroadbandPolicies, 2013


61/7455

Economy Policyavailable?


Ti tl e/detai ls

Benin Planning

Bhutan Yes 2008 National Broadband Master Plan Implementation Project(NBMIP)

Bolivia No

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

No

Botswana Yes 2004 Botswanas National ICT Policy

Brazil Yes 2010 National Broadband Plan (Plano Nacional de BandaLarga - PNBL)

Brunei Darussalam Yes 2008 National Broadband Blueprint

Bulgaria Yes 2009 National strategy of broadband development in Republicof Bulgaria

Burkina Faso Yes 2006 Lettre de politique sectorielle 2006-2010

Burundi Yes 2011 Burundi/ ICT : National Projects for BroadbandConnectivity Burundi Community Telecentre Network(BCTN)

Cambodia Yes 2011 2015 ASEAN ICT Master PLAN /Cambodia ICT development Strategy 2011-2015

Cameroon No

Canada Yes 2010 Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians

Cape Verde Planning

Central AfricanRep.

Yes 2006 Poli tique, St ratgies et plan d'act ions de l'di fi ca tion dela Socit de l'Information en Rpublique Centrafricaine

Chad Yes 2007 Plan de dveloppement des technologies delInformation et de la Communication au Tchad orPLAN NICI


62/7456

EconomyPolicyavailable?


Ti tl e/detai ls

Chile Yes 2010 Strategy for Digital Development La Agenda Digital delGobierno de Chile para e l perodo 2010-2014 / ICT as apart of Chiles Strategy for Development:Present Issuesand Challenges

China Yes 2010 Three Network Convergence National GovernmentInvestment

Colombia Yes 2011 Live Digital - Vive Digital

Comoros Planning

Congo (Dem. Rep.) Yes 2009 Document de la Politique sectorielle destlcommunications et des technologies de linformationet de la communication (TIC)West Africa Cable System ( WACS)

Costa Rica Yes 2012 Estrategia Nacional de Banda Acha

Cte d'Ivoire Yes 2010 Objectifs Strategiques du Government de Cte dvoreen Matiere de Telecommunications et de TIC

Croatia Yes 2011 National broadband development strategy inthe Republic of C roatia, Strategy for Broadband

Development in the Republic of Croatia for 20122015

Cuba Planning

Cyprus Yes 2012 Digital Strategy for Cyprus

Czech Republic Yes 2011 Digital Czech Republic - State policy in electroniccommunications

D.P.R. Korea No

Denmark Yes 2010 Digital work programme by the Minister of Science,

Technology and Innovation.

Djibouti Yes 2004 Plan daction national pour lexploitation des TIC enRpublique de Djibouti pour le dveloppement national,EASSy

Dominica No

Dominican Rep. Yes 2007 Conectividad Rural de Banda Ancha E-Dominicana(includes rural broadband connectivity program)


63/7457

EconomyPolicyavailable?


Ti tl e/detai ls

Ecuador Yes 2011 Estrategia Ecuador Digital 2.0 and Broadband Plan

planning for progress 18134042

Documents