The bandwidth bottleneck - Inclusive internet policies have to acknowledge the inequality in income distribution

Internet policies of developing countries have long dreamt of an inclusive internet that can bridge the proverbial digital divide and noticeably contribute to economic growth. The path towards realizing this dream warrants broadband internet access to 45 percent of the Nepali households. This becomes probable when the entry-level home broadband connection is priced at less than 5 percent monthly income (ie, GNI per capita) of an individual. Broadband policy and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) policy envisage these to provide impetus for the sector to contribute 2.5 percent to GDP. The latest versions of the policies were drafted in 2015. A 45 percent broadband penetration rate is expected by 2018, with visible economic growth by 2020. These are the rates at which the necessary conditions translate to observable growth statistics. To understand the arguments, it suffices to equate broadband internet with ‘wide’ (bandwidth) and ‘fast’ connections.

Policy planning

Affordability of bandwidth is at the heart of broadband policy planning. In Nepal Rastra Bank’s fifth budget survey, the average income of households that fall in the richest 20 percent bracket is Rs53,578. This roughly equates to Rs11,906 per person. An entry level fibre broadband connection costs around Rs1,200 which is double the 5 percent affordability requirement. This cost is six times the affordability requirement for the poorest 20 percent bracket. What’s more, Rs1,200 is actually a low cost for advertised bandwidth and speed. Nepal has just above 1 percent broadband subscription.

Policies stipulate 512 Kbps (Kilo-bits per second) as the minimum download speed for a broadband internet connection. Interestingly, this minimum is the same in India, where the recent decision to classify 512 Kbps as broadband has been roundly criticised, with some labelling it “a joke”, “meagre”, “archaic and useless”, “out of touch with reality” and a “move back to the dark ages”. Such criticism comes due to the telecom regulators buckling under pressure from the telecom operators, which are also internet service providers (ISPs), for a U-turn on the original 2Mbps (Mega-bits per second) recommendation. The ISPs stated that without throttling, they cannot provide fast internet at an affordable price. Two options were suggested to the regulators: either set the minimum at 64 Kbps or allow unrestricted throttling. Regular home internet users would regard 64Kbps speed as a relic from the dial-up era. A crawling internet will also not contribute to the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The only realistic option on the table was to allow unrestricted throttling.

Throttling internet speed

Like their Indian counterpart, Nepali ISPs can throttle a fast internet speed as part of their ‘fair usage policy’ (FUP). Historically, the internet bandwidth was shared among six to eight subscribers. Sharing-ratios allowed ISPs to guarantee unlimited data volume. Upon the arrival of volume based packages (data cap), FUP mechanisms and tools such as throttling, sharing-ratio became an obsolete mechanism for bandwidth control. Throttling has been a thorny issue worldwide with frequent reports

of intentional throttling by the ISPs. Such measures raise questions on the nation’s net neutrality ambitions. A popular Nepali ISP defines ‘fair’ use: “Day to day surfing, checking emails and occasional downloading will not get you into trouble. However, downloading a 200-300 MB movie clip/data every day is almost certain to. The key is to keep an eye on the amount that you are downloading. Then if you’re classed as a heavy or excessive user, restructure your internet usage pattern so that you are not uploading or downloading at peak times. If you don’t heed their warnings, the system will slow down the speed of your connection after your data limit.” Worryingly, there is nothing a user can do about this.

Broadband internet and data cap with throttling is an oxymoron, considering high speed internet connection is being sold for high bandwidth applications. An internet user with a 10 Mbps connection will exhaust the 80 GB data cap after just 18 hours of usage. A four-hour per-day usage can extend access to this ‘fast’ internet for only five days, leaving 25 days for a buffered browsing experience. For some users, the data cap might seem to last longer. There are two likely explanations: ISPs give the promised 10 Mbps at certain time slots, the rest are throttled; or customers use the internet for low bandwidth applications such as browsing and VoIP (Viber/Skype).

There is no quick fix to the affordability conundrum. First, Nepali ISPs presently buy bandwidth from Indian ISPs at their dictated price. But as the Indian experience has recently shown, owning state of the art infrastructure in a competitive market does not necessarily translate into broadband affordability. Second, if affordability was to be defined in line with the meaningful use of the web, such as data usage of regular internet users, 512 Kbps is a ‘something is better than nothing’ target. Third, affordability demands a revision from the perspective of all income groups. Inclusive internet policies have to acknowledge the inequality in income distribution. Equipped with this new understanding, the entry-level broadband might have to be priced at 2 percent or less of the average monthly income.

Pandey is a researcher affiliated with Martin Chautari

Source:http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2017-03-21/the-bandwidth-bottleneck.html

Free Float Internet Policies (Findings from access and use survey)

Here we list the findings from the quantitative analysis of the household surveys conducted in 2014/15 to understand the access and use of the Internet technologies, including the fixed and mobile broadband. The research was carried out by Martin Chautari (2014-2016) with support from the Ford Foundation. This project would not have been possible without the generous support of the local partners. We would like to thank Nasancha Pucha: (Panauti), Himalaya Milan Secondary School (Tangting) and Progressive Women Society (Changunarayan) for their facilitation, assistance and support. We are also grateful to Bhagabati Gautam for her assistance and volunteering work in Pragatinagar.

[ Note: The paper is available in the journal “Studies in Nepali History and Society” (SINHAS), Vol. 21 No. 1. It is also available online here. The full set of briefs and papers can be found in our Universal Connectivity page. ]

• A family spends 7 percent of their household income on mobile phone bills.

• Though reported penetration of mobile phone has well crossed the cent percent mark (120%), the five locations had 72 percent household ownership (and similar individual ownership among the respondents). Therefore, NTAs subscriber count is likely to be sim counts.

• Only half of the mobile phone owners had ever used internet from their sets.

• Only 8 percent of the households had a fixed internet connection.

• Less than 3 percent households in Dapcha own a computer (laptop or desktop). Except Panauti which has around 35 percent household ownership of computers, the four site averages to around 8 percent penetration. This is similar to statistics reported by the World Bank (8.9% in 2015).

• Anything better than a weak statistical association among the Internet use and socio-demographic variables could not be found. For example, people with higher education did not exhibit a tendency to use the Internet for education and employment activities.

• Income groups were indistinguishable in their use of mobile Internet.

• Results on the ethnicity-Internet link show that in a particular settlement the ICT penetration and ownership of devices seem to reinforce the socio-economic exclusion. Across the sites, however, people belonging to the single ethnic group have varied access levels of ownership such as the Newars in Dapcha and Panauti or Gurungs in Changunarayan and Tangting.

• Location advantage offered a better explanation of Internet adoption than chasing the ethnicity and income threads.

• Over two-third of the people in the survey said home Internet was “not required”. The indistinguishable usage pattern across income groups and age levels indicate main reason for non-use could be the absence of any compelling need for such technology.

• In our survey sites, only Panauti and Pragatinagar had households with more fixed broadband penetration than the unflattering national average.

• Only 12 percent of the total Internet users have used the Internet or mobile-apps for private or government electronic-services (e-services). Only 27 percent of the respondents say they have ever used Internet for obtaining government information.

• Four out of five mobile phone using respondents, including the broadband Internet users, complained about regular “network problems.”

• There is dearth of evidence to unlock association between local content, Internet infrastructure and affordability to forge meaningful ICT policies.

The IT policy documents will do better if they accept that the outcome of a technological intervention depends on the use people find for the technology. There is no denying that the relationships among the digital divide, poverty and education are enormously complex, particularly when, for instance, the difference in relative and absolute poverty will make available studies about the relationship questionable. The complexity also becomes obvious when policy interventions could frame questions of the divide variously as problems of access, or skill, or content. Our survey reinforces the understanding that adoption decisions are primarily need-driven and based on cost-effectiveness of the investment. Farmers of Dapcha, for instance, are likely to revert to existing information channels if Internet do not offer content tailored to their information requests.