ICT Advocacy

This summary is part of a research project carried out between March and October 2006 in support of the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD), one of The Communication Initiative (The CI)'s partners.

The TESPOK (Telecommunications Service Providers of Kenya) case study illustrates the impact that advocacy from a private sector industry association can have in the domestic information and communication technology (ICT) environment. The author illustrates that the combined effects of critical mass (through dialogue and collaboration) impressed upon regulators, can successfully modify policy for the benefit of ICT users.

In this case study, Russell Southwood explores the trials of Kenya’s Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in establishing a domestic internet service (Kenyan Internet Exchange Point, or KIXP) to enhance domestic internet services throughout Kenya. Despite the initial two-year resistance from the government-owned Telkom Kenya, and a brief clash over regulations and licensing brought on by the Competition Commission of Kenya (CCK), a process for establishing the service was initiated by the Director-General of CCK in 2000. This reversal successfully allowed for domestic internet exchange services.

After establishing the KIXP, the domestic ISPs focused their attention on the international internet services, previously the monopoly of Telkom Kenya via its Jambo Net services. Despite initial resistance from the government to abide by liberalisation legislation established in 1998, and its attempts to expand Telkom Kenya’s Monopoly combined with Telkom Kenya’s “illegal” service shutdown which caused significant financial losses and political embarrassment, the government was forced to establish new policy and legislation to allow for TESPOK to be an alternate internet gateway.

The TESPOK group’s activities began after the initial licensing issue with domestic internet services appeared, with an open letter criticising the state of affairs under the government’s control. This letter was followed by several “statements” in the media furthering the cause through public criticism and advocacy.

The author indicates that the collective use of media resources and mass persuasion forced a policy change to the betterment of internet users country-wide.

TESPOK partnered with the Cyber Café Owners Association of Kenya (CCOAK) in 2002, and also included Kenya’s mobile phone companies.

Direct and indirect institutional resistance from the government-owned Telkom Kenya, combined with the regulators’ biased interference, actively inhibited and limited the ability of TESPOK to achieve success.

Successes included the creation of industry- and stakeholder-aligned associations to compound the advocacy impact and to counter institutional resistance. The implementation of critical media coverage also succeeded in promoting policy change.

• Start with an inarguable, clear case: TESPOK’s initial position was that the current ISP service was inadequate and causing unnecessary delays and service interruptions. This was coupled with the fact that foreign exchange was largely wasted by not treating domestic services domestically.
• Broader interest vs. sectional interest: TESPOK made the clear point that it was in everyone’s interest to expand ISP service outside of the monopoly of Telkom Kenya. One thing leads to another - by beginning with a single issue (domestic internet services) and succeeding in changing policy, the public awareness and governmental understanding forced the inevitable changes required for an eventual governmental divestiture of the Telkom monopoly.
• Use the Media: effective use of media as an advocacy tool removed the government’s ability to hide behind power, and as a result created the dynamic for success.
• Draw in other allies: In addition to TESPOK, other stakeholders were encouraged to participate in effecting changes. The Cyber Café Owners Association of Kenya (CCOAK) and mobile phone companies have subsequently joined TESPOK in advocating against the Telkom monopoly.
• Opposing but talking: The author essentially argues the importance of advocacy within limits: focusing on the goal without alienating the officials responsible for change and allowing an honourable political resolution.