1 / 11

3. USO, a Case study

3. USO, a Case study. The Romanian approach to providing access Jerker Torngren torngren@aon.at. The Romanian telecom market. Fully liberalised 2003 Impressive number of registered fixed network providers but few making any impact. Very low penetration rate in rural areas

channing-mayer
Download Presentation

3. USO, a Case study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 3. USO, a Case study The Romanian approach to providing access Jerker Torngren torngren@aon.at

  2. The Romanian telecom market • Fully liberalised 2003 • Impressive number of registered fixed network providers but few making any impact. • Very low penetration rate in rural areas • High mobile penetration rate but still areas without coverage • Some operators using satellite links

  3. The consumer perspective • In rural areas only around 10 lines per 100 inhabitants • In general low buying power in rural areas. • Many families have relatives in other countries, demand for profitable incoming traffic. • Also high demand for internet services, including email

  4. Our Idea The USAID funded RITI-dot Gov project established a few community centres to test if it would function. EU encourages specific measures for rural and other isolated areas Key ideas: • Telcos to provide connectivity • External financing of equipment • Local commitment for management and operating costs

  5. The Telecentre The Centre should have: • Good connectivity • Phone, fax and copy machine • Answering machine to record incoming calls when centre was not staffed • Computers connected to the internet • Trained staff to help users • Possibilities to measure price of each call

  6. How we did it • Selected a few municipalities with the need and being prepared to contribute. • Signed agreement with the Municipality covering their obligations • Convinced operators to establish connectivity on their own expense for the trial • USAID funded the equipment

  7. Evaluation and continuation The experience showed positive results even beyond our expectations! Based on our very good experiance we submitted a proposal to the Ministry. The Ministry included, with some modifications, our proposal in its USO policy and has now established a large number of centres.

  8. The Romanian Community centres • The regulator selected the municipalities. • For each village a tender was conducted, based on estimated cost for establishing and operating. • “negative auctioning” • The winning bid considered as the “net cost” to be covered out of the Fund.

  9. Partners • The universal service provider; access and equipment • The local administration; management and services to end users • The regulator; monitors the performance and financing

  10. Not entirely in line with the EU Directive • A community approach instead of individual • Not only provision of services but also equipment • Nevertheless financing over the Fund • Engagement by both operators and local institutions. • The EU Commission was informed beforehand

  11. Personal conclusion • The EU Commission understands that transition countries can’t fully meet the USO Directive. • The Commission thus accepts solutions that lead in the right direction • The solutions must not distort competition but encourage new constructive measures • When relevant, keep the Commission informed

More Related