3. USO, a Case study

1
3. USO, a Case study

• The Romanian approach
• to providing access
• Jerker Torngren
• torngren_at_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 cant 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