2
Background
The rural telecommunications initiative was undertaken in recognition of the critical
role that telecommunications plays in socio economic development. The Rural
Telecommunications Program is intended to address access gaps for rural
communities. The program is more than ten years old. To date four projects
(Borolong, Tuli Block, Tswapong and Nteletsa) have been implemented and
connected over two hundred and thirty (230) communities. By the end of
December 2004, there had been a number of concerns raised about the program
and the growing dissatisfaction with the service being provided.
Previously Botswana Telecommunications Corporation (BTC) was exclusively
responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of the rural
telecommunications infrastructure. The appointment of BTC seems to have been
motivated by factors of capability and capacity.
The major challenge facing the implementation of the program is poor service
delivery. During the implementation of the latest project, “Nteletsa”, it was
suggested that the roll-out of the infrastructure was to take place during a 12
month period, but the actual roll-out extended beyond a twenty four month period.
The service delivery concern was to some extent due to the license restrictions on
BTC, as only fixed telecommunications technology could be utilized to deploy voice
services to the communities. This has hindered the potential use of other newer
and cost effective wireless technologies and has resulted in potentially more costly
solutions.
In the past, the criteria used to include localities in the program were unclear. The
roll-out plan for the program was not identified in advance of deployment. The
other concern is that services have tended to be provided in those areas that are
near to the existing telecommunications infrastructure. The result of this is that
telephone density has increased substantially in some parts of the country while
others lag far behind. It was thus difficult for the public to surmise the program
coverage and the justification of such coverage. The District basis of the program
implementation further meant that other Districts were left behind.
When the government funded rural deployments as part of the program, they only
funded BTC to deliver services to the rural communities. The government did not
fund the mobile operators for their efforts, nor did they engage the mobile
operators to participate in the rural program. This has been mentioned as a
hindrance to fair competition under a liberalised environment.
In addition, the government only funded the capital expenses associated with
deploying services. The operations and maintenance costs of the resulting network
were passed on to BTC. The service take up from the rural communities is so low
that significant losses have been incurred due to the high costs of operating and
Rural Telecommunications Strategy
26 October 2006
8