[AFLUG] RE: [osta] Article @BBC : Computers to Africa scheme criticised

[Joris Komen]

Hi All,

With apologies for cross-posting -  time to step into the new vs refurb debate.

Dapo  @  osta   wrote:

>In order to 'donate' obsolete computers something in the order of several
>hundred pounds of effort and expense per computer takes place in the West.
>This money is funded by aid donors. However the cost of building a new
>computer from scratch is probably the same or less.

Dapo hits the nail on the head with his perspective that most  costs 
for ICT development in Africa and other developing countries is 
largely carried by international aid agencies on behalf of the dribs 
'n drabs brigade trying to push ICT frontiers outside the first 
world.  Nice try -  the aid sector imposes ridiculous short-term 
total cost of ownership/investment models on us. Three years at best, 
but usually the cheapest price in a three-quotation system of 
carefully engineered controls for "free world" purchasing - try 
buying very affordable mainland chinese computers!

Indeed,  the present scenario is also true - a very limited few 
organisations in USA, UK and Sweden are honestly  trying to drive 
paradigm shifts in a generally  environmentally desensitized economic 
forum of hire-purchase/lease  agreements with 10 major global 
manufacturers of ICTs (when we talk quality branded ICTs).  90% of 
all corporate ICT consumers in the first world use 
hire-purchase/lease agreements to acquire new tech every depreciation 
cycle - usually three years.    This scheme has obvious taxation 
implications :-).   It's pretty damn difficult, if not impossible, at 
the present dribs 'n drabs level of ICT development, to convince 
Fortune 500 companies to become environmentally conscious, and look 
toward to appropriate decommissioning and recycling plans in 
developing countries for which they would have to share considerable 
cost -  as follows:

Strictly speaking,  it should cost between US$ 45 - 85 to 
decommission/recycle an old computer(+esp the monitor) in the first 
world, and this cost should be built into the lease agreement (as is 
the growing case in some Kyoto signatory countries).   Unfortunately, 
this has not evolved majorly, yet, and regulation for such conditions 
proceeds at snail's pace.

Accordingly, In USA, one of  the largest per capita consumers of ICTs 
(but not a kyoto signatory),  this is not the case, and recycling 
companies there earn US$ 0.16/pound of scrap - @ 60 pounds for a 
computer/monitor, this adds up to about US$10/old computer destined 
for the landfill.   At present this is the reality for pre-millenium 
ICTs.

Coupled to this is a lucrative business buying and reselling 
end-of-lease (i.e., 3 year old Pentiums) to second and third parties. 
This is where the cost of US$ 57 - 112/computer comes into play. 
While the market place for such end-of-lease computers requires some 
attentive research, I understand that there are some players shipping 
such ICTs to Africa, India, Thailand and China, where, refreshed or 
otherwise, these second-hand computers are sold with *significant* 
margin to consumers faced by retail prices of US$ 1000+ for "new" 
computers.

Organisations such as World Computer Exchange and Computer Aid 
International are trying to compete in this fierce market place. 
Economy of scale becomes a real issue, and while we bicker about 
refurbs vs new, at the dribs 'n drabs level of things, Timothy and 
Tony and other well-meaning champions are forced to up their margins 
to compensate for first-world overheads and competitive pricing. 
This is a bum deal, to say the least.    Furthermore, it also means 
that we continue to get "trick or treat" containers filled with 
haphazard collections of  "odds and sods" covered in bubble-plastic.

Dapo is obviously comfortable talking about assembly kits costing the 
same or less than older refurbs.   I would, too, if I had my bum in 
the butter of  first world consumer-intense ICT markets of Europe and 
USA.    Sure, we can buy P4 assembly kits  in Dubia at  US$ 150 - 200 
a pop.  Pray tell me, who in the dribs 'n drabs brigade out here has 
the buying power to do so, AND the capacity to assemble such kit in 
Africa?

>So for the same donor money you could have a brand new computer - amd
>processor , simple case, motherboards etc. Secondly, you have to do a

AMD sucks at high ambient temperatures, but that aside,  we must get 
away from the comfort zone of  "donor money" and the absurd 
dependency for such funding to acquire commodities, even second-hand 
commodities!  Critically, the commodity market comes with an 
environmental burden - this burden must be shifted to the 
manufacturers and primary consumers.  ICT development champions in 
the first world (yes, that includes people like Dapo) must rally to 
this crucial cause!  While we don't need to turn into green  anti-fur 
campainers, I do believe we urgently need higher level leverage to 
swing this scenario in our favour.  And WEF is too busy a forum to 
focus attention, so let's think bigger and perhaps more selectively.

>comparison of the  added value of new computers to the educational process
>and see whether they are adding more value than their possible additional
>costs  and new computers are costing less than possible second hand ones

This is a poorly construed, indeed confusing, argument.  Do the 
calculation in the framework of Linux LTSP thin client solutions, and 
get back to us on the "added value" to educational process.  But make 
damn sure you are using a 15-20 year "total cost of 
ownership/investment" parameter.   A three-year depreciation and 
technical support/training cycle simply ain't enough.

>here in UK. The concept of 'obsolete' rather than second hand is that the
>costs of keeping it going exceeds the value - something is obsolete when new
>equipment gives you better value even if the old equipment is free! Who
>wants an old model T Ford at any price?

Bad example <grin>!  I do - for free.    I could then make a bloody 
fortune selling the T Ford to an appropriate client - a collector of 
specialities.  I think we must get away from "obsolete" and think 
second-hand.  And move away from specialities (the T Ford) to 
commodities.  We should consider making such second-hand commodities 
available at a cost significantly lower than cell-phones - say US$ 10 
- 20 a pop, inclusive of local margin to subsidise the overheads of 
local technical and training support.

I argue that second-hand, end-of-lease ICTs with appropriate 
"stretch" or "take-it-back" lease costs at US$ 30 - 80/unit built in 
to compensate for bonafide decommissioning and a new lease on life 
for bonafide educational sector clients in developing countries, 
coupled with  a transparent commitment to building 
environmentally-friendly recycling plants in developing countries 
(whatever this cost -  huge!) is the way to go.

For this to happen we need to urgently build capacity in developing 
countries to provide bonafide refurbishment centres to handle a 
couple of million computers annually.   Do I have delusions of 
grandeur?  Nope - take a look at what's happening in countries like 
Canada and Colombia.  Canada has 65 refurbishment centres which serve 
the Canadian education sector - exclusively.  They presently have 
capacity to turn over 100s of 1000s of ICTs every year.  They started 
10 years ago, with significantly higher overheads than we would ever 
have in Africa.  In the first year they sent out 179 refurbished 
computers to schools in Canada.  Sounds familiar?  Yeah - we did this 
in Namibia in our first year of operation, and then some.

Lets wake up to economies of scale.   I would like to deliver 23000 
refurbs to the Namibian education sector by June next year.   I 
believe it is possible, given the 56 million boxes dumped annually.

Let's spend development sector aid funding on connectivty - not 
second-hand commodities.  We need significantly more affordable 
international bandwidth and infrastructure; we need more content to 
deliver on our freeware and open source platforms;  we need more 
local geek and IT literate capacity to serve the education and health 
sectors.  We need IBM's and HP-Compaq's CEOs to buy into our ICT 
development package when they next lease 100,000 P4s to KPMG or 
Barclay's Bank.  We need to get away from being the dribs 'n drabs 
brigade.

Cheers

Joris Komen
SchoolNet Namibia
http://www.schoolnet.na