Home > Telecoms and Development > What Is The True Definition Of “Local Content”?

What Is The True Definition Of “Local Content”?

I was recently at a forum that was discussing the development of telecommunications in Kenya (Watch the forum by clicking here (part 1), and here (part 2)). During the discussion, one participant alluded to the fact that without local content, the development of Internet will impaired. Everyone in the forum was in agreement. However, during the discussion, there was some slight confusion on what the definition of local content is.

Majority were of the opinion that local content should be defined by its contextual origin. The other (perhaps me alone) were of the opinion that local content should be defined by its hosting location.

Local by context

This school of thought believes local content is web content that has its contextual origin in the region it is utilized or served from. They assert that over 99% of users in Africa or Kenya are net receivers of information from foreign sources in the US and EU.  With African traffic consisting of less than 2% of the entire Internet traffic, it would be expected that majority of the consumers in Africa will be consuming foreign content. Believers of this line of thought advocate for the production of local  content (often in local language) to spur local usage. This content includes information and videos on cultural practices, traditions, business practices and infotainment. A good example of this kind of local content is the now famous Kulahappy videos on YouTube.

Advocates of this definition of local content believe that the creation of local content will create jobs, preserve culture and spur the use of Internet in the daily lives of the local people as content on the Internet will now be relevant to their lives.

Local by location of hosting server

In this definition, local content means content hosted in data centers that are local to the country. Proponents of this definition believe that Africa’s (or Kenya’s) solution to dependence on submarine back-haul lies in localizing the hosting.

Unlike their counterparts in Europe or the US, Internet users in Africa have to cross the ocean for nearly 100% of the content they access, even indigenous local news websites are hosted in the US or Europe as opposed to being locally hosted. A user visiting http://www.nation.co.ke which is a local news daily, has to traverse the oceans to European data centers to access it. If on the other hand this website was hosted say in a data center on Kimathi street in Nairobi, a user seated in the CBD accessing it  does not even leave the city, Internet access becomes a local loop connection. The advantages this brings include:

  1. Better user experience as websites load faster because the page is essentially just from few hops away.
  2. Lower dependency on few erratic submarine cables (Africa has less than 10 while South America has over 34 cables)
  3. Due to not using international capacity, Internet access becomes cheaper. Other than economies of scale, one of the reasons why a 1Mbps pipe in US is 18 USD and about 400 USD here is because the US users rarely incur international transit costs, nearly everything is locally hosted or cached.

Which of the two definitions is better?

The answer depends on who you ask. I am of the opinion that both definitions are critical to the development, penetration and usage  of Internet in the continent. As to which of the two carries more weight, again it also depends on who you ask. Considering that majority of the Internet content is in the English language, I think that local content by context carries more weight for non-English speaking countries. China for example has a developed Internet system thanks to the many Chinese equivalents of popular English websites such as Facebook, popular IM and chat rooms such as QQ-Chat and even an e-commerce equivalent of eBay known as alibaba.com. However, in English-speaking countries such as Kenya, this form of localization of content will not have the same effect on Internet usage. A recent report by ISOC, UNESCO and the OECD  supports my argument. This report titled “The relationship between local content, Internet development and access prices” shows that in non-English speaking countries, localization by context did more to enhance penetration and usage. However, in English-speaking countries, localization by data center/hosting location did more to spur usage due to decreased access fees. (read the full report here)

In light of the above, I would like to hear your views on the issue of local content, please leave comments below.

About these ads
  1. July 4, 2012 at 10:35 am

    How about local content served from a local server?

    • July 4, 2012 at 10:36 am

      That would be a combination of both definitions. however, my discussion was on the difference between the two and which is the true definition of local content.

  2. arthurbuliva
    July 4, 2012 at 10:35 am

    How about local content served from local servers?

  3. Jonathan Nyamai
    July 4, 2012 at 10:51 am

    I concur with you in terms of who is being addressed about “local content”. However, am for the opinion that local content should be more to the context than hosting location. Hosting servers locally just enhances user experience especially if the content hosted is external. Let’s take an example; I have a local server in down town hosting western material in nature (i.e life style), can this be classified as local content? Basically what am doing is pushing external knowledge to the local community since my site lacks indigenous knowledge.

    I watched the forum (which I wished more time was allocated) and really supported the participant who gave an example how local content in our communication channels can be enhanced. It’s unfortunately that most of content providers are pushing “external content” to local consumers especially in African / developing countries.

    Having local content hosted externally is just affecting user experience in terms of latency, bandwidth etc. However, for the content providers, it might be a different story with the cloud computing being embraced.

    • July 4, 2012 at 10:56 am

      True, I agree with you. However, from a providers perspective, user experience due to network performance is more important than what is being accessed. Therefore to providers, the 2nd definition would seem to be a more important definition of local content. To the govt and development minded people, the first definition holds more weight for them.

  4. Jonathan Nyamai
    July 4, 2012 at 11:21 am

    True, the user experience is a key drive for the content providers. However, they should be having some underlying reasons why they opt to host “local content” in context in external hosted servers.

    Not sure but it can be attributed to maintenance costs, security, lack of capacity, policies…..this should be an eye opener for us all to address this.

  5. July 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    I think its CONTEXT….makes sense to me that way.Hosting is immaterial,at least to me.

  6. July 7, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Interesting. Thanks for sharing your insights.

  7. kafutul
    July 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Interesting read. I think it’s local by context, however i think we are mostly just uninformed about the impact that local by location would actually have…Of course a combination would be perfect.

  8. September 10, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    local content Tom is not just for the access of locals but for every1 else who might have interest in the place in question as a provider of local content i take it in the context rather than hosting location although the user impact as they access this info is crucial what if we have the location but not enough data you argument is a classic “chicken and egg” scenario but both are useful but for the sake of starting context comes before location as we move forward!!!

    • September 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      Thanks Jesse for the sentiments.

  9. Godfrey
    November 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I concur with you Jesse. The impact on the social-economic environment of Kenya is crucial. E.g. While Facebook serves 90% local content since it is user generated, it’s value is not comparable to the data on Google maps service. However the assertion made on hosting being immateria is incorrect. While it makes economic sense for providers e.g. Commercial blogs to host externally, increasing number of users means it would be more sensible to host all this content locally to avoid high trunk line costs.

  10. November 8, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Reblogged this on @kariukih The Don.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers

%d bloggers like this: