When it comes to 4G networks, part of the African landscape has been marked by some government-led discussions that emphasise the need to leverage 4G for socio-economic development. In the same breath, the conversation underscores that spectrum for 4G is a resource that should be leveraged for development, and in so doing, proposing single wholesale networks as a way of ensuring national coverage, and more importantly, rural broadband access.

The other part of the landscape has seen some mobile operators and other service providers, in markets where the investment in 4G networks has been allowed to develop within a somewhat non-rigid policy and regulatory framework, make strides in 4G roll out in an attempt to grow data revenues and avail more advanced services to their consumers. And while not many countries have met the deadline for digital migration (therefore holding up the allocation of spectrum), some operators have gone ahead to re-farm spectrum to allow for the deployment of 4G services.

However, not all operators have jumped onto the bandwagon. A good number of operators, especially in countries that have low GDP per capita, or in countries where the full potential of 3G has yet to be realised, seem hugely indifferent and are not falling over each other to invest in 4G, being acutely aware that their markets are still embracing 3G services.

Against this backdrop, a quick look at various issues spanning rural broadband and current 3G uptake merits closer inspection, and could hint at whether existing technologies can ensure rural coverage and also explore the immediate potential of 4G in urban areas.

4G for rural broadband

Rural broadband undoubtedly avails various socio-economic benefits e.g. enabling enterprises to grow and making rural areas equally viable for investors who rely on good connectivity, allowing access to education content, deploying healthcare solutions, digital and financial inclusion.

Various empirical evidence shows that in developed countries, rural broadband via 4G has been a catalyst to allow both digital and financial inclusion, but in such countries various prerequisites - e.g. road infrastructure (to allow trade, communications, access to hospitals, etc.), electricity (to power rural businesses and devices), education and literacy levels - which allow rural broadband to have the desired impact, have already been addressed, allowing rural broadband to deliver on the ambitions set out.

In Africa, electricity supply, road infrastructure, low income and education levels remain barriers that may not allow the true impact of rural broadband to be felt until such challenges are addressed adequately.

In such an environment, a nationwide roll-out of 4G may be ill advised unless a clear premise exists, even if on a case by case basis, that allows such benefits to accrue. That is not to say that the quest for rural broadband should be abandoned entirely. Rather, that governments may need to do some further thinking on the issue and ask a few questions such as:

• Which rural areas are ready for broadband (e.g. schools and hospitals that can act as connectivity hubs for surrounding communities, or areas with considerable economic activities like mines, farms, etc.)

• Will investments in 4G offer any returns whether under a single wholesale network or whether via competition?

• In terms of objectives tied to offering rural broadband, can these not be gradually met by using existing technologies (Satellite or wireless backhaul and access)? Aside from rural broadband (by whatever means) can some development objectives not be met using 2G and 3G networks?

• Since affordability is a key issue, what measures will be taken to subsidise the cost of devices and services? How can universal service funds, which are meant to close the digital divide, be used to address rural connectivity?

Assuming some clarity can be realised on the above issues, the decision to deploy rural broadband must still be preceded by interventions that address existing barriers like energy, skills (literacy and digital literacy), content (usability) and roads. Without addressing these, even under the current scenario where adequate technologies exist, investment in rural broadband, however noble the intentions are, will largely be superfluous.

Governments can also draw on insights uncovered by development organisations seeking to leverage technology to solve various challenges in rural areas. Many such organisations have established that the use of simple devices and technologies (feature phones, SMS and UUSD) show greater adoption and success in different sectors in rural Africa.

The urban business case, for some

As of mid-2015 just over 20% of all subscribers in sub-Saharan Africa were using 3G services and mainly concentrated in urban areas (and along major national or regional transit routes), leaving a bigger part of the population under still under 2G services. The GSMA projects that 4G connections in sub-Saharan Africa will account for just 4% of total connections by 2020 and at the same time 3G will more than double to reach 52% of total connections.

Aside from current low, but growing 3G uptake, other issues remain firmly etched into the present landscape which are affecting the roll-out at uptake of 4G services, and these include; availability and cost of devices, rivalry from Wi-Fi networks and the cost of investment to fully support 4G capability (e.g. fibre to backhaul from base stations).

It is highly unlikely, that at a time when more 3G devices have now become affordable (while 4G devices remain scarce and dear), and as many operators are still investing in 3G networks, that there will be much demand from consumers except from a thin sliver of the market comprising some corporates, government departments, SMEs and a few high income subscribers.

And even with some potential of a few tens of thousands 4G subscribers over the next few years, operators will remain under pressure from regulators to improve on the quality of services by investing in upgrading their capacity and the remaining 2G portions of their networks to 3G – putting a strain on revenues which could be used for 4G investments. Thus most will remain cautious and not fold under pressure to invest in 4G services.

In some markets, mobile operators are facing competition from Wi-Fi networks (or the burden of investing in Wi-Fi networks as a way to offload data traffic and ensure quality voice services).

Whether by competition or investment, Wi-Fi remains a viable route for many mobile users who seek to cut their expenditure while getting a better online experience. In such cases operators are hard pressed to claw back on declining revenues either by losing traffic to Wi-Fi networks or as a result of the costs arising from investing in Wi-Fi networks.

Consumers may also be hard pressed to really appreciate why 4G is better than 3G. For one, the benefits may at first not appear to be very disparate– with 3G they can still stream videos on YouTube or make a video call. They can send pictures and other multimedia via different social media applications. They can still use their recently acquired 3G phones as modems or simply to surf. As such it may be just a thin slice of the population that may be poised to embrace 4G. And never mind rural users whose best experience has mostly been 2G and to whom 3G will be a step up (but with what content?).

Perhaps the clearest indication of sub-Saharan Africa's readiness for 4G, be it for rural areas where a clear premise has yet to be established, or in urban areas where it should be simply offered as a service for a privileged few, is the indifference shown by most operators to 4G investment whether under network competition or under a single wholesale model.

For rural areas, unless challenges like supporting infrastructure, skills and content are properly addressed, and rural broadband viewed anew through a different lens, grand proclamations on how broadband can bolster economic growth will continue to ring hollow.

* Francis Hook is an independent ICT researcher, consultant and Director at digitalfrontiers.