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