DC3 March 2017

dc3@listas.altermundi.net

21 participants
17 discussions

DRAFT Call for Papers 2017 Report

by Luca Belli

Hi all, It is time to start thinking about the Call for Papers for the Annual DC3 Report Please find a proposal for the 2017 Call for Papers here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/Draft_2017_Call_for_Papers Feel free to modify the draft by 25 March. Ideally, we could launch the 2017 CfP during RightsCon. All comments and suggestions are welcome All the best Luca [FGV Direito Rio] Luca Belli, PhD Senior Researcher Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> luca.belli(a)fgv.br +55 21 3799 5763 [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]

6 years

Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks

by Federica Giovanella

// Apologies for cross-posting - Read online: http://netcommons.eu/?q= content/letter-eu-policy- makers-making-regulation-work- community-networks<http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/letter-eu-policy-makers-making-regulation-w…> // Dear all, After many discussions with many European Community Networks (CNs), researchers from the netCommons<http://netcommons.eu/> project on network infrastructure as a commons are happy to present a draft open letter on "policy recommendations for sustaining Community Networks". The letter is targeted at European policy-makers, who recently started working on an overhaul of the telecom regulatory framework. https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/ Rl42W44XAc6/view/<https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/Rl42W44XAc6/view/> This letter, drafted in collaboration with several European CNs and advocacy groups, is meant to offer a collective voice to this growing movement. *Until March 8th*, we would like to collect signatures from as many European CNs as possible, as well as other supporting organizations (from Europe and beyond, be they advocacy groups, research projects, non-profits, SMEs, local authorities, etc.). After this consultation period and the collection of signatures, we would like to send the letter to members of EU Parliament, national delegations at the Council of the EU, as well as to key officials from the EU Commission. Several outcomes can be expected, including: - The publication of a joint press release by all signatories to disseminate the open letter as widely as possible (by the end of March). - Proposals for amendments reflecting the recommendations of this open letter, to be sent to key members of the EU Parliament before the first crucial vote on the Telecoms Package in late April. - A policy workshop to be organized later this year in Brussels. Of course, all of these potential outcomes will depend upon the involvement of signatory organizations, and in particular of the willingness of CNs to work together. But first, we are sharing the draft to a wider circle of CNs and other people interested in their activities for consultation and potential amendments to the text. Until March 8th, you can read and comment on the draft letter, offer corrections and suggest changes or additions by using co-ment, an online tool for collaborative writing: Please read and comment on the open letter. If and when you agree to sign the letter, *please send the name of your organization, the country where it is based and its high-resolution logo at: advocacy(a)netcommons.eu<mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu>* (note that if your signature is dependent on the response brought to a specific comment you have made, please be sure to tag comment as "blocking"). Thanks, Federica Giovanella University of Trento (http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/people/federica-giovanella) Partner of netCommons project on network infrastructure as a commons http://netcommons.eu/ ========Text of the open letter========== OPEN LETTER TO EU POLICY-MAKERS: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINING COMMUNITY NETWORKS PREAMBLE We represent European Community Networks, a growing movement of organizations that operate local communication infrastructures, sometimes federated at the regional or national levels. These networks, most of which also provide access to the global Internet, are operated as a commons. That is, rather than being driven by for-profit motives, our key focus is on providing connectivity while striving for democratic governance, social inclusion, education, and human rights with respect to communication technologies. Our organizations vary considerably in terms of sizes, types of network infrastructures and political cultures. Yet, despite this diversity, we are united by the common objective to build networks that meet the communication needs of humans (rather than those of objects and machines), through networks that are built and run by our communities, for our communities, focused on local empowerment, affordability and resiliency. Today, we collectively provide broadband connectivity not only to tens of thousands of individual European citizens and residents, but also to organizations including small and medium sized companies, schools, healthcare centers, social projects and many more. In many cases, we have out-competed mainstream operators, by providing cheaper and faster Internet connectivity than incumbent players. Thanks to our infrastructure and through our various activities, we foster scientific and engineering experiments, we help local hosting and service providers come together to mutualise investments and share costs, we support digital literacy and data sovereignty through workshops and other educational activities. Yet, despite our achievements, policy-makers at the national and European levels have so far mostly neglected our existence and specific regulatory needs. Worse, regulation is often hampering our initiatives, making the work of our participants and volunteers harder than it should be. This is why, as you start working on a European code of electronic communications, we decided to contact you and voice our ideas and recommendations regarding the future of the legal and policy framework regulating our activities. 1. Lifting unnecessary regulatory and financial burdens We first ask you to review the regulatory framework and get rid of unnecessary regulatory burdens, such as fees or red-tape that are unnecessary or illegitimate when imposed on small non-profit entities. In Belgium for instance, the registration fee that telecom operators must pay to the NRA is at 676€ for the first registration, plus 557€ every following year (for those whose revenues are below 1M€, which is the case for many community networks). Even such small fees can hinder the growth of small networks that efficiently serve tens of households. In France, Spain and Germany, it is free, which might explain why the community network movement is much more dynamic in these countries. The proposed code for electronic communications aims to harmonize procedures for declaration fees (first registration) as well as administrative charges (annual fees). EU lawmakers must ensure that the fees and charges imposed by national NRAs are null or negligible for non-profit ISPs and micro and small businesses. Likewise, taxes designed for large corporate firms in the telecom sectors should not apply to smaller, non-profit operators. 2. Getting rid of third-party liability when sharing Internet access Several laws seek to prevent the sharing of Internet connections amongst several users by making people responsible (and potentially liable) for all communication made through their Wi-Fi connection, and create legal risks for people sharing their connection. In Germany, rights-holders have used a "secondary liability" doctrine to chill the growth of the community networks movement. In France too, copyright law imposes a secondary liability regime that creates significant legal uncertainty for people sharing their network connections with other users. The so-called "mere conduit", inscribed in EU law since 2000 in the directive on the information society, needs to be guaranteed and expanded to small-area wireless access points. In the same spirit, contract clauses that forbid subscribers to share their connections with others should be prohibited. Promoting a right to share Internet connections is all the more vital considering the economic and ecological crises, as well as the rapid increase of populations that cannot afford access to the Internet. In this context, connection sharing can play a critical role in fostering a more equitable and sustainable use of telecommunications infrastructure. 3. Expanding the spectrum commons It is not just Internet wireless access points that can be shared, but also the intangible infrastructure on which radio signals travel. Wi-Fi, as an unlicensed portion of the spectrum and therefore a commons, is a key asset for community networks willing to set up affordable and flexible last-mile infrastructure. However, these Wi-Fi frequency bands are currently very limited. Not only are they getting increasingly subject to congestion in densely populated areas, they are also exposed to new technical standards that use the so-called ISM frequency band (like LTE-U) that hamper the reliability of Wi-Fi communications. Last but not least, existing frequency bands for Wi-Fi (5,6 Ghz and 2,4 Ghz) have physical constraints that prevent them for being used for longer radio links. In the face of such challenges, a new approach to spectrum policy is needed. Policy-makers should expand unlicensed Wi-Fi bands. Two other types of frequencies should also be made available either on an unlicensed (preferred scenario) or, if not possible, based on affordable and flexible authorization schemes: so-called white spaces in lower frequencies (which allow for cheap and resilient long-distance links) and the 12Ghz and the 60Ghz bands (for which radio equipment is affordable and which can help us build high-bandwidth point-to-point radio links). Once made accessible to community networks, these frequency bands will help these networks roll-out and expand cheap and resilient wireless infrastructures. 4. Updating open-access rules in telecom infrastructures Networks built with taxpayers money should also be treated as a commons and, as such, remain free from corporate capture. Today, their management and exploitation is often delegated by public authorities to corporate network operators. These entities usually adopt aggressive pricing schemes designed for incumbent players that make it extremely costly for small access providers to interconnect with these networks. Access to these publicly-funded networks for non-profit entities like community networks as well as small businesses should be guaranteed, at a reasonable and proportionate cost. Similarly, community networks often cannot have access to the private local infrastructures of incumbent players, despite the fact that these are the only way to connect willing subscribers. Indeed, in many European markets, the deployment of optical fiber networks is (re)creating monopolistic conditions on local loops through pricing schemes which preclude small actors from accessing these private networks. Policy-makers and regulators should ensure that every area is covered by at least one telecom operator with a so-called "bitstream" offer affordable for smaller players. 5. Protecting free software and user freedom in radio equipment In 2014, the European Union adopted Directive 2014/53 on radio equipment. Although the Directive pursues sound policy goals, it might actually impair the development of community networks. Indeed, community networks usually need to replace the software included by the manufacturer in radio hardware with free and open source software especially designed to suit their needs, a collective process that improves security and encourages the recycling of hardware, among other benefits. Article 3.3 of the said Directive creates legal pressure for manufacturers of radio devices to ensure the compliance of the software loaded on these devices with the European regulatory framework. As a result, there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to lock down their devices and prevent third-party modifications of the hardware. We therefore ask policy-makers to provide a general exception for all free software installed on radio devices by third-parties (the latter being liable if their software lead to violations of the regulatory framework), so that users' rights are safeguarded. 6. Abrogating blanket data retention obligations Community networks strive to safeguard human rights in communication networks, and in particular the right to privacy and the confidentiality of communication. While we welcome recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that indiscriminate retention of metadata violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are concerned about several member states' willingness to circumvent these rulings to protect capabilities for indiscriminate surveillance. As EU lawmakers start discussing the overhaul of the ePrivacy Directive, we call on them to oppose any blanket data retention obligations and close existing loopholes in EU law to ensure that only targeted and limited retention obligations can be imposed on hosting and access providers. 7. Bringing direct and targeted public support Countless other policy initiatives can help support community networks and the associated significant benefits they bring, such as small grants, crowd-funding and subsidies to help our groups buy servers and radio equipment, communicate around their initiative, giving them access to public infrastructures (for instance, the roof of a public building to install an antenna), but also to support their research on radio transmission, routing methods, software or encryption. As many local authorities have found, supporting community networks is a sound policy option. As EU lawmakers move forward on the WiFi4EU initiative, we would like to remind you that we have pioneered various models for the provision of free public access points. We believe that public money invested in this initiative should primarily go to groups pursuing a bottom-up logic, seeding local groups that can foster the empowerment and cohesion of local communities, nurture competition, and meet the same policy-objectives at a fraction of the cost that would be charged by mainstream telecom operators. 8. Opening the policy-making process to Community Networks Although we have often partnered with municipalities and local public authorities, we ask that national and European regulators pay more attention to our activities when drafting regulation. Community networks have both the expertise and legitimacy to take an integral part in technical and legal debates over broadband policy in which traditional, commercial ISPs are over-represented. Community networks can bring an informed view to these debates, allowing for a policy-making process more attuned to the public interest. We thank you for your attention and very much look forward to engaging with you on these important issues, First signatories (EU-based community networks) Aquilenet (France) Franciliens.net (France) Freifunk Hamburg (Germany) (Incoming) Supporting organizations (advocacy groups, research projects, public authorities, SMEs, etc.) La Quadrature du Net (Incoming) For any inquiry regarding this open letter, write to: advocacy(a)netcommons.eu<mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu> http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/letter-eu-policy-makers-making-regulation-w…

6 years

Mozilla Equal Rating prize

by Leandro Navarro

Dear all, there is the community voting for the Mozilla Equal Rating prize. https://equalrating.com/vote/ Please vote for the best initiative, and vote every day! Deadline is 16 March. Regards, Leandro.

6 years

1 World Connected - Updated Case Studies Catalog (v2)

by Sharada Srinivasan

Hello, A few months ago, I reached out to the community for input on 1 World Connected's effort to catalog initiatives seeking to connect the unconnected. We received an outpouring of support from all corners, and a number of new resources that have significantly enhanced the catalog. Version 2 <https://goo.gl/oahE3H> now has over 600 case studies covering a wide range of technologies and capacity building efforts. This document is a *curation* of a number of widely available online sources as well as submissions made via our website's form and in-person meetings at various venues over the course of the last year in India, Mexico, Britain and USA, and I would like to acknowledge thank the very many people that have contributed and shared their work and knowledge through mails, reports and conversations, without whom this resource will not have been possible. It is their work that has been compiled and organized, and a list of all major sources are mentioned in the first sheet of the catalog. As ever, the document is open for feedback and will continue to be upgraded as the project proceeds, so please do reach out in case you are aware of additional case studies that we can document. The spreadsheet is available on the following link: https://goo.gl/oahE3H The next stage of our project envisages compiling case studies of these projects through secondary research and interviews, and I will update on our progress on the same periodically. Newer case studies will also be uploaded to our website (1worldconnected.org), and we are in the process of revamping the interface so that the data can be presented and accessed more easily. Thanks and regards, Sharada Srinivasan, Research Fellow Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition, University of Pennsylvania

6 years

Re: [DC3] Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks

by instituto

Great...Thiago is here :-). I didn't know that. Just to give names and make justice this thread begining in the espectro livre list where Thiago and Paulo puts the letter in portuguese to debate. Thanks Thiago and it's good that you are here too I am writing some changes too and if u create a pad for that send it for colaborative construction. Br Marcelo Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.-------- Mensagem original --------De: novaes(a)riseup.net Data: 08/03/2017 23:52 (GMT-03:00) Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Assunto: Re: [DC3] Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Dear Federica, Thanks for posting this letter. A new proposal of spectrum management in Brazil have just been published, and almost all the paragraphs could be applied to our (emergent) context. I've translated the letter into brazilian portuguese, and we're discussing the text among researchers and activists in some lists. If you'd like use somehow this pt version, it's a free translation (as in freedom). best, Thiago *PREÂMBULO* Nós representamos as Redes Comunitárias da Europa, um movimento crescente de organizações que operam infraestruturas de comunicação locais, por vezes federadas em nível regional ou nacional. Essas redes, a maioria das quais também fornece acesso à Internet global, é operada como um comum. Ou seja, ao invés de ser impulsionado por fins lucrativos, nosso foco principal é prover conectividade nos esforçando por uma governança democrática, inclusão social, educação e direitos humanos relacionados às tecnologias de comunicação. As nossas organizações variam consideravelmente em termos de tamanhos, tipos de infraestruturas de rede e culturas políticas. No entanto, apesar desta diversidade, estamos unidos com o objetivo comum de construir redes que atendam às necessidades de comunicação dos seres humanos (e não de objetos e máquinas), através de redes construídas e administradas por nossas comunidades para nossas comunidades, focadas em capacitação local, acessibilidade e resiliência. Hoje, provemos coletivamente conectividade de banda larga não só para dezenas de milhares de cidadãos e residentes europeus, mas também a organizações, incluindo pequenas e médias empresas, escolas, centros de saúde, projetos sociais e muitos mais. Em muitos casos, temos operadores fora do *mainstream*, que fornecem serviços mais baratos e conectividade mais rápida à Internet do que os operadores históricos. Graças à nossa infraestrutura e através de nossas diversas atividades, fomentamos experimentos científicos e de engenharia, ajudamos a hospedagem local e prestadores de serviços a se reunirem para mutualizar investimentos e compartilhar custos, e apoiamos a alfabetização digital e a soberania de dados através de oficinas e outras atividades educacionais. No entanto, apesar das nossas realizações, os decisores políticos em nível nacional e europeu até agora negligenciaram a nossa existência e as necessidades regulamentares específicas. Pior, a regulamentação muitas vezes dificulta nossas iniciativas, tornando o trabalho de nossos participantes e voluntários mais difícil do que deveria ser. É por isso que, ao começar a trabalhar num código europeu de comunicações eletrônicas, decidimos contactá-los e apresentar as nossas ideias e recomendações sobre o futuro do quadro legal e político que regulamenta as nossas atividades. *1. Eliminação de encargos regulamentares e financeiros desnecessários* Em primeiro lugar, solicitamos que os senhores revisem o quadro regulatório e se livrem dos encargos regulamentares desnecessários, como taxas ou burocracias que são desnecessárias ou ilegítimas quando impostas a pequenas entidades sem fins lucrativos. Na Bélgica, por exemplo, a taxa de inscrição que as operadoras de telecomunicações devem pagar à NRA é de 676 € para a primeira inscrição, mais 557 € a cada ano seguinte (para aqueles com receitas inferiores a 1M €, como acontece com muitas redes comunitárias). Mesmo essas taxas pequenas podem dificultar o crescimento de pequenas redes que atendem eficientemente a dezenas de famílias. Na França, Espanha e Alemanha, é gratuito, o que pode explicar por que o movimento das redes comunitárias é muito mais dinâmico nesses países. O código proposto para as comunicações eletrônicas visa harmonizar os procedimentos relativos às taxas de declaração (primeiro registro), bem como os encargos administrativos (taxas anuais). Os legisladores da UE devem assegurar que as taxas e encargos impostos pelas ARN nacionais sejam nulos ou insignificantes para os ISP sem fins lucrativos e para as micro e pequenas empresas. Da mesma forma, os impostos projetados para grandes empresas corporativas nos setores de telecomunicações não devem ser aplicados a operadores menores sem fins lucrativos. *2. Livrar-se da responsabilidade civil quando compartilhar o acesso à Internet* Várias leis procuram impedir o compartilhamento de ligações à Internet entre vários usuários , tornando as pessoas responsáveis (e potencialmente responsáveis) por toda a comunicação feita através da sua ligação Wi-Fi, criando riscos legais para as pessoas que compartilham a sua ligação. Na Alemanha, os detentores de direitos têm usado uma doutrina de "responsabilidade secundária" para reduzir o crescimento do movimento das redes comunitárias. Também na França, a lei dos direitos de autor impõe um regime de responsabilidade secundário que cria uma incerteza jurídica significativa para as pessoas que partilham as suas ligações de rede com outros usuários. O chamado "mero canal", inscrito na legislação da UE desde 2000 na diretiva sobre a sociedade da informação, tem de ser garantido e alargado aos pontos de acesso sem fios de pequena área. No mesmo espírito, devem ser proibidas cláusulas contratuais que proíbam aos assinantes o compartilhamento de suas conexões com outros. A promoção de um direito de compartilhar conexões à Internet é ainda mais importante considerando as crises econômicas e ecológicas, bem como o rápido aumento de populações que não têm acesso à Internet. Neste contexto, o compartilhamento de ligações pode desempenhar um papel fundamental na promoção de uma utilização mais equitativa e sustentável das infraestruturas de telecomunicações. *3. Expandindo o espectro comum* Não são apenas pontos de acesso sem fio à Internet que podem ser compartilhados, mas também a infraestrutura intangível na qual os sinais de rádio viajam. O Wi-Fi, como uma parcela não licenciada do espectro e, portanto, um patrimônio comum, é um trunfo fundamental para as redes comunitárias dispostas a criar infraestruturas acessíveis e flexíveis de última milha. No entanto, estas bandas de frequência Wi-Fi são atualmente muito limitadas. Não só estão ficando cada vez mais sujeitas a congestionamento em áreas densamente povoadas, mas também estão expostas a novos padrões técnicos que usam a chamada banda de freqüência ISM (como LTE-U) que prejudicam a confiabilidade das comunicações Wi-Fi. Por último, mas não menos importante, as bandas de frequência existentes para Wi-Fi (5,6 Ghz e 2,4 Ghz) têm restrições físicas que impedem que sejam utilizadas para ligações de rádio mais longas. Face a tais desafios, é necessária uma nova abordagem da política do espectro. Os formuladores de políticas devem expandir as bandas de Wi-Fi não licenciadas. Dois outros tipos de frequências deveriam ser disponibilizados quer num cenário não autorizado (cenário preferido) quer, se não possível, baseado em regimes de autorização flexíveis e acessíveis: chamados espaços em branco em frequências mais baixas (que permitem a utilização de redes de longa distância baratas e Links resistentes) e as bandas de 12Ghz e 60Ghz (para as quais o equipamento de rádio é acessível e que pode nos ajudar a construir links de rádio ponto-a-ponto de alta largura de banda). Uma vez tornadas acessíveis às redes comunitárias, estas bandas de frequências ajudarão estas redes a desenvolverem e expandirem infraestruturas sem fios baratas e resistentes. *4. Atualização das regras de acesso aberto a infraestruturas de telecomunicações* As redes construídas com o dinheiro dos contribuintes também devem ser tratadas como bens comuns e, como tais, permanecerem livres da captura corporativa. Hoje, a sua gestão e exploração é muitas vezes delegada pelas autoridades públicas aos operadores de redes empresariais. Essas entidades costumam adotar esquemas de preços agressivos projetados para os operadores históricos que tornam extremamente oneroso para pequenos provedores de acesso se interconectarem com essas redes. O acesso a estas redes de financiamento público para entidades sem fins lucrativos, como redes comunitárias e pequenas empresas, deve ser garantido a um custo razoável e proporcional. Da mesma forma, as redes comunitárias muitas vezes não podem ter acesso às infraestruturas locais privadas dos operadores históricos, apesar de serem a única forma de ligar os assinantes interessados. De fato, em muitos mercados europeus, a implantação de redes de fibra ótica está (re)criando condições monopolísticas nos circuitos locais através de esquemas de preços que impedem os pequenos atores de acessarem a essas redes privadas. Os formuladores de políticas e os reguladores devem assegurar que cada área seja coberta por pelo menos um operador de telecomunicações com uma oferta chamada "bitstream" acessível para pequenos agentes. *5. Protegendo o software livre e a liberdade do usuário em equipamentos de rádio* Em 2014, a União Europeia adoptou a Diretiva 2014/53 relativa aos equipamentos de rádio. Apesar de a diretiva prever objetivos de política sólidos, poderá mesmo prejudicar o desenvolvimento das redes comunitárias. Na verdade, as redes comunitárias geralmente precisam substituir o software incluído pelo fabricante em hardware de rádio com software livre e de código aberto especialmente projetado para atender às suas necessidades, um processo coletivo que melhora a segurança e incentiva a reciclagem de hardware, entre outros benefícios. O parágrafo 3º do artigo 3º da referida diretiva cria uma pressão legal para que os fabricantes de dispositivos de rádio garantam a conformidade do software embutido nestes dispositivos com o quadro regulamentar europeu. Como resultado, há um forte incentivo para os fabricantes para bloquear os seus dispositivos e evitar modificações de terceiros no hardware. Por conseguinte, solicitamos aos responsáveis políticos que prevejam uma exceção geral a todos os programas de software livre instalados em dispositivos de rádio por terceiros (sendo estes últimos responsáveis caso o seu software implique violações do quadro regulamentar), para salvaguardar os direitos dos utilizadores. *6. Abolição das obrigações gerais de conservação de dados* As redes comunitárias se esforçam por salvaguardar os direitos humanos nas redes de comunicação e, em particular, o direito à privacidade e à confidencialidade das comunicações. Embora saibamos as recentes decisões do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia segundo as quais a retenção indiscriminada de metadados viola a Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais, estamos preocupados com a disposição de vários Estados-Membros em contornarem estas decisões para proteger as capacidades de vigilância indiscriminada. À medida que os legisladores da UE começam a discutir a revisão da Diretiva de Privacidade e Comunicações Electrônicas, pedimos-lhes que se oponham a quaisquer obrigações gerais de conservação de dados e cubram as lacunas existentes na legislação da UE para garantir que apenas possam ser impostas obrigações de retenção específicas e limitadas aos fornecedores de acesso e provimento. *7. **Fornecendo apoio público direto e direcionado* Inúmeras outras iniciativas políticas podem ajudar a apoiar as redes comunitárias e os significativos benefícios que elas trazem, tais como pequenas subvenções, financiamento de multidões e subsídios para ajudar os nossos grupos a comprar servidores e equipamentos de rádio, comunicando-se com a sua iniciativa, dando-lhes acesso a infraestruturas públicas (por exemplo, o teto de um edifício público para instalar uma antena), mas também para apoiar suas pesquisas sobre transmissão de rádio, métodos de roteamento, software ou criptografia. Como muitas autoridades locais descobriram, apoiar as redes comunitárias é uma boa opção política. À medida que os legisladores da UE avançam na iniciativa WiFi4EU, gostaríamos de lembrar que fomos pioneiros em vários modelos de fornecimento de pontos de acesso público gratuitos. Acreditamos que o dinheiro público investido nessa iniciativa deve ser dirigido principalmente a grupos que buscam uma lógica de baixo para cima, semeando grupos locais que possam promover o empoderamento e a coesão das comunidades locais, fomentar a competição e atingir os mesmos objetivos de política em uma fração do custo que seria cobrado pelos principais operadores de telecomunicações. *8. Abertura do processo de elaboração de políticas às redes comunitárias* Embora tenhamos muitas vezes parceria com os municípios e as autoridades públicas locais, pedimos aos reguladores nacionais e europeus que prestem mais atenção às nossas atividades quando da elaboração da regulamentação. As redes comunitárias têm a competência e a legitimidade necessárias para serem parte integrante dos debates técnicos e jurídicos sobre a política de banda larga, em que os ISP tradicionais e comerciais estão sobre-representados. As redes comunitárias podem ter uma visão informada nesses debates, permitindo um processo de elaboração de políticas mais adaptado ao interesse público. On 2017-03-03 12:38, Federica Giovanella wrote: > // Apologies for cross-posting - Read online: > http://netcommons.eu/?q= content/letter-eu-policy- > makers-making-regulation-work- > community-networks<http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/letter-eu-policy-makers-making-regulation-w…> > // > > Dear all, > > After many discussions with many European Community Networks (CNs), > researchers from the netCommons<http://netcommons.eu/> project on > network infrastructure as a commons are happy to present a draft open > letter on "policy recommendations for sustaining Community Networks". > The letter is targeted at European policy-makers, who recently started > working on an overhaul of the telecom regulatory framework. > > https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/ > Rl42W44XAc6/view/<https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/Rl42W44XAc6/view/> > > This letter, drafted in collaboration with several European CNs and > advocacy groups, is meant to offer a collective voice to this growing > movement. > > *Until March 8th*, we would like to collect signatures from as many > European CNs as possible, as well as other supporting organizations > (from Europe and beyond, be they advocacy groups, research projects, > non-profits, SMEs, local authorities, etc.). > > After this consultation period and the collection of signatures, we > would like to send the letter to members of EU Parliament, national > delegations at the Council of the EU, as well as to key officials from > the EU Commission. > > Several outcomes can be expected, including: > > - The publication of a joint press release by all signatories to > disseminate the open letter as widely as possible (by the end of > March). > - Proposals for amendments reflecting the recommendations of this open > letter, to be sent to key members of the EU Parliament before the > first crucial vote on the Telecoms Package in late April. > - A policy workshop to be organized later this year in Brussels. > > Of course, all of these potential outcomes will depend upon the > involvement of signatory organizations, and in particular of the > willingness of CNs to work together. > > But first, we are sharing the draft to a wider circle of CNs and other > people interested in their activities for consultation and potential > amendments to the text. Until March 8th, you can read and comment on > the draft letter, offer corrections and suggest changes or additions > by using co-ment, an online tool for collaborative writing: > > Please read and comment on the open letter. > If and when you agree to sign the letter, *please send the name of > your organization, the country where it is based and its > high-resolution logo at: > advocacy(a)netcommons.eu<mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu>* (note that if > your signature is dependent on the response brought to a specific > comment you have made, please be sure to tag comment as "blocking"). > > Thanks, > > Federica Giovanella > University of Trento > (http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/people/federica-giovanella) > Partner of netCommons project on network infrastructure as a commons > http://netcommons.eu/ > > > ========Text of the open letter========== > > OPEN LETTER TO EU POLICY-MAKERS: > POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINING COMMUNITY NETWORKS > > PREAMBLE > > We represent European Community Networks, a growing movement of > organizations that operate local communication infrastructures, > sometimes federated at the regional or national levels. These networks, > most of which also provide access to the global Internet, are operated > as a commons. That is, rather than being driven by for-profit motives, > our key focus is on providing connectivity while striving for > democratic > governance, social inclusion, education, and human rights with respect > to communication technologies. > > Our organizations vary considerably in terms of sizes, types of network > infrastructures and political cultures. Yet, despite this diversity, we > are united by the common objective to build networks that meet the > communication needs of humans (rather than those of objects and > machines), through networks that are built and run by our communities, > for our communities, focused on local empowerment, affordability and > resiliency. > > Today, we collectively provide broadband connectivity not only to tens > of thousands of individual European citizens and residents, but also to > organizations including small and medium sized companies, schools, > healthcare centers, social projects and many more. In many cases, we > have out-competed mainstream operators, by providing cheaper and faster > Internet connectivity than incumbent players. Thanks to our > infrastructure and through our various activities, we foster scientific > and engineering experiments, we help local hosting and service > providers > come together to mutualise investments and share costs, we support > digital literacy and data sovereignty through workshops and other > educational activities. > > Yet, despite our achievements, policy-makers at the national and > European levels have so far mostly neglected our existence and specific > regulatory needs. Worse, regulation is often hampering our initiatives, > making the work of our participants and volunteers harder than it > should > be. This is why, as you start working on a European code of electronic > communications, we decided to contact you and voice our ideas and > recommendations regarding the future of the legal and policy framework > regulating our activities. > > 1. Lifting unnecessary regulatory and financial burdens > > We first ask you to review the regulatory framework and get rid of > unnecessary regulatory burdens, such as fees or red-tape that are > unnecessary or illegitimate when imposed on small non-profit entities. > In Belgium for instance, the registration fee that telecom operators > must pay to the NRA is at 676€ for the first registration, plus 557€ > every following year (for those whose revenues are below 1M€, which is > the case for many community networks). Even such small fees can hinder > the growth of small networks that efficiently serve tens of households. > In France, Spain and Germany, it is free, which might explain why the > community network movement is much more dynamic in these countries. The > proposed code for electronic communications aims to harmonize > procedures > for declaration fees (first registration) as well as administrative > charges (annual fees). EU lawmakers must ensure that the fees and > charges imposed by national NRAs are null or negligible for non-profit > ISPs and micro and small businesses. Likewise, taxes designed for large > corporate firms in the telecom sectors should not apply to smaller, > non-profit operators. > > 2. Getting rid of third-party liability when sharing Internet access > > Several laws seek to prevent the sharing of Internet connections > amongst > several users by making people responsible (and potentially liable) for > all communication made through their Wi-Fi connection, and create legal > risks for people sharing their connection. In Germany, rights-holders > have used a "secondary liability" doctrine to chill the growth of the > community networks movement. In France too, copyright law imposes a > secondary liability regime that creates significant legal uncertainty > for people sharing their network connections with other users. The > so-called "mere conduit", inscribed in EU law since 2000 in the > directive on the information society, needs to be guaranteed and > expanded to small-area wireless access points. In the same spirit, > contract clauses that forbid subscribers to share their connections > with > others should be prohibited. Promoting a right to share Internet > connections is all the more vital considering the economic and > ecological crises, as well as the rapid increase of populations that > cannot afford access to the Internet. In this context, connection > sharing can play a critical role in fostering a more equitable and > sustainable use of telecommunications infrastructure. > > 3. Expanding the spectrum commons > > It is not just Internet wireless access points that can be shared, but > also the intangible infrastructure on which radio signals travel. > Wi-Fi, > as an unlicensed portion of the spectrum and therefore a commons, is a > key asset for community networks willing to set up affordable and > flexible last-mile infrastructure. However, these Wi-Fi frequency bands > are currently very limited. Not only are they getting increasingly > subject to congestion in densely populated areas, they are also exposed > to new technical standards that use the so-called ISM frequency band > (like LTE-U) that hamper the reliability of Wi-Fi communications. Last > but not least, existing frequency bands for Wi-Fi (5,6 Ghz and 2,4 Ghz) > have physical constraints that prevent them for being used for longer > radio links. In the face of such challenges, a new approach to spectrum > policy is needed. Policy-makers should expand unlicensed Wi-Fi bands. > Two other types of frequencies should also be made available either on > an unlicensed (preferred scenario) or, if not possible, based on > affordable and flexible authorization schemes: so-called white spaces > in > lower frequencies (which allow for cheap and resilient long-distance > links) and the 12Ghz and the 60Ghz bands (for which radio equipment is > affordable and which can help us build high-bandwidth point-to-point > radio links). Once made accessible to community networks, these > frequency bands will help these networks roll-out and expand cheap and > resilient wireless infrastructures. > > 4. Updating open-access rules in telecom infrastructures > > Networks built with taxpayers money should also be treated as a commons > and, as such, remain free from corporate capture. Today, their > management and exploitation is often delegated by public authorities to > corporate network operators. These entities usually adopt aggressive > pricing schemes designed for incumbent players that make it extremely > costly for small access providers to interconnect with these networks. > Access to these publicly-funded networks for non-profit entities like > community networks as well as small businesses should be guaranteed, at > a reasonable and proportionate cost. Similarly, community networks > often > cannot have access to the private local infrastructures of incumbent > players, despite the fact that these are the only way to connect > willing > subscribers. Indeed, in many European markets, the deployment of > optical > fiber networks is (re)creating monopolistic conditions on local loops > through pricing schemes which preclude small actors from accessing > these > private networks. Policy-makers and regulators should ensure that every > area is covered by at least one telecom operator with a so-called > "bitstream" offer affordable for smaller players. > > 5. Protecting free software and user freedom in radio equipment > > In 2014, the European Union adopted Directive 2014/53 on radio > equipment. Although the Directive pursues sound policy goals, it might > actually impair the development of community networks. Indeed, > community > networks usually need to replace the software included by the > manufacturer in radio hardware with free and open source software > especially designed to suit their needs, a collective process that > improves security and encourages the recycling of hardware, among other > benefits. Article 3.3 of the said Directive creates legal pressure for > manufacturers of radio devices to ensure the compliance of the software > loaded on these devices with the European regulatory framework. As a > result, there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to lock down > their > devices and prevent third-party modifications of the hardware. We > therefore ask policy-makers to provide a general exception for all free > software installed on radio devices by third-parties (the latter being > liable if their software lead to violations of the regulatory > framework), so that users' rights are safeguarded. > > 6. Abrogating blanket data retention obligations > > Community networks strive to safeguard human rights in communication > networks, and in particular the right to privacy and the > confidentiality > of communication. While we welcome recent rulings by the Court of > Justice of the European Union holding that indiscriminate retention of > metadata violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are concerned > about several member states' willingness to circumvent these rulings to > protect capabilities for indiscriminate surveillance. As EU lawmakers > start discussing the overhaul of the ePrivacy Directive, we call on > them > to oppose any blanket data retention obligations and close existing > loopholes in EU law to ensure that only targeted and limited retention > obligations can be imposed on hosting and access providers. > > 7. Bringing direct and targeted public support > > Countless other policy initiatives can help support community networks > and the associated significant benefits they bring, such as small > grants, crowd-funding and subsidies to help our groups buy servers and > radio equipment, communicate around their initiative, giving them > access > to public infrastructures (for instance, the roof of a public building > to install an antenna), but also to support their research on radio > transmission, routing methods, software or encryption. As many local > authorities have found, supporting community networks is a sound policy > option. As EU lawmakers move forward on the WiFi4EU initiative, we > would > like to remind you that we have pioneered various models for the > provision of free public access points. We believe that public money > invested in this initiative should primarily go to groups pursuing a > bottom-up logic, seeding local groups that can foster the empowerment > and cohesion of local communities, nurture competition, and meet the > same policy-objectives at a fraction of the cost that would be charged > by mainstream telecom operators. > > 8. Opening the policy-making process to Community Networks > > Although we have often partnered with municipalities and local public > authorities, we ask that national and European regulators pay more > attention to our activities when drafting regulation. Community > networks > have both the expertise and legitimacy to take an integral part in > technical and legal debates over broadband policy in which traditional, > commercial ISPs are over-represented. Community networks can bring an > informed view to these debates, allowing for a policy-making process > more attuned to the public interest. > > We thank you for your attention and very much look forward to engaging > with you on these important issues, > > > First signatories (EU-based community networks) > Aquilenet (France) > Franciliens.net (France) > Freifunk Hamburg (Germany) > (Incoming) > > > Supporting organizations (advocacy groups, research projects, public > authorities, SMEs, etc.) > > La Quadrature du Net > > (Incoming) > > > For any inquiry regarding this open letter, write to: > advocacy(a)netcommons.eu<mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu> > > http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/letter-eu-policy-makers-making-regulation-w… > > > > _______________________________________________ > DC3 mailing list > DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net > https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

6 years

Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks

by instituto

Great. I will be there too. Abour the models of CNs what i am telling is the regulatory issues. I am not proposing to limit the models of CNs, just a reflection about how the regulatory issues must be made. Here in Brazil we are trying to make some conversations with local and small ISPs to interconnect with CNs and provide links to internet, but its a beggining... But i will put these ideas in the doc too....thanksss br Marcelo Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.-------- Mensagem original --------De: Federica Giovanella <federgi82(a)hotmail.com> Data: 07/03/2017 05:07 (GMT-03:00) Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks  Hi Marcelo, I see your point about profit/non profit and, in principle, I agree. Probably one of the best models is again Guifi.net and its economic framework (but Roger and Leandro know much better than me). But, in the end, I am not sure we should try to make all CNs in the same way (provided, of course, that they do not become commercial ISPs! ;) By the way, I would recommend that you use the co-ment tool if you want to comment and propose different views and so on; here is the link: https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/Rl42W44XAc6/view/ It would be usueful to have your insights there, directly - let's say - on the letter and where every other CN can see it. If you - or any other CN within or outside EU - would like to sign the letter, please send the name of your organization, the country where it is based and its high-resolution logo at: advocacy(a)netcommons.eu. The letter will be open for signatures until March 22. Thanks once again. Have a good day. Federica Da: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> per conto di Instituto Bem Estar Brasil <instituto(a)bemestarbrasil.org.br> Inviato: lunedì 6 marzo 2017 23.46.55 A: 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity' Oggetto: [DC3] RES: RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Hi Federica. Yes, we want to join in this action. First I will make some changes and send here for the group to a debate about the changes. And yes I can put under CC and show the original link too, no problem. The purpose is political and in general the text is great. Before I sign, I would like to make this debate about equal rights and benefits to CNs and small comercial ISPs. Like a I said I think that we need to treat different each model. Just to understand if in EU, small ISPs with profit have a different culture, allowing that the network could be treated as a common for example and not a private and closed network. In the principles of the CNs, I identified that we can build it in a lot of ways, but, one thing is to establish the principles and another is to create the regulation where we will not have the guarantee of these principles. Why am I saying that ? I think that in everywhere the associative process is a fact and CNs have more about associative and cooperative process than business model as usual. Again, nothing against the profit, but, I think that non profitable initiatives can guarantee better the objectives that we defend and it’s important to differ : without profitable ends and with economical ends, ‘cause an association can have economical activities following their respective statuary objectives and reverting the positive balance to continuing and improving their activities. In resume, everyone that works with CNs, in associative or cooperative process can receive your pro labore with dignity, fair and helping the communities to have better services, looks like a recreational club and in the same time don’t having profit. I don’t know if my explanation is alright, but if have any doubt let's continue the debate if the people here want to do so PS.: In 03/20 we will have a debate about regulation in Campinas/SP and I can try to put this letter to debate in there too if you would like br Marcelo De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Federica Giovanella Enviada em: segunda-feira, 6 de março de 2017 15:23 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Hi Marcelo, thanks for these insights. I have shared them with my colleagues of netCommons. We are glad that the letter can be useful for you as well. Our question is: will you use it for lobbying your government? Or for which other purposes? By the way, the open letter is under a CC BY SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Hence you can reuse it, if you acknowledge the project for attribution (you can can also link back to the source original letter) and provided that you indicate on your letter if changes were made from ours and of course, as long as you use the same license for your derivative letter (it's just the way CC BY SA works). It would be good to have your network's signature on the letter as well. We think it is important to show that CNs exist, are widespread and are a powerful tool everywhere in the world. Thanks a lot again. Best, federica Da: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> per conto di Instituto Bem Estar Brasil <instituto(a)bemestarbrasil.org.br> Inviato: lunedì 6 marzo 2017 13.48.27 A: 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity' Oggetto: [DC3] RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Just for reflection : Here in Brazil, the cultural behavior of the ISPs is that the network is the meaning to have profit. Nothing against the profit, but, make equal the rights and benefits between non-profitable and social initiatives and ISP operating in business model as usual seems to be a barrier to consolidate that the network is a common good. Unless if this culture of profit is different in EU and the ISPs in there don’t have any problem to open the networks to democratic usage and make decisions. An example is if the community wants to create a rule or a local service in a private ISP network, how could this thing happen ? Maybe this is the wishful of a libertarian model of deregulation and I know that this issue is polemic, like we want to banish the market, but this is not the point, the point is to make proportional rules to each kind of model and facilitate the cultural change that communication is a right and not only a shelf product. Maybe it is radical, but, let’s saw how the communications along the years were kidnapped by market rules and political interests. I think that reduce the taxes, some obligations and a fair price to interconnect the networks is a good idea for small ISPs, but free of taxes and obligations at all, I don’t think that is a good idea to make it happen for profitable business models. Outside this issue, the letter is very good and some guys and girls in Brazil already translate it and I want to know if we can appropriate part of the text to create another fork of it …. Thanks and let’s keep walking. Att marcelo De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Carlos Rey-Moreno Enviada em: segunda-feira, 6 de março de 2017 05:16 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity Assunto: Re: [DC3] Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Hi Federica, great initiative and great letter! I hope you can get proper traction on this! Please add Zenzeleni Networks from South Africa as a signatory if you think it adds value. Regards, carlos On 3 March 2017 at 17:38, Federica Giovanella <federgi82(a)hotmail.com> wrote: // Apologies for cross-posting - Read online: http://netcommons.eu/?q= content/letter-eu-policy- makers-making-regulation-work- community-networks // Dear all, After many discussions with many European Community Networks (CNs), researchers from the netCommons project on network infrastructure as a commons are happy to present a draft open letter on "policy recommendations for sustaining Community Networks". The letter is targeted at European policy-makers, who recently started working on an overhaul of the telecom regulatory framework. https://lqdn.co-ment.com/text/ Rl42W44XAc6/view/ This letter, drafted in collaboration with several European CNs and advocacy groups, is meant to offer a collective voice to this growing movement. *Until March 8th*, we would like to collect signatures from as many European CNs as possible, as well as other supporting organizations (from Europe and beyond, be they advocacy groups, research projects, non-profits, SMEs, local authorities, etc.). After this consultation period and the collection of signatures, we would like to send the letter to members of EU Parliament, national delegations at the Council of the EU, as well as to key officials from the EU Commission. Several outcomes can be expected, including: - The publication of a joint press release by all signatories to disseminate the open letter as widely as possible (by the end of March). - Proposals for amendments reflecting the recommendations of this open letter, to be sent to key members of the EU Parliament before the first crucial vote on the Telecoms Package in late April. - A policy workshop to be organized later this year in Brussels. Of course, all of these potential outcomes will depend upon the involvement of signatory organizations, and in particular of the willingness of CNs to work together. But first, we are sharing the draft to a wider circle of CNs and other people interested in their activities for consultation and potential amendments to the text. Until March 8th, you can read and comment on the draft letter, offer corrections and suggest changes or additions by using co-ment, an online tool for collaborative writing: Please read and comment on the open letter. If and when you agree to sign the letter, *please send the name of your organization, the country where it is based and its high-resolution logo at: advocacy(a)netcommons.eu* (note that if your signature is dependent on the response brought to a specific comment you have made, please be sure to tag comment as "blocking"). Thanks, Federica Giovanella University of Trento (http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/people/federica-giovanella) Partner of netCommons project on network infrastructure as a commons http://netcommons.eu/ ========Text of the open letter========== OPEN LETTER TO EU POLICY-MAKERS: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINING COMMUNITY NETWORKS PREAMBLE We represent European Community Networks, a growing movement of organizations that operate local communication infrastructures, sometimes federated at the regional or national levels. These networks, most of which also provide access to the global Internet, are operated as a commons. That is, rather than being driven by for-profit motives, our key focus is on providing connectivity while striving for democratic governance, social inclusion, education, and human rights with respect to communication technologies. Our organizations vary considerably in terms of sizes, types of network infrastructures and political cultures. Yet, despite this diversity, we are united by the common objective to build networks that meet the communication needs of humans (rather than those of objects and machines), through networks that are built and run by our communities, for our communities, focused on local empowerment, affordability and resiliency. Today, we collectively provide broadband connectivity not only to tens of thousands of individual European citizens and residents, but also to organizations including small and medium sized companies, schools, healthcare centers, social projects and many more. In many cases, we have out-competed mainstream operators, by providing cheaper and faster Internet connectivity than incumbent players. Thanks to our infrastructure and through our various activities, we foster scientific and engineering experiments, we help local hosting and service providers come together to mutualise investments and share costs, we support digital literacy and data sovereignty through workshops and other educational activities. Yet, despite our achievements, policy-makers at the national and European levels have so far mostly neglected our existence and specific regulatory needs. Worse, regulation is often hampering our initiatives, making the work of our participants and volunteers harder than it should be. This is why, as you start working on a European code of electronic communications, we decided to contact you and voice our ideas and recommendations regarding the future of the legal and policy framework regulating our activities. 1. Lifting unnecessary regulatory and financial burdens We first ask you to review the regulatory framework and get rid of unnecessary regulatory burdens, such as fees or red-tape that are unnecessary or illegitimate when imposed on small non-profit entities. In Belgium for instance, the registration fee that telecom operators must pay to the NRA is at 676€ for the first registration, plus 557€ every following year (for those whose revenues are below 1M€, which is the case for many community networks). Even such small fees can hinder the growth of small networks that efficiently serve tens of households. In France, Spain and Germany, it is free, which might explain why the community network movement is much more dynamic in these countries. The proposed code for electronic communications aims to harmonize procedures for declaration fees (first registration) as well as administrative charges (annual fees). EU lawmakers must ensure that the fees and charges imposed by national NRAs are null or negligible for non-profit ISPs and micro and small businesses. Likewise, taxes designed for large corporate firms in the telecom sectors should not apply to smaller, non-profit operators. 2. Getting rid of third-party liability when sharing Internet access Several laws seek to prevent the sharing of Internet connections amongst several users by making people responsible (and potentially liable) for all communication made through their Wi-Fi connection, and create legal risks for people sharing their connection. In Germany, rights-holders have used a "secondary liability" doctrine to chill the growth of the community networks movement. In France too, copyright law imposes a secondary liability regime that creates significant legal uncertainty for people sharing their network connections with other users. The so-called "mere conduit", inscribed in EU law since 2000 in the directive on the information society, needs to be guaranteed and expanded to small-area wireless access points. In the same spirit, contract clauses that forbid subscribers to share their connections with others should be prohibited. Promoting a right to share Internet connections is all the more vital considering the economic and ecological crises, as well as the rapid increase of populations that cannot afford access to the Internet. In this context, connection sharing can play a critical role in fostering a more equitable and sustainable use of telecommunications infrastructure. 3. Expanding the spectrum commons It is not just Internet wireless access points that can be shared, but also the intangible infrastructure on which radio signals travel. Wi-Fi, as an unlicensed portion of the spectrum and therefore a commons, is a key asset for community networks willing to set up affordable and flexible last-mile infrastructure. However, these Wi-Fi frequency bands are currently very limited. Not only are they getting increasingly subject to congestion in densely populated areas, they are also exposed to new technical standards that use the so-called ISM frequency band (like LTE-U) that hamper the reliability of Wi-Fi communications. Last but not least, existing frequency bands for Wi-Fi (5,6 Ghz and 2,4 Ghz) have physical constraints that prevent them for being used for longer radio links. In the face of such challenges, a new approach to spectrum policy is needed. Policy-makers should expand unlicensed Wi-Fi bands. Two other types of frequencies should also be made available either on an unlicensed (preferred scenario) or, if not possible, based on affordable and flexible authorization schemes: so-called white spaces in lower frequencies (which allow for cheap and resilient long-distance links) and the 12Ghz and the 60Ghz bands (for which radio equipment is affordable and which can help us build high-bandwidth point-to-point radio links). Once made accessible to community networks, these frequency bands will help these networks roll-out and expand cheap and resilient wireless infrastructures. 4. Updating open-access rules in telecom infrastructures Networks built with taxpayers money should also be treated as a commons and, as such, remain free from corporate capture. Today, their management and exploitation is often delegated by public authorities to corporate network operators. These entities usually adopt aggressive pricing schemes designed for incumbent players that make it extremely costly for small access providers to interconnect with these networks. Access to these publicly-funded networks for non-profit entities like community networks as well as small businesses should be guaranteed, at a reasonable and proportionate cost. Similarly, community networks often cannot have access to the private local infrastructures of incumbent players, despite the fact that these are the only way to connect willing subscribers. Indeed, in many European markets, the deployment of optical fiber networks is (re)creating monopolistic conditions on local loops through pricing schemes which preclude small actors from accessing these private networks. Policy-makers and regulators should ensure that every area is covered by at least one telecom operator with a so-called "bitstream" offer affordable for smaller players. 5. Protecting free software and user freedom in radio equipment In 2014, the European Union adopted Directive 2014/53 on radio equipment. Although the Directive pursues sound policy goals, it might actually impair the development of community networks. Indeed, community networks usually need to replace the software included by the manufacturer in radio hardware with free and open source software especially designed to suit their needs, a collective process that improves security and encourages the recycling of hardware, among other benefits. Article 3.3 of the said Directive creates legal pressure for manufacturers of radio devices to ensure the compliance of the software loaded on these devices with the European regulatory framework. As a result, there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to lock down their devices and prevent third-party modifications of the hardware. We therefore ask policy-makers to provide a general exception for all free software installed on radio devices by third-parties (the latter being liable if their software lead to violations of the regulatory framework), so that users' rights are safeguarded. 6. Abrogating blanket data retention obligations Community networks strive to safeguard human rights in communication networks, and in particular the right to privacy and the confidentiality of communication. While we welcome recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that indiscriminate retention of metadata violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are concerned about several member states' willingness to circumvent these rulings to protect capabilities for indiscriminate surveillance. As EU lawmakers start discussing the overhaul of the ePrivacy Directive, we call on them to oppose any blanket data retention obligations and close existing loopholes in EU law to ensure that only targeted and limited retention obligations can be imposed on hosting and access providers. 7. Bringing direct and targeted public support Countless other policy initiatives can help support community networks and the associated significant benefits they bring, such as small grants, crowd-funding and subsidies to help our groups buy servers and radio equipment, communicate around their initiative, giving them access to public infrastructures (for instance, the roof of a public building to install an antenna), but also to support their research on radio transmission, routing methods, software or encryption. As many local authorities have found, supporting community networks is a sound policy option. As EU lawmakers move forward on the WiFi4EU initiative, we would like to remind you that we have pioneered various models for the provision of free public access points. We believe that public money invested in this initiative should primarily go to groups pursuing a bottom-up logic, seeding local groups that can foster the empowerment and cohesion of local communities, nurture competition, and meet the same policy-objectives at a fraction of the cost that would be charged by mainstream telecom operators. 8. Opening the policy-making process to Community Networks Although we have often partnered with municipalities and local public authorities, we ask that national and European regulators pay more attention to our activities when drafting regulation. Community networks have both the expertise and legitimacy to take an integral part in technical and legal debates over broadband policy in which traditional, commercial ISPs are over-represented. Community networks can bring an informed view to these debates, allowing for a policy-making process more attuned to the public interest. We thank you for your attention and very much look forward to engaging with you on these important issues, First signatories (EU-based community networks) Aquilenet (France) Franciliens.net (France) Freifunk Hamburg (Germany) (Incoming) Supporting organizations (advocacy groups, research projects, public authorities, SMEs, etc.) La Quadrature du Net (Incoming) For any inquiry regarding this open letter, write to: advocacy(a)netcommons.eu http://netcommons.eu/?q=content/letter-eu-policy-makers-making-regulation-w… _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 -- Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD PostDoctoral Fellow University of the Western Cape Zenzeleni Networks: zenzeleni.net https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633 Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym

6 years

Collaborating with local power companies

by Michael Oghia

Hi everyone, I just read this Interesting article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-rural-america-bro… I know the idea of providing Internet via power lines is more or less a defunct idea (not due to technological constraints, but the lack of political will to invest in it to protect existing revenues). However, has anyone on this list ever thought about working with electricity companies, especially local power companies? Best, -Michael

6 years

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

DC3 March 2017