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

Dear people, Nupef has published the letter in Brazilian Portuguese (thanks to the translation by Thiago Novaes) in its online magazine RETS: https://rets.org.br/?q=node/3080 Nupef has signed the letter as well. fraternal regards --c.a. On 03-03-17 16:38, 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-work-community-networks> > // > > 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-work-community-networks > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DC3 mailing list > DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net > https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 > >