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

Thanks Leandro, certainly the methodology that Guifi.net is using is great, it’s a peculiar social model that the focus is what u told. No problem at all with that. Maybe I understood wrong the letter or maybe we need to change some details to be more specific about the concept of small ISPs, ‘cause what I understood is that the letter is asking for change the regulation and create symmetrical rights and benefits to non-profitable and profitable networks, then the question for reflection that I putted is : if is a good idea make this change in regulation where we can not have guarantee that the profitable entities will respect the principals of CNs, in resume, if their networks will be stay like commons. Certainly is very possible that in EU the behavior of the companies (small ISPs for example) are different from here, and if this is the case, I certainly sign the letter, ‘cause what we want is that all infrastructure of telecom (that has social purpose etc) can be as a commons, but here in Brazil we need to change some aspects of the idea of the letter because the culture is not like in there (I suppose). Again, I am learning a lot with the guifi.net methodology, in fact we are trying to make conversations with small ISPs to change the point of view on how to make partnerships with CNs, but is step by step process. Again, here in Brazil we are discussing a lot regulations and until now what I perceive in the movements is not to mix profitable with non profitable initiatives what concerns about regulations and symmetrical rights and benefits between them. But it is true that we support better conditions to small profitable initiatives in telecom against the top control of the big telcos. And in this way the Anatel here in Brazil is giving some steps forward. And yes, I will go there in the link too J. Thanks for the debate. Br Marcelo De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Leandro Navarro Enviada em: quarta-feira, 8 de março de 2017 07:28 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Open letter to EU policy-makers on sustaining Community Networks Hi Marcelo and Federica, a few inline comments, clarifications. On 7/3/17 09:07, Federica Giovanella wrote: 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! ;) There's no particular interest in promoting a specific model, just sharing the experience, even the opposite: learning from other experiences. In fact E. Ostrom says commons should be adapted to local conditions, far/opposite from a "franchise" model. This is a description of guifi's model: http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/baig-sigcomm.pdf In that model there are several layers, there is an infrastructure commons, but services (including access, content) can be for profit or not, and profit can have different forms. 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/> 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: <mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu> 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 <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> &lt;dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; per conto di Instituto Bem Estar Brasil <mailto:instituto@bemestarbrasil.org.br> &lt;instituto(a)bemestarbrasil.org.br&gt; 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. Sustainability has to do with surplus, and this surplus can be a) "extracted" from the consumers of the infrastructure by the operator or "the owners" or "the investors", or b) re-invested (locally) for the benefit of all participants and the sustainability of the commons + decided by the participants. In (a) investors have "more rights" than consumers (like hens and farmers in an farm), and (b) may be more balanced (like a democratic regime). You can find examples for Internet eXchanges organized through similar structures (participatory, cooperative, reinvestment, infrastructure as commons) for the benefit of the participants (any kind of ISPs). A network infrastructure as a commons (a CN) allows different forms of participation: citizens that connect to and expand the infra, public or private, for extractive profit or not, using and contributing to the commons. An external person, willing just to get service and not getting involved, has multiple options to connect: do-it-yourself or paying the service through a non-profit or for-profit ISP that participates in the commons, based on cost, values, quality perceptions. There can be commercial ISPs participating in a CN, similarly to how all commercial ISPs participate in IXs. n the case of guifi.net, individual (or small groups of) professionals are doing business in maintenance and service provision thanks to the network commons (the compensation system in the paper above explains how this is coordinated). That creates local employment so it's very positive. 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. I'm not sure to understand. Internal or public regulation? (like to ensure market competitiveness) 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. Fully agreed, reinvestment decided by and for the community of participants is key for sustainability. That is in contrast with the capital-based investment in exchange of extracting economic profit from consumers. That may be efficient in some "profitable" markets, but not everywhere, and particularly not at all in cases where extracting money has a negative impact in local development. Regards, Leandro. 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/> 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 &lt;dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; per conto di Instituto Bem Estar Brasil &lt;instituto(a)bemestarbrasil.org.br&gt; 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 &lt;federgi82(a)hotmail.com&gt; 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 <http://netcommons.eu/> 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/> 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: <mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu> 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/> 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: <mailto:advocacy@netcommons.eu> advocacy(a)netcommons.eu <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… _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3