This is the problem with language … all words are inherently ambiguous.
I’ve been using the term “infrastructure” as opposed to “utility” to avoid the semantics
something that is measured or a service. But it’s gotten little traction. I still use it
but am trying out “facilities” to sharpen the contrast with “network”. All these words
have regulatory significance.
I want to avoid a long treatise on language but … I often use the example of the word
“radio” have originated as a technical term has morphed into meaning “music business”.
Less obvious is that “communications” suffered the same fate in taking a word used for how
people speak to each other and has become associated with a particular service because,
two centuries ago, that was the only way to communicate at a distance. The words
“information”, “broadband”, “access” etc. all have toxic semantic loading.
This is why I’m trying figure out how to focus on separating the facilities from the
services and how to talk about a new infrastructure we use to … well, that’s another
issue.
How do we even talk about this when all the words are “taken”? And, worse, understood. How
do you get people to unlearn what they know is true?
Bob Frankston
<https://Frankston.com>
https://Frankston.com
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> On
Behalf Of Judith Hellerstein
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 10:23
To: dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet
connectivity
HI Mike,
I think that is a good suggestion. As Network also has regulatory significance. I am not
sure Infrastructure does. Glad to see a report or comment is being pulled together
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com <mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website:
www.jhellerstein.com <http://www.jhellerstein.com>
Linked In:
www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/>
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 6/1/2020 10:16 AM, Mike Jensen wrote:
Tnx Jane, I had a similar thought....Although less frequent now, 'facilities
regulation' used to be quite a popular telecom term and will still probably ring too
many regulatory bells, considering the average age of a regulator:-). Perhaps we should
just call it 'infrastructure' - you need power and transport to the same place
as the router, so it's all the same anyway!
Mike
On 01/06/20 14:25, Jane Coffin wrote:
Just some food for thought.
If you use the word facilities – you tie back to old regulatory methods that regulated
“facilities”.
This might be far worse in some regulatory regimes and subject a CN or small ISP to more
onerous regulatory conditions.
Network is a bit more flexible for some regimes/countries.
From: <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of <mailto:dc3@bob.ma>
"dc3(a)bob.ma" <mailto:dc3@bob.ma> <dc3(a)bob.ma>
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 2:36 PM
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet
connectivity
The problem is that you can’t define the word “network” outside of implicit contexts. At
this point I think the word facilities minimizes the semantic loading and allows us to
talk about networking as a way we use the facilities. The powerful idea is looking at what
we do with the facilities, including computer networking and social networking, which we
can own locally without being told how to use it and without having to tithe a provider.
Bob Frankston
<https://Frankston.com>
https://Frankston.com
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>
On Behalf Of sivasubramanian muthusamy
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 14:16
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet
connectivity
Yes, Bob's point is valid as a general caution on the need to be careful about the
words we use, but "Network" is not really a word that we can easily replace. If
the danger lies in equating Networks with "Telecom Networks" then, why not say
"Community Internet Networks" instead? Or, "Community Internet
Infrastructure" ?
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:53 PM Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia(a)gmail.com
<mailto:mike.oghia@gmail.com> > wrote:
+1 Bob, well said
-Michael
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:15 PM <dc3(a)bob.ma <mailto:dc3@bob.ma> > wrote:
If we are move forward we need to be very careful about the words we use and, in
particular, avoid the word “network” because it has implicit semantic loading that
includes the business model of telecom.
Instead we must talk about “community owned facilities” since we do our own networking
using our own apps and devices.
Notice DC3 doesn’t use the word “networks” which is a setup in the right direction. But
maybe if we want further with “community owned facilities” we could make it clear that we
need enabling technology not just “provided” services.
This more about economics than technology that is what is most worrisome to the ITU. As
long as we accept that connectivity is “provided” to “subscribers” will be negotiating
with the ITU rather empowering communities.
Bob Frankston
<https://Frankston.com>
https://Frankston.com
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
> On Behalf Of sivasubramanian muthusamy
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 05:43
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet
connectivity
What we call Community Networks is not what Telecom companies would like to see become
successful. If the term "Community Networks" is hijacked, any diluted definition
+ commercially beneficial architecture supercedes the Community Network vision and a
sub-telecom architecture might get identified and promoted as a "Community
Network.."
On Fri, May 29, 2020, 13:37 Carlos <carlos(a)apc.org <mailto:carlos@apc.org> >
wrote:
Hi AmalI,
The G20 mentioned CNs indeed in its "COVID-19 Response Statement from the G20 Virtual
Ministerial Meeting" as one of the means to expand connectivity “Furthermore, digital
capacities should be expanded, in particular by increasing broadband connectivity using
fixed, mobile, and satellite technologies and by exploring non-traditional means of
connectivity, such as community networks.”
https://g20.org/en/media/Documents/G20%20DETF%20COVID-19%20Ministerial%20St…
Policy makers are going sufficiently slow about CNs in most countries. If at all, I see
the interest of the ITU contributing to speed up things. It's obviously voluntary for
everyone to participate in this process, but the process is taking place regardless, and
either we contribute or the likes of the GSMA, Viasat and Telefonica will contribute with
their own definitions of community networks which are very far from the ones that have
been considered here. In that case, is not only that the ITU may influence policy makers,
is that is will influence them with the wrong evidence.
Here an example of the interpretation of what community involvement means for GSMA and one
of its members
https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GSMA-C…
https://techcentral.co.za/vodacom-to-pay-community-members-to-protect-its-b…
best,
carlos
On 28/5/20 21:07, Raoul Plommer wrote:
We need to work with ITU, if we want changes like free spectrum to break through
internationally. However, I totally agree that we need to be very careful what power we
give them in advising them.
-Raoul
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:46, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet(a)gmail.com
<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com> > wrote:
It is good to keep the ITU informed, but this can't lead to a situation where ITU
gains total legitimacy over all policy related to community networks, which might place
the ITU in a position to influence all decisions, some of which might cause the policy
makers to go slow on Community Networks... (Sorry, I find it difficult to trust the
influences weighing in on ITU)
On Thu, May 28, 2020, 19:10 gphlilanthi <gphlilanthi(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gphlilanthi@gmail.com> > wrote:
I hear G20 are supporting CN. Does anyone know of any specifics regarding this policy
please?
Regards AmalI De Silva-Mitchell
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A (2016)
-------- Original message --------
From: Carlos <carlos(a)apc.org <mailto:carlos@apc.org> >
Date: 27/05/2020 22:20 (GMT-08:00)
To: dc3 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Subject: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet
connectivity
Hi everyone,
After all the noise some of us have made at national, regional and
international Internet Governance spaces, it looks like the ITU Council
wants to hear directly “How can small/community/non-profit operators
help in promoting the increase of Internet connectivity?”
This poses an unique opportunity to showcase directly to the ITU Council
all the amazing work that most of you are doing, specially at times
where CNs are gaining more and more visibility to curve the digital
divide and rural marginalization that is now more and more apparent due
to the pandemic. And I say directly because this request is made through
one of the very few consultations the ITU open to all stakeholders: the
Open Public Consultation of the Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). I provide a bit of
background about it below for those who are interested.
The consultation is structured as a set of questions, one of them the
one included above, available in the following link:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
where you can also find important information and instructions on the
submission process.
I think it is strategically important that the ITU receives as many
contributions from each of us as possible highlighting the many
different ways community operators help in promoting the increase of
Internet connectivity. This will surely contribute in creating a more
policy and regulatory environment for community networks in each of your
countries.
I’ve copied some of the basic instructions to participate below.
Participating can be as easy as forwarding existing text you may have
written (the GISWatch country report for those of you who wrote it:
https://www.giswatch.org/community-networks) to the email address below.
Note that your online submission can be drafted in a UN language other
than English (these are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish),
but you are encouraged (not obliged) to provide a translation in English
for the benefit of all readers.
At APC we are available to provide support to any of you wanting to make
a submission but struggling with the process. Please do not hesitate to
reach out to me directly.
Best,
carlos
== Basic instructions ==
You can include your responses to the questions into the online form in
the following link :
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/form-oct2019.aspx OR
send it to InternetPublicViews(a)itu.int <mailto:InternetPublicViews@itu.int>
including your Full Name, Title,
Country and Organization you are representing.
Your response will then be published on the ITU Website:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
Please include each submission also includes a short summary/abstract
(1-3 paragraphs). This will form part of the final summary document to
be published after the end of the physical open consultation meeting.
== Background ==
ITU Council Working Groups
There are different Working Groups set up to provide input to the ITU
Council in different matters. In the last last Council Group (February,
2020) meeting four appeared to be active [1]:
- Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy
Issues (CWG-Internet)
- Council working group on Child Online Protection (WG-CP)
- Council Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS)
- Council Working Group on Financial and Human Resources (CWG-FHR)
The participation in those working groups varies and some are for
Members States (MS) only, others allow for the participation of Sector
Members (too).
CWG-Internet is limited to Member States, but they hold an open
consultation to all stakeholders. This poses one of the few
opportunities for Civil Society Organizations that are not Sector
Members of the ITU to present their views to the ITU Council. In most
other ITU’s consultations, organizations such as the Association for
Progressive Communications and the Internet Society, both with Sector
Member status do their best to bring the voice of the Civil Society in
general, and of community networks in particular to these spaces.
In particular, CWG-Internet is tasked to identify, study and develop
matters related to international Internet-related public policy issues
and to disseminate its outputs throughout ITU's membership, as well as
to report annually to the Council on activities undertaken on these
subjects [2] [3].
The 13th Session of the ITU Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) decided on 20
September 2019 to hold an open consultation (online and physical) on
“International internet-related public policy issues on harnessing new
and emerging telecommunications/ICTs for sustainable development” where
some of our contributions provided already content in relation to
community connectivity [4].
In the 13th Session it was also decided that the next round of Open
Consultations (February 2020 – August 2020), on the topic of “Expanding
Internet Connectivity” with the questions below: [5]
Expanding Internet Connectivity
- What are the challenges and opportunities for expanding Internet
connectivity, particularly to remote and under-served areas? What are
the roles of governments and non-government actors in overcoming these
challenges?
- Are there particular challenges facing land-locked countries in
securing affordable Internet access? What can be done to overcome these
challenges?
- How can small/community/non-profit operators help in promoting the
increase of Internet connectivity?
[1]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/groups.aspx
[2]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx
[3]
https://www.itu.int/md/S19-CL-C-0136/en
[4]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-oct2019.aspx
[5]
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/19/rclintpol13/c/S19-RCLINTPOL13-C-001…
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3