22 Jul
2019
22 Jul
'19
2:37 p.m.
Hi Quiliro,
Thank you for taking the time to watch AND to comment! Really appreciated.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 at 01:45, <quiliro(a)riseup.net> wrote:
El Jue, 18 de Julio de 2019, 6:38 pm, Steve Song
escribió:
I think we are only on the tip of the iceberg as to frameworks we might
come up with to enable access to spectrum in rural areas. For instance,
the UK regulator OFCOM, has designed their next spectrum auction for the
700MHz band in such a way that operators can receive discounts or perhaps
rebates is a better word on the fees paid at auction for spectrum based on
their coverage of areas designated at unserved or underserved by the
regulator, up to a maximum discount. More info on this at
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/12/ofcom-consult-on-uk-mobile-sp…
That's a good idea. A great idea would be to allow the operators the same
discounts on their auction fees based on coverage but allow community
networks to offer coverage in un/underserved areas. That way the operators
have a real incentive to partner with community networks.
Forcing operators to cover rural un/underserved regions before they cover
more lucrative urban areas is a tough sell as operators need to be seen by
investors as generating income as soon as possible from the millions of
dollars they spend on spectrum. I think there are some countries that have
tried this with mixed success. I'll dig up some more info on this.
The recording of the webinar can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijjYmOYZzWk Comments, questions, very
welcome.
Cheers... Steve
Thank you very much Steve. Great information. I listened to it from start
to end. I hope my comments below are useful to you and others.
I agree that corporate telcos would be better off if they worked with
community networks for them to cover the areas of less interest to them.
Perhaps regulators could make it mandatory that big telcos offer service
to these areas before giving service to the big money areas. They could
even be allowed to do it via community networks. So that helps the
community networks have a greater leverage and the big telcos too.
On the other hand, I think the network is not the only
part that should be
owned by the community. The data also should. It would be great to post
this video on a free-er network. The best would be to make small 2 minute
videos explaining the several concepts. (Younger people do not have the
patience we have to watch 90 minutes of one topic.) The license, of
course, would be nice to have a libre license (so no CC-By-ND or
CC-By-ND).
Totally agree with the idea of making shorter explainer videos. 90 minutes
is a long time for a feature film :-) Perhaps a Q&A approach might work
i.e. two minute video and/or animation answers to the most commonly asked
or most challenging questions about community networks. Would be very
happy to brainstorm further on this.
As to local ownership of data and the use of tools to facilitate local
sharing using open source tools, I agree with you in principal and I also
agree it is a desirable destination to work towards but at the same time I
find it is hard to argue with the ease-of-use and reach of platforms like
YouTube, especially being able to livecast and produce an archive of the
podcast that is easy to discover. I would like to see the growth of
platform cooperatives that provide an alternative at scale.
Another topic of interest would be the use of Free
Space Optical
Communications (FSO - not LiFi) for community networking. An example would
be http://ronja.twibright.net (if it could be constructed with currently
purchasable parts).
Absolutely. Koruza (http://www.koruza.net/) is another example. I have to
say I am amazed (and slightly incredulous of) by the range claims (1.4km
and more) of Ronja for free space optics but perhaps I need to learn more.
http://ronja.twibright.com/
I do not think building a GSM network is progress in
telecommunications
because there is currently only nonlibre drivers for GSM radio; not in GSM
3 or LTE or GSM 5. So the communication is not in control of the users.
It is control of the vendors. It would be better to build a TCP/IP network
with realtime video and audio communication prioritization. Then it would
not be controlled by vendors and serve better the communication needs of
communities.
I think the virtue of being able to reach people on the handsets they
already have can trump the value of having an open-down-to-the-radio
network. There is a balance to be struck but I don't think we have to
agree exactly where it is in order to make common cause on community
networks.
Many thanks again for your thoughtful comments!
Cheers... Steve
Greetings.
Quiliro
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
--
Steve Song
+1 902 529 0046
http://villagetelco.org