Hi All -
Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org
On 10/31/18, 3:08 PM, "dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net on behalf of Roger Baig
Viñas" <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net on behalf of roger.baig(a)guifi.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Some comments and clarifications:
* In any case the universal format proposal is intended to discourage
any private investment. As Leandro already said, the only objective is
to ensure a return to the society for the usage of common goods.
Public land in the case of terrestrial deployments and public waters
in the case of the submarine cables. The only difference is that we
propose to swap taxes for network capacity straight, again, as already
Leandro already said.
**There are treaty issues (likely) with the issue of "waters". It would be
interesting to know what those may be - Law of the Sea Treaty.
* The exact portion of fibres assignation is nothing written in stone.
1/3 is just a proposal that seams reasonable for our case (deployments
in municipalities) but must be adjusted in each case, specially not to
jeopardize any potential investment. Just like taxes again.
Unreasonably high taxation would block private initiative and to low
taxation would impede the public administrations to deliver the public
services expected in modern societies.
* The only restriction is that the commons part must always have the
highest priority in case of scarcity because 1) it is the most
efficient thanks to continuous innovations in multiplexing and
capacity extension (the assumption of practical infinite capacity is
reasonable in optical fibre) and the coordinated management and 2)
because it is always opened to everybody, included those who have
access to the other to formats, so if the run out of capacity of any
of the two, they can always join the commons.
* I'm not familiar with EllaLink's details but in Catalonia we have a
long experience in odd agreements for academic, artistic, research,
etc. networks and all have in common that, at most, they just serve a
limited number of people and many of them have proved to be totally
useless. One might argue that well regulated their impact can be
increased, but in any case they are still clubs. On the contrary, what
we propose is to create a common good opened to everybody.
On 30/10/18 18:15, Leandro Navarro wrote:
On 30/10/18 16:23, Luca Belli wrote:
Hi Leandro and all
Thank you very much for sharing the IETF presentation. Very
I share your view but not completely (if I understand it
I agree that it would be the socially just to combine different
uses in shared fibre cables (what you call self-service for the
city council [or may be other administration]; private use;
common use), however I think it might be more successful if the
proportion is not exactly the same.
Thanks a lot for your comments!
The main point ("universal" usage) is enabling and supporting the
three types of uses at once when a private is willing to deploy and
occupy non-private areas of land/water.
Like income or VAT taxes, the proportion of return to achieve
"universality" might need to be adjusted. The "universality" (for
everyone, for the three types of uses) requires a return in terms
of min cost communication paths as an "added-value" opportunity
for communication in each usage groups, and these paths can be in
terms of structural units (e.g. wavelengths in a fibre, or fibre in
a tube). The specific proportions mentioned developed in a very
different scenario (municipal ordinance for the regulation and
promotion of private fibre deployments in public land) and I agree
66% of "fibre tax" might not translate right in this scenario, and
may not be need either.
The principle is more clear by opposition, a purely private
deployment and use of a submarine cable, that does not enable the
added-value of "universal" connectivity, does not sound right (even
with a cash-based tax payment to a few governments only).
Once a path is there, the capacity of a fibre for each usage type
can grow virtually unlimited by switching the endpoints
(governance, cooperative commons, is needed in each usage type).
Therefore both public use (research, gov) and shared/commons (for
instance IX interconnection, carriers? ...) can benefit from that
> Considering that nowadays new submarine cables are increasingly
> developed by private actors for private use only (with increasing
> role played by Facebook and Google as cable shareholders) I think
> it would be overoptimistic to think such players would keep on
> invest the same amount of money if they can use on 1 third of the
> total capacity (assuming that this is what you were arguing in
> the presentation).
> It is possible and I think it would be more successful to argue
> that part of the total capacity or even half must dedicated to
> common/public use but I think that more than this may discourage
> investments (which are quite important as regards the
> construction of submarine cables).
> Actually, I am arguing that the example above is feasible because
> it is precisely what is happening with the Ellalink cable,
> connecting Brazil to Portugal
> Part of Ellalink capacity will be dedicated exclusively to be
> used for research purposes, as Ellalink will be instrumental to
> connect EU research centers with the EU astronomical observatory
> in Chile https://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/
> <https://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/> to receive and analyse
> real time ultrahigh definition images.
> We invited the Ellalink’s CEO to know more about their
> governance model. Will be able to talk about this at IGF.
> All the best
> *Luca Belli, PhD*
> /Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation/
21 3799 *5763** **t*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>
de Botafogo, 190 13º andar
> *De:*Leandro Navarro [mailto:email@example.com] *Enviada em:*
> domingo, 28 de outubro de 2018 08:11 *Para:* Luca Belli
> <luca.belli(a)fgv.br>br>; Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities
> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> *Cc:* Roger Baig Viñas
> <roger.baig(a)guifi.net>et>; Ramon Roca <ramon.roca(a)guifi.net>
> *Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Seminar on the Governance of Submarine
> Dear Luca,
> Very interesting topic. Please share the conclusions with this
> forum. It links with a presentation in the last IETF 102 in the
> GAIA WG. I hope it helps to continue and elaborate the discussion
> about these infrastructures. The slides:
> The issue is simple: the deployment of private infrastructures
> (private submarine cables) over non-private areas (that literally
> or conceptually belong to everyone and everything in this planet)
> should have a return to everyone in the form of min/no cost
> open-access fibre managed/governed as a commons.
> Instead of an "abstract" monetary tax return for their deployment
> and operation or profit, submarine cables should have a mandatory
> return in terms of infrastructure sharing: open-access fibres
> managed as a commons. Many stakeholders may be interested in it,
> but likewise unlicensed radio-spectrum bands, a single/pair fibre
> has unlimited potential for open-access communication under a
> commons governance.
> Attached is a copy in English of version 14 of a document
> developed by the guifi.net
Foundation that proposes "universal
> deployment" as a template for municipal ordinance/regulation for
> municipalities in Catalonia, that is the basis for my
> proposal/presentation in the IETF. The current version (28) is in
> Catalan. Cc to Ramon Roca and Roger Baig from the guifi.net
> Foundation who have developed/coordinated this document:
> Kind regards, Leandro.
> On 27/10/18 20:50, Luca Belli wrote:
> Hi all,
> I remember some weeks ago it emerged interest in submarine
> cable, on the list.
> At FGV, we are going to host a day-long seminar on the
> Governance of Submarine Cables, on Wednesday, in partnership with
> CGI.br, the French Consulate, Internet Sans Frontières and the
> Brazilian Consumer Protection Institute. See
>> If anyone in the Rio area is interested, sejam benvindos :)
>> The event will be in Portuguese but our FGV fellow Félix Blanc
>> will be in Paris for the IGF (he is going to organise an IGF
>> workshop on the same topic) and I can put anyone interested in
>> contact with him to have further insight on our debates and on
>> future work, if anyone is interested.
>> All the best
>> DC3 mailing list
>> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DC3 mailing list