[wsfii-discuss] Do your country's Telco Regs help or hinder community networks?

Mon Mar 19 09:44:42 UTC 2007

Heh, saw the subject  and though "that sounds about spot on". Then saw
it was from Australia...

Unfortunately the Australian Federal Government's backwards attitude
to telecommunications isn't just limited to community wireless. We
have all experienced the ongoing issues with our monopolistic
(formerly government owned) telecommunications giant.
And now the saga with the government botching up the fund to subsidise
Internet access for rural and regional customers (which does affect
the company I work for).

For those who have responded, how central is providing Internet access
to your local community wireless network?

Here in Adelaide, Internet access isn't a very big focus of the
network, however our member base is largely technically minded (and so
prefer their own Internet connection anyway).

Cheers
Simon
On 3/19/07, Ramon Roca <ramon.roca at guifi.net> wrote:
> Here our strategy:
>
> -Our network is the result of aggregation of many network segments built
> by citizens, enterprises and organizations within the context of our
> Wireless Commons Livense/Manifesto. That is, the resulting global
> network is not commercial, neutral, therefore open to everybody incl.
> service providers. Do not compete with anybody and out of the scope of
> any market regulator.
> -People are free to self provide (individually or as a comunity) any
> service over the network. Only when this becomes a commercial service,
> are required to become a licensed operator and follow the regulations.
> In any case, the services are not part of the network.
>
> Not sure how are the regulations are over the world, but in general
> terms I would say that there is no need to have a law to legalize
> something to make it legal. I can shake my hands to a friend without
> needing a specific law authorising this...
>
> We spoke with spanish regulators about this. They seem to agree that our
> approach is very logic, we are not out of the law, unless somebody
> rewrites the laws for adh-hoc forbiding wireless communities founded
> over wireless commons basements.
>
> In other words, let's use our freedom. In general terms, there is no
> need to ask permission for use the freedom.
>
> Anyway the big warning is that *must ve bery clear* to everybody
> (participants and regulators) the nature of the given network. We've
> seen opportunists building non wireless commons based networks acting
> just like amy commercial ISP and having a commercial interest, but
> trying to appear as a community to get the benefit of being out of the
> scope of the regulators. That can be understood as a fraud.
>
> I think that's very inline with Vickram statements.
>
> En/na Vickram Crishna ha escrit:
> > While it seems to me that to a large extent the
> > Australian regulations regarding carrier services are
> > laid out to specifically support providers of
> > commercial services, they do seem to have a window for
> > non-commercial activities.
> >
> > Perhaps MW needs to look at a model where your members
> > do not need to directly pay you a fee for anything,
> > not even for 'recovery' of costs. Self-ownership of
> > routers is one possibility, with paid maintenance
> > service provided by independent entrepreneurs who pay
> > MW a fee in return for directing them to business.
> > Local maintennce entrepreneurs could bid openly to
> > attend a service call depending on availability, type
> > of complaint etc, paying MW an over-riding commission
> > for providing the bidding environment.
> >
> > MW could also charge for maintaining a city-wide 'map'
> > of available connectivity, to aid mobile users, and
> > for a 'pass' to individual network 'cells'. I think it
> > is important to separate out the provision of the
> > local network from the city-wide 'quality of service'
> > issues, which is a throwback to telco ways of
> > thinking.
> >
> > --- Dan Flett <conhoolio at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And if you have a
> >> Carrier Licence or operate
> >> any sort of ISP you are subject to all sorts of
> >> regulations, including the
> >> requirement to provide wiretap access to your
> >> network to law enforcement.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And therefore, if you don't have a 'network' (because
> > it is in fact severally owned by member individuals,
> > and not any one entity) such provisions would not
> > apply?
> >
> >
> >> Basically, in Australia only commercial Telcos
> >> registered with the
> >> Government can offer Internet access and receive
> >> money for it - even if it's
> >> only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulatory burden
> >> placed on ISPs means
> >> that no volunteer-run non-profit organisation can
> >> afford the licence fees or
> >> keep up with the paperwork involved with providing
> >> internet access.
> >>
> >> I'm interested in hearing if there are similar
> >> regulations in other
> >> countries. What regulations is your network subject
> >> to? Are individuals or
> >> organisations subject to rules or regulations when
> >> they (legally) share or
> >> resell their internet access? Do commercial ISPs in
> >> your country see
> >> community networks as competitors?
> >>
> >
> > In India, while the rules are not so clearly (or
> > blatantly) spelt out in terms of competition between
> > telcos and data network service providers, this in
> > fact underlies the application of policy.
> >
> > There is a move to provide national accessibility to
> > broadband. At this point in time, the development of
> > this activity seems skewed towards favouring the
> > involvement of large organisations (who are called
> > service agencies).
> >
> > You mentoned above that even sharing of access is
> > legal - why not find a way to delink providing access
> > from the cost of service? Say, all members of the MW
> > community set aside some amount of their bandwidth for
> > free public access - MW charges a fee from managing
> > this activity, not for providing Internet access.
> >
> >
> >> Frankly, it is embarrassing to see how backward
> >> their thinking is.
> >>
> >
> > It is embarrassing to see that policymakers around the
> > world continue their top-down approach to governance
> > despite its obvious drawbacks. Smart and inclusive
> > thinking seems anathema.
> >
> > Do you have an environment for participatory
> > discussion of such issues, and would enough ordinary
> > citizens get engaged if discussions were encouraged?
> > This is an important factor in bringing about a more
> > inclusive approach.
> >
> > The reason I ask this is that in a related area, local
> > radio broadcasting, I understand the Australan
> > government has decided to enforce a shift from FM to
> > DAB, which involves a cost prohibitive to local
> > community based public service broadcasters.
> >
> >
> >> I believe we could quite
> >> happily offer Internet on a
> >> non-profit, best-effort basis and no commercial
> >> operator would notice.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I hardly think so. In the short term, such services
> > would certainly cull out the rapacious providers of
> > overly expensive vanilla networks, leaving only the
> > super high-tech and 'added-value' quality conscious
> > providers of what today are considered premium
> > services. The consumer would benefit of course, but
> > perhaps that isn't so obvious to regulators.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I eagerly await your feedback on this issue!
> >>
> >>
> > I don't think your post actually asked for such
> > suggestions, so please forgive any unwanted gratuitous
> > inputs on how to run your affairs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vickram
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
> > http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>