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

[Ramon Roca]

The scenario you are describing for Australia regulators and a former 
monopoly is quite similar with the one we have in Spain. If not exact.

About internet access, is a matter of critical mass. Internet is already 
there owned by citizens, and also there are plenty of public internet 
access at the libraries, local offices, teleworking centers..., etc. 
It's just a matter to build a big and efficient enough network to enable 
those who need it to share those internets or buy their own in a place 
where are available.

IMHO For a neutral network, have content on on it, incl. internet, 
although still from regular ISP, is key, so it's a matter of gaining 
that critical mass (network & content).

En/na Simon Knight ha escrit:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>
>