Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion

Triple DITTO on that @Barrack Otieno <[email protected]>

I think what we are witnessing from the side of Major Telcos resistance to
this is their feel that their bottom line would be affected. As @Barrack
Otieno <[email protected]> put it with Solomonic wisdom and
precision; we need to unclip the *commercial lens* and clip on the *social
benefits* one! The CNs coming to be would depend on Telcos for their
backhaul… additional revenue for them and extended coverage for Wanjiku!
It is a win win situation!

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:56 AM Barrack Otieno via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> I beg to respectfully differ with you on the purpose of the framework.
> This effort by the Communications Authority has broken the glass ceiling on
> Spectrum licensing. Through this many more people will get to understand
> the value of spectrum which will in return encourage better usage and
> deployment which will be beneficial to the entire ICT ecosystem in the
> country. It is a fact that ICTs have widened the divide between the haves
> and have nots and community networks are one of the ways aimed at
> shortening this divide. Community Networks will definitely spur innovation
> at local community level. This may include ideas that will eventually lead
> to manufacture or assembly of local network equipment as we saw with the
> spread of TV where aerials would be manufactured locally which enabled many
> households to own television sets. By the way, I am sure majority of the
> senior listers here must have encountered their first TV sets when they
> were 10 years old, which is a testament of the havoc the digital divide can
> cause. Let us not view community networks purely from commercial lenses.
>
> Best Regards
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:44 PM Adam Lane via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mwendwa
>>
>>
>>
>> The framework is a positive step. Though Kenya has some of the best
>> connectivity on the content, the CA has estimated that around 4% of the
>> population do not have broadband network coverage and the business models
>> of providing it in those areas are difficult (expensive to provide, few
>> users, users have low incomes etc). Whether Community Networks are able to
>> provide networks in those circumstances and at scale may be unclear but
>> they should certainly be given a chance.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also want to commend the report for noting the critical issue of
>> demand-side aspects of broadband usage (awareness, skills, access to
>> devices, relevant local content etc). Addressing those issues are beyond
>> the scope of the regulatory framework which is for licensing, but certainly
>> it is good to note that Community Networks might be more willing to invest
>> in those areas, and thus benefit from having more users.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the stated purpose of the framework is to provide network coverage
>> where it does not exist, my suggestion would be that Community Networks
>> should certainly be given a chance in those un-served areas, and in those
>> areas (88 sub-locations with 0 coverage, 239 sub-locations with <50%
>> coverage for example) the CA needs to provide some efforts to reduce the
>> costs of providing networks, including lower licensing fees, and lower
>> spectrum costs. This should be for any operator, whether a community
>> network, ISP or MNO. Since currently it is difficult for community networks
>> to register, then certainly it is a good idea to make it easier for them to
>> register and try to build a viable network.
>>
>>
>>
>> However it is strange that the suggested size is of “sub-county” rather
>> than sub-location or ward; and strange that there is no limitation on
>> location such as “no existing network coverage”. I would recommend a
>> limitation on the size to be much smaller than sub-county, and more
>> importantly, I would recommend a limitation on the community network to
>> operate in areas that are un-served by other network providers (these areas
>> are now well known following the Access Gaps Study this year).
>>
>>
>>
>> The way the current framework is written would allow community networks
>> to operate in sub-counties of Nairobi or any other cities/towns, and be in
>> direct competition to MNOs and ISPs, which I don’t believe is the purpose
>> of the framework.
>>
>>
>>
>> Should the purpose of the framework be to address affordability issues of
>> broadband (i.e. if affordability is one barrier of broadband usage along
>> with devices access, skills, awareness, content, power etc), then I believe
>> a different regulatory strategy could be developed to address this. This
>> framework for community networks should be limited to areas that are
>> un-served only.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=
>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via
>> kictanet
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM
>> *To:* Adam Lane <[email protected]>
>> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <[email protected]>
>> *Subject:* [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for
>> Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Listers,
>>
>>
>>
>> As we had indicated, today we will have a discussion on the Licensing and
>> Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya that was issued
>> by the Communications Authority of Kenya, available for direct download
>> here
>> <ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-Framework-for-Community-Networks-May-2021.docx.pdf>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Today, we will discuss the licensing aspect of the community networks.
>> and tomorrow about the shared spectrum framework.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Community Network Licensing framework proposes;
>>
>> 1. Community Network Service Provider (CNSP) License to be created within
>> the Unified Licensing Framework.
>>
>> 2. The community network should be fully controlled by a non-profit
>> entity and carried on for non-profitable purposes, encouraging members of
>> the community to participate in the governance, design, and
>> operationalisation.
>>
>> 3. Two letters of support from Community Leaders as part of the
>> application process for CNSP to ensure community ownership
>>
>> 3. Geographical coverage of a CNSP will be a sub-county boundary
>>
>> 4. License period of 10years with License Application fee Ksh1000,
>> Initial Operating License Fee Ksh 5000, and Annual Operating Fee Ksh5000.
>>
>> 6. Spectrum Fee: Fee waiver for non-protected access to lightly-licensed
>> and license-exempt frequency bands by wireless access systems
>>
>> 7. CNSPs would be exempt from USF contributions, while the USF
>> implementation framework may include a community ICT development and/or
>> capacity building component. The authority shall further examine ways to
>> ensure that community networks receive consideration under the future
>> framework for the Universal Service Fund
>>
>>
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> =========
>>
>> – What are your comments on the proposed licensing framework?
>> – What gaps have you identified in the proposed licensing framework?
>> – How would you recommend addressing the identified gaps?
>> – What recommendations do you have for CA to improve entry into the
>> telecommunications market in Kenya?
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to an engaging discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>> www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
>> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>>
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com
>>
>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
>> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
>> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
>> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>>
>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
>> online that you follow in real life: respect people\’s times and bandwidth,
>> share knowledge, don\’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
>> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>>
>
>
> —
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254733206359
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/twahir%40hussein.me.ke
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people\’s times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don\’t flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>

[image: Mailtrack]
<mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&>
Sender
notified by
Mailtrack
<mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&>
05/29/21,
08:50:34 AM

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list