Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion

On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 18:52, Adam Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Mwendwa
>
>
>
> Everything has gone silent, even though this is a controversial topic!
>
>
>

Probably it is a hard topic, and of course, it has a level of political
weight behind it.

> Maybe I can stir up some debate…
>
>
>
> Firstly, it would be helpful to clarify what the problem is before trying
> to identify the solution. For example, is it a lack of spectrum or is it
> the cost of spectrum or is it something else? Actually there is quite a lot
> of spectrum available in Kenya that is completely un-used (for example, in
> 700 Mhz band that is good for rural areas) and some that is so under-used
> (by some ISPs and some government users) that the best thing to do would be
> to return it to the CA and let the CA license it to someone else to use. *[In
> relation to the Spectrum Fees Topic] *Certainly the cost of that spectrum
> is a challenge for many, and it is very commendable that the CA proposes to Review
> spectrum fee framework recognising the need for significantly reduced fees
> for underserved/rural areas. I fully support this and it should be
> applicable to ALL spectrum license holders to encourage as many as possible
> to connect more unconnected areas. Fees can help work out who to allocate
> spectrum to that is serious about using it, but it also adds major costs.
> There are multiple fees at the moment, not just for spectrum licenses but
> also per base station using it, and even for using spectrum for backhaul to
> base stations.
>

Since CA licensing is unified, from the webinar we had on this topic, they
had indicated they would do a review as you have proposed for the entire
sector.
The challenges around spectrum are many, for example
a) CA charges an annual registration fee for 5GHz Wifi for Point to Point
connections. PtP/PtMP are important for community networks
b) Current equipment used for WiFi has less range and strength because of
the low permitted radiated power rating. Increasing this will make the WiFI
equipment more reliable especially in rural areas.
c) If the range of frequency in the license-exempt WiFi spectrum is
extended, it would reduce the current congestion where communities are
complaining that their connections are not reliable.
d) We need to build the technical capacity of operators and businesses to
enable them to conform to regulatory requirements. As Barrack has indicated
in his reply, \”Spectrum has been a very opaque subject to many.\”
e. As you have pointed out, there is a lot of allocated spectrum that is
being hoarded. Spectrum refarming can be employed to govern the repurposing
of spectrum bands to more efficient technologies, investments, or new
services where the spectrum is needed most

> Secondly, it is important to understand that connectivity relies on
> infrastructure investments, the business case for which need some
> predictability. One cannot build a network (whether a community network or
> a “regular” ISP) without some guarantee that the infrastructure will still
> be usable for 5 years or 10 years etc.
>

Probably this is where innovation and new ways of doing things should be
allowed to thrive? There are many institutions ready to fund innovative
connectivity solutions for the common good because it is in innovation,
trial and error … where new things come into being. I wonder is community
networks operators can tell us what is the minimum requirements to setup a
small network for a typical Kenyan village.

> Also, it is critical to avoid different providers using the same spectrum
> too close to each other that it causes interference. These kind of issues
> are what makes shared spectrum tricky. When does one decide the spectrum is
> not being used in a location and let someone else use it compared to
> recognizing the license holder just has not yet got around to building in
> that location but will do “soon”?
>
One of the recommendations for the shared spectrum framework is to expand
the frequency on license exempt spectrum, and also increase the power of
equipment used. Does this sound as a viable solution?

The two proposed solutions above are:
a) Adjustment to PtP and PtMP EIRP levels could dramatically increase the
potential of WiFi equipment in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to deliver access in rural
areas. See Appendix 2 for specific recommendations.
b) extending the range of frequencies available for license-exempt use.
This would have the impact of reducing congestion in backhaul connections
by increasing the range of license-exempt frequencies;

Leasing spectrum from a license holder could be a viable option (i.e. that
> license holder agrees to let someone else the their spectrum in a
> particular location for a fee and for a determined time). *[In relation
> to IMT spectrum topic]*
>

Interesting solution. I am not sure what the rest feel. There is one school
of thought that things this leads to hoarding a public utility with the
expectation of exiting the investment at a profit.

> In relation to this a critical issue with investment in infrastructure and
> having predictability is the issue of wanting to change a spectrum usage
> after equipment has been invested in. Let me give 2 example:
>
> 1) TV White Space regulations have been available in some countries
> (e.g. US, UK) for many years but have had very little adoption. Meanwhile
> some of those frequencies have been used for regular mobile use, e.g. 600
> Mhz network in the US and achieved wide scale and are particularly useful
> for rural coverage. What if equipment is deployed to use TVWS in this
> frequency but gets little adoption so the CA wants to change to mobile use;
> what to do with the existing equipment? How to avoid interference with the
> new equipment? *[In relation to dynamic spectrum access topic].* Since
> there is plenty of spectrum available in Kenya, just some is not well used
> and could be taken back/re-distributed and some is too expensive, there may
> not be a huge need for TVWS, but if ISPs can get it to work with the
> geolocation databases, and if they can get good enough Quality and Speeds,
> they could try.
>
+1 on spectrum refarming.

As you have indicated, if anyone wants to experiment in investing in TVWS,
we should give them the opportunity.

The Tier1 operators in Kenya are not deficient in spectrum. What the
proposal is trying to do is give the small guy in the village access to
usable spectrum to serve themselves, since the big boys are not serving
them at the moment.

> 2) Use of equipment in unlicensed spectrum – once it is in use in
> the market then it cannot be taken out of the market and new equipment
> brought in. With licensed spectrum it is easier to manage. So for example
> as countries weight up spectrum for wi-fi vs 5G, if later there is more
> demand for 5G, it will not be possible to remove wi-fi equipment since
> there is no record of who owns it.
>
>
>
> Third, it is important to recognize the need and benefits from economies
> of scale. Nationwide providers get this from non-infrastructure based
> operations (e.g. creating an organization with administration functions,
> customer service functions, core network, billing systems etc) and they
> also get this from having common infrastructure. This is a challenge for
> localized spectrum access *[in regards the IMT spectrum topic]*.
>

There is a community network in Easter DRC – the Idjwi island, an
underserved area with a population of three hundred thousand people on Lake
Kivu – called Pamoja Net with IMT spectrum. There was a blog by Nzambi
Kakusu on the KICTANet website
<www.kictanet.or.ke/pamoja-net-community-network-which-with-gsm-telephony/>

This is a viable option especially in areas prone to terrorism – community
control gives it so many advantages.

>
> *[on the license exempt spectrum]* It is clear that in Kenya the majority
> of people use mobile for their access (from a base station that is using
> either microwave or fiber) or they are using wi-fi for their access (from a
> mobile router or a home fiber router). Most ISPs that provide wi-fi
> networks also use fiber as their backhaul. In the future more and more
> people may be able to use both mobile routers (5G capacity) or home fiber
> routers (fiber). In fact there is need for more spectrum for mobile, as
> more and more people will use 4G and 5G mobile routers to give them wi-fi
> at home especially in rural or less dense places where fiber may be
> expensive. In these cases there is no need for more spectrum for wi-fi.
> Wi-fi provides only short-range internet and is easily blocked by walls,
> and with 7+ Gbps capacity that is more than enough for the small number of
> users for each access point (It can get 7Gbps because it already has 560
> Mhz of spectrum, way more than mobile) whereas each mobile base station
> will support thousands of users. Mobile base stations cannot work with
> unlicensed spectrum.
>

I think the bigger point is – how do we bring the guys doing KCPE and KCSE
in year 2021 access to online learning tools? (usecase). How do we help the
farmers tackle locusts in June 2021?

What I am trying to say is, the bigger operators will one day take the
internet to everybody. But if I am in the village, I also want the same
opportunities for my child now, for my farm now, for my economic
empowerment now. Life is for the moment.

Do you think those people, no matter how few, may benefit from better WiFi?
So that when they pull backhaul from their provider, it is less a hustle
serving their communities leggaly through PtP/PtMP.

>
>
> Also [*on license exempt spectrum]*, it is noted that in the CA document
> that there is frequent interference for those using it for backhaul. This
> is an inevitable problem with unlicensed spectrum which causes quality
> issues, making it unsuitable for large scale deployments of backhaul in
> dense populations (with other users of wi-fi for personal use as well as
> use for backhaul intefering).
>

True. The congestion is a major issue. You find a small area with hundreds
of equipment. But then that shows there is a need. Hunger. Increasing the
range and power may help those who can afford more powerful equipment serve
their communities better.

>
>
> I know this can get quite technical, but I hope that some of this
> information may be useful. Note some comments I have made are
> simplified/generalized to try to be brief and not too technical.
>

Thanks so much Adam for the healthy debate. I guess their are two side to
this coin. And it is true that this topic is part of the deep end because
it is very technical.

> Regards
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via
> kictanet
> *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 12:20 PM
> *To:* Adam Lane <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks
> for Kenya online discussion
>
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> The tread on Licensing framework is on fire and doing very well. Thank you
> all for the contributions, reading, learning, relearning … Please
> continue debating on that thread.
>
> We will start a new thread on the proposed \”Shared Spectrum Framework\”.
> 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>
> .
>
> *License Exempt Spectrum *
>
> WiFi has emerged as a powerful technology for both access and backhaul
> around the world but regulation has not fully kept up with the backhaul
> developments.
>
>
>
> The draft framework recommends:
>
> · Review the Guidelines on the use of Radiofrequency Spectrum by
> Short Range Devices to amend EIRP limits for 2.4 GHz & 5 GHz Wi-Fi for
> Point-to-Point and Point-to-Multipoint use.
>
> · Review options for lowering the barrier to use of other
> license-exempt bands for PtP and PtMP use, including 24 GHz and 60 GHz.
>
> · Expand the range of frequencies available for license-exempt
> use, especially in the 5 & 6 GHz range
>
> · To strengthen collaborations with service providers to foster
> standards and regulatory inclusion.
>
>
>
> *Dynamic Spectrum Access *
>
> · To expedite the commercial availability of geolocation database
> service and implement required mechanisms to make the TVWS spectrum
> available immediately to operators.
>
> · To establish an incubatory period for TVWS technologies.
>
> · To evaluate with regional regulators the feasibility of a common
> approach implementation of geolocation databases
>
>
>
> *IMT Spectrum*
>
> · Establish a regulatory sandbox for localised spectrum access for
> small operators in an unassigned LTE band.
>
> · Conduct a review of international approaches to the creation of
> more localised access to spectrum to inform the establishment of a more
> permanent mechanism for local spectrum access that is well adapted to the
> Kenyan context.
>
>
>
> *Spectrum Fees*
>
> · Review spectrum fee framework recognising the need for
> significantly reduced fees for underserved/rural areas.
>
> · Consider a spectrum fee reduction scheme for non-profit
> community networks.
>
>
>
> *Questions:*
>
> · What are your comments on the proposed recommendations?
>
> · What in your opinion are the most important considerations the
> proposed shared spectrum framework should address?
>
> · Are there gaps you have identified in the existing licensing
> framework in respect to spectrum assignment and utilization?
>
> · How would you recommend CA to address the identified gaps?
>
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
>

_______________________________________________
KICTANet mailing list