- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] KICTANet Digest, Vol 160, Issue 3
by Adrian Teri 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

My comments are inline. "AT": Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:32:41 +0300 > From: John Tanui <tanuijohn(a)gmail.com> > To: "Kenya's premier ICT Policy engagement platform" > <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] KONZA: The failed promise of Kenya?s smart > city > Message-ID: > <CAMfK3GrXGZArWjdCJYoSQA6vCNFetVZn37uEOiVh= > ET6D8x0GA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Barrack, > > Konza Technopolis project is on course, we are making significant progress > especially ensuring that the key pillars for the success are in place. > > Our invitation to KICTANET still stands, we consider this community key > stake holders and your partnership, collaboration and feedback is > important. > > You can get the latest information on the project by visiting also our > website and social media platforms including YouTube. > > Let me know when you would like to visit us. > > Regards > > John Tanui > "AT": @tanuijohn@gmail.com Everything on the navigation bar of https://konza.go.ke <http://konza.go.ke> results in an *Error "404"* not found. I am trying to access the master plan and news & updates but I can't. We sincerely need transparency on the progress. Kindly look into this. Regards, Adrian Teri

1 1

Re: [kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
by SAMUEL O. 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

Thanks for the update On Mon, May 31, 2021, 16:33 Adam Lane via KICTANet < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > Thanks Barrack and Mwendwa for your excellent comments. > > I believe extending power for Wi-Fi will lead to more interference, not > less, and that the problem isn't so much the lack of spectrum (Wi-Fi > already has more than IMT yet IMT is fulfilling 90 or 95% of the internet > currently I guess), but the way Wi-Fi works through using unlicensed > spectrum. Letting the CNs use IMT would be better, whether they are > licensed directly or lease from an existing licensee who's not using their > spectrum in that location. > > I believe the CA's framework does suggest exploring that option and I'd > recommend some pilots in these various options to see what's technically > feasible as well as whether existing licensees are willing to enter into > these agreements for reasonable prices (if they're not using/planning to > use the spectrum in that area, then any revenue for them could be better > than nothing, even if little, though CA could mandate it to be made > available for a very small admin fee, I.e.g. Use-it-or-lose it concept) or > make some specific spectrum available for CNs to use, e.g. 700MHz that > would be really good for fixed wireless access in rural areas and for which > there's some unused spectrum currently but which currently requires 2.5bn > to get... > > Out of interest I am not sure if Mawingu counts as a CN since its quite > big now, but the friend I'm staying with at the moment pays them 5k a month > and a 15k set-up fee for the router and installation for 5mbps, whereas > Safaricom charges the same for same speed using 4G (basically unlimited > data, though after 400GB they'll reduce to 1mbps) with router about 10k > according to their website. So in this case the pricing is basically the > same (obviously depending on actual coverage being available or not). > > Interesting to note that Safaricom fiber is cheaper than 4G but of course > availability is limited to some urban areas. > > Adam > -------------------------------------------------- > M: +254-790985886 > Deputy CEO, Government Affairs > Huawei Kenya > *From:*Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> > *To:*Adam Lane <adam.lane(a)huawei.com> > *Cc:*KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>;Heiko > Rehm <hrehm(a)pyra-mite.net> > *Date:*2021-05-31 16:00:39 > *Subject:*Re: [kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks > for Kenya online discussion > > On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 18:52, Adam Lane <adam.lane(a)huawei.com> 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 > <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/pamoja-net-community-network-which-with-gsm-tele…> > > 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= >> huawei.com(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via >> kictanet >> *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 12:20 PM >> *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane(a)huawei.com> >> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> >> *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 >> <https://ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-F…> >> . >> >> *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 >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva >> > _______________________________________________ > KICTANet mailing list > KICTANet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ochiengsoja%40gmail.c… > > > KICTANet is a multi-stakeholder Think Tank for people and institutions > interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. KICTANet is a > catalyst for reform in the Information and Communication Technology sector. > Its work is guided by four pillars of Policy Advocacy, Capacity Building, > Research, and Stakeholder Engagement. > > 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. > > KICTANet - The Power of Communities, is Kenya's premier ICT policy > engagement platform. >

3 2

Call for Topics- 2021 Kenya Internet Governance Forum Kenya's premier Internet Policy event
by Barrack Otieno 02 Jun '21

02 Jun '21

Greetings Listers, The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) is an annual meeting that brings together various stakeholder groups to dialogue on ICT and Internet policy. While the discussions give soft policy outcomes, Kenya Internet Governance Forum is a knowledge-sharing platform that informs and inspires policy actors in both the public and private sectors. The national forum also feeds into the regional and global IGFs through a chain of reporting and representation to the regional and global IGFs to ensure a bottom up Internet policy development process and a strong link between global internet policies and the national one. This year, we will have a hybrid (Virtual and Physical) meeting on the 24th to 26th August in Nairobi. On behalf of the local Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), we'd be interested to hear your views on the issues and topics that you think ought to be discussed during this year's Kenya IGF. To enable us track them, kindly share them in this Google Form <https://bit.ly/3fUEB8x> which is in the format below: a) Proposed topic(s): b) Why the topic is important or relevant: c) Proposed speakers (if any): Kindly share your feedback by 4th June 2021. The MultiStakeholder Advisory Group will then compile your input and prepare the topics for the pre-IGF online discussion scheduled for early August and the final IGF Programme. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group will also get in touch with the proposed speakers. Herewith please find the Kenya IGF 2020 <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/mdocs-posts/kenya-igf-report-2020/> for your review. Thank you -- Barrack Otieno Trustee and Chairman of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group Kenya Internet Governance Forum Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTAnet) Skype:barrack.otieno +254721325277 https://www.linkedin.com/in/barrack-otieno-2101262b/ www.kictanet.or.ke

1 0

Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
by Mwendwa Kivuva 31 May '21

31 May '21

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 <https://ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-F…> . 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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva

5 6

Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
by Mwendwa Kivuva 29 May '21

29 May '21

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 <https://ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-F…> . 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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva

9 34

Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
by Twahir Hussein Kassim 29 May '21

29 May '21

See my *responses *below On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:39 AM Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com> wrote: > Thanks Twahir, see some of my follow-up inline. > > > On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 23:44, Twahir Hussein Kassim <twahir(a)hussein.me.ke> > wrote: > >> >>> 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. >>> >> *Forcing this to be solely for nonprofits is skewed on unfairness. >> Community Networks many a time have been looked upon ONLY as organisations >> that serve with no profits, however, I must say that this is what has been >> a cause for CNs not picking up as they fail to be sustainable. Additionally >> attaching it to community ownership especially in areas where the value of >> the net is yet to be appreciated might be a tall order.* >> >> *Suggestions:-* >> *a) should be open to both for profit and nonprofit. However, there >> should be attached the need to serve the community. Market forces will >> determine pricing.* >> > > Why would for-profit organizations not go for the normal Tier 3 ISP > license? > * Ideally, many who opt to setup CNs are small scale, going for the Tier 3 ISP license is definitely beyond their reach. Having said that, they do however add value to where traditional ISPs have shied away from; and this is the bottom line of this conversation - connecting the unconnected.* > Also, probably we need a better understanding of non-profit organizations. > It does not mean the CN will not charge for services, but rather, the > pricing will take into account community interests, public good, and any > income will be used to grow the initiative further. > > >> *b) There are many individuals who set out to serve communities. At onset >> forcing that registration is only for community run projects might lead >> some areas to remain in net-darkness. We are talking rural folks in most of >> these cases, many such setups are started by individuals and as kids >> benefit the adults start taking notice and interest comes on. Let this not >> be a blanket rule, let it be on a case basis.* >> >> 3. Two letters of support from Community Leaders as part of the >>> application process for CNSP to ensure community ownership >>> >> *Unfortunately here we shall be killing a heifer before it grows into a >> cow to be milked. The sorry state of nepotism and corruption that exists >> within our borders will see a new avenue to make a quick buck. Let this be >> a peer review process, where CNs vouch for others; the CN space is a small >> community that can assist CA is vetting these.* >> > > Good feedback. Your suggestion is for CNs to recommend each other, instead > of using community leaders as referees. > * Yes sir :-) * > > >> 3. Geographical coverage of a CNSP will be a sub-county boundary >>> >> *This is welcomed though county wide coverage would be make more sense. >> The reality is TELCOs only focus on areas where it makes financial sense >> which has seen town centres being the focus, moving out of CBDs in most >> "rural" counties would reveal no coverage beyond a 5-10km in many cases. I >> would suggest countywide coverage.* >> > > I have seen several calls for county-wide coverage. Well noted. > > >> >> 4. License period of 10years with License Application fee Ksh1000, >>> Initial Operating License Fee Ksh 5000, and Annual Operating Fee Ksh5000. >>> >> *Application fees of 1000 is very welcomed, however this should cover the >> initial operating license too. The annual fee should be set to 1000 per >> location. What we need to realise is that the CNs are basically trying to >> cover what USF SHOULD have covered by now. Most of these CNs would >> basically be serving Wanjiku and barely sustainable if we are to take >> example of many CNs which are mostly donor supported.* >> >> > What do you mean by "annual fees should be set to 1000 per location?". In > this case location means one CN license? > *Yes 1 CN license per location of operation; e.g. if Dunia Moja Network operates in Kilifi and Tana River County then each county location should be treated as a different CN i.e. DMN - Kilifi, DNM - Tana River etc.* > > On license fee, you mean that annual operating license fee should be > Ksh1000? > *Yes * > > >> 6. Spectrum Fee: Fee waiver for non-protected access to lightly-licensed >>> and license-exempt frequency bands by wireless access systems >>> >> *The CNs should be allowed to operate Radio, TV and ISP services within >> their jurisdiction areas.* >> >> > CN has intricate license categories for broadcast media. How would those > licenses be woven into the CN license? CN also has a similar license for > community broadcasters by the way. > > " community broadcasting service as an entity which meets all the > following requirements: > a. is fully controlled by a non-profit entity and carried on for > non-profitable purposes; > b. serves a particular community; > c. encourages members of the community served by it or persons associated > with or promoting the interests of such community to participate in the > selection and provision of programmes to be broadcast in the course of such > broadcasting service; and > d. may be funded by donations, grants, sponsorships or membership fees, or > by any combination of the aforementioned > *The essence behind this suggestion is to empower CNs to be a 1 stop shop for all community communication needs. This will empower the communities PLUS also capture the LOCAL CONTENT problem that we are currently complaining about. Take a scenario of a school drama then can be broadcast to the community... local values taught, content created! * > > > >> 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 >>> >> *Not only should CNs be exempted from USF Contributions; they should be >> funded by USF as essentially what CNs have setup to do is step in where USF >> is yet to reach. * >> > > This has been one of the recommendations of the licensing framework. > > " Community networks require comparatively modest sums of money to get > started and a small grants program initiated by the USF could kickstart new > community networks. The authority will explore establishing a subsidy for > start-up funds for community networks, under special projects, to help > catalyse initiative from communities to develop locally-owned connectivity > solutions " > >> >> >>> > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva > [image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…> 05/29/21, 08:26:34 AM

1 0

Mozilla working on kiswahili speech recognition
by Tony White 29 May '21

29 May '21

Hi All, An interesting development in speech recognition and text-to-speech for kiswahili: https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-expands-effort-to-bring-kiswahili-to-… Cheers, -- Tony White

5 5

Opportunity for a Senior Security Engineer
by Evans Ikua 26 May '21

26 May '21

We are looking for an experienced security engineer with about 5 - 10 (or more) years of industry experience to explore partnership opportunities. The ideal candidate would be a freelancer or one considering starting out in the coming days. Must have excellent sys admin skills and experience with leading security tools and technologies. If interested or know someone who would, kindly reach out to me on email or using the contacts below. -- *Kind Regards,Evans Ikua,* Cell: +254-722-955831 *----------------------------------------------------*

1 0

Moderated discussion on Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya
by Mwendwa Kivuva 25 May '21

25 May '21

Dear Listers, KICTANet will hold a moderated discussion led on 27th and 28th May on the licensing and shared spectrum framework for community networks. Together with our partners, we formulated a Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya. The Communications Authority of Kenya has invited comments from all stakeholders, including members of the public, licensees utilizing spectrum resources, and government institutions on the proposed framework available on the Authority’s website direct download here. <https://ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-F…> Community Networks are a way to bridge the connectivity gap when people come together to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure for Internet connection. Internet by the people, for the people. This licensing framework by CA will create a mechanism to attract existing community networks that have been operating outside the regulatory tent into the overall regulatory framework The framework proposes to integrate a new licensing category for community networks within the Unified Licensing Framework. The license will be exclusively for community-based organizations or other forms of non-profit collectives, limited to a sub-county. The community will be issued a ten-year license with the application fee and the annual operating fee set at Ksh. 1000 and Ksh. 5000 respectively. This is quite affordable compared to the lowest fee in the Network Facilities Provider Tier3 commercial license which pays an initial license fee of KShs. 200,000 and an operating fee of KShs. 160,000. The framework allows community networks to access the Universal Service Funds to support bottom-up digital skills help the growth of local initiatives, and also provide capacity-building initiatives within communities; While CA will help the communities negotiate discounted backhaul capacity for community networks, the framework also requires fiber-optic network operators to publish their pricing to ensure access, transparency, and non-discrimination in wholesale backhaul markets. Finally, the licensing frameworks gives recommendation on how license exempt spectrum (frequencies allocated for communication over the airwaves) can be utilised more effectively; - To review the Guidelines on the use of Radiofrequency Spectrum by Short Range Devices to amend EIRP limits for 2.4 & 5 GHz Wi-Fi for Point-to-Point and Point-to-Multipoint use. - To review options for lowering the barrier to use of other license-exempt bands for PtP and PtMP use, including 24 GHz and 60 GHz. - To expand the range of frequencies available for license-exempt use, especially in the 5-6 GHz bands. - To strengthen collaborations with service providers to foster standards and regulatory inclusion. - 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. - To develop a shared spectrum framework for underutilised IMT spectrum bands. - To review the spectrum fee framework, recognizing the need for significantly reduced fees for underserved areas This consultation process is meant to give stakeholders and the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed draft framework. The comments received will inform the adoption of the Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks in Kenya. Any comments or memoranda should be sent to the email address: frequencyreturns(a)ca.go.ke or the official CA address before the close of day on 1st June 2021. KICTANet organized a webinar to introduce stakeholders and the public to the proposed draft framework. The webinar recording is available on YouTube here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSVv7VRtMdU&t=2s>. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva

2 1

Fwd: A Career in Data Science: An IITPSA Western Cape Chapter Eventkic
by waudo siganga 21 May '21

21 May '21

1 0