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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
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=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> 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<https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
Hi Mwendwa, This is a welcome step in the right direction y CA to address the challenges of access such as affordability, limited digital literacy skills, lack of local relevant content and platforms as stated by CA. My comments on the Community Network Licensing proposals are as follows: 1. CNSP License created within the Unified Licensing Framework is an acceptable action plan that should be embraced by the industry stakeholders as this is inline with the existing regulations 2. The CNs should be fully controlled by a non-profit entity and carried on for no-profitable purses, encouraging members of the community to participate in the governance, design and the operationalisation as stated by CA, however it is also important to seriously consider long-term sustainability from the inception. 3. Having two letters of support for community leaders as part of the application process for CNSP to ensure community ownership is appropriate. However, this could also include community legally registered organisations such as SACCOs or recommendation from local administrations. 4. Geographical coverage of CNSP will be a sub-county. This should apply countrywide for both rural and urban areas, considering that within counties such as Nairobi, Nakuru, Mombasa, Kisumu etc. pa, there are areas or sub-counties which are currently unserved or underserved, though there is coverage by MNOs, ISPs or Fixed Network operators. This is mainly due to challenges of affordability or some other reasons. Therefore CNSPs should not be restricted to rural areas. 4. License period of 10 years with License Application fee of Ksh 1000, Initial Operating License Fee of Ksh 5000 and Annual Operating License of Ksh 5000 looks reasonable. However CA could consideration reviewing fees such as the Annual Operating fee downwards, based on the population of subcounty or the area to be served. 5. Spectrum Fee: Fee waiver for non-protected access to light-licensed and license-exempt frequency bands by wireless access system is a good practice and welcome. 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 - This is quite in order. Regards, Vitalis On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/volunga%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.
Adam, Some info that CA gives is not in tandem with what KNBS states. See my *comments* below On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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.
*Kenya has a youthful rural population; the latest data from the census 2019 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) reveals. In this case, 35.7 million Kenyans (75.1%) are below 35 years, while 32.73 million (68.9%) live in rural areas.* *Source: https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rura... <https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rural-population/> * *Given these details, I wonder how we can reconcile the figure to 4% not covered by broadband.* *The framework is definitely a step in the right direction.*
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.
*The aim of the framework while stated is for licensing however, the licensing is focused on addressing a bigger issue - The Digital Divide. * *If the license were not to focus on matters digit literacy, availability of digital devices, power then it will simply be putting regulation over nothing. The Digital Divide is very real and it cannot be addressed piece meal.*
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.
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
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).
*Limiting areas for CNs to the neighborhood would make no sense in as far as CNs normally operate. Take examples of CNs in Africa...* *Zenzeleni - **https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/ <https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/> it covers at least a span of 60km if not more by now. This is equivalent to the distance between Mombasa and Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale, etc. CNs should not be restricted within locations.* *The last ACCESS GAPS Study am aware of was done in 2016, as per CA's website an EOI is dated to begin and end on 27/05/2021 - **https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-service... <https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-services-to-undertake-ict-access-gaps-study-in-kenya>* /
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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/ Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7 Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons. On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:23 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim <twahir@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Adam,
Some info that CA gives is not in tandem with what KNBS states. See my *comments* below
On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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.
*Kenya has a youthful rural population; the latest data from the census 2019 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) reveals. In this case, 35.7 million Kenyans (75.1%) are below 35 years, while 32.73 million (68.9%) live in rural areas.*
*Source: https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rura... <https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rural-population/> *
*Given these details, I wonder how we can reconcile the figure to 4% not covered by broadband.*
*The framework is definitely a step in the right direction.*
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.
*The aim of the framework while stated is for licensing however, the licensing is focused on addressing a bigger issue - The Digital Divide. *
*If the license were not to focus on matters digit literacy, availability of digital devices, power then it will simply be putting regulation over nothing. The Digital Divide is very real and it cannot be addressed piece meal.*
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.
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.*
*Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
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).
*Limiting areas for CNs to the neighborhood would make no sense in as far as CNs normally operate. Take examples of CNs in Africa...* *Zenzeleni - **https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/ <https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/> it covers at least a span of 60km if not more by now. This is equivalent to the distance between Mombasa and Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale, etc. CNs should not be restricted within locations.*
*The last ACCESS GAPS Study am aware of was done in 2016, as per CA's website an EOI is dated to begin and end on 27/05/2021 - **https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-service... <https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-services-to-undertake-ict-access-gaps-study-in-kenya>* /
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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/
Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7
Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons.
Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover?
Thanks for starting this discussions @Mwendwa Kivuva <mwendwa.kivuva@afrinic.net> I like Twahir's point that community networks should not be solely for non profit. There can be other tiers for profit to encourage innovation at small scale around Internet Service Delivery. The main purpose of CN is to provide network where there's poor connectivity, but there are many areas in Kenya where there's good connectivity but people just dont see a way of benefitting from the internet. This is where some little business competition comes in and local content. On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:20 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/
Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7
Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons.
Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/lizorembo%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.
-- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
Hi Liz Yes, there is no harm for competition in areas where there is connectivity already but low take-up (in which service providers hopefully can drive take-up with skills/awareness etc in order to get more customers). The issue is that competition needs to be fair. Whether MNO, ISP or CN, they can all operate in those markets with fair and equal licenses. Allowing some to operate with lower fees than others doesn’t make sense. But if CA wanted to lower fees across the entire board for all licensees, then I am sure no-one will complain (Except treasury!) Adam From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Liz Orembo via kictanet Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:54 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Cc: Liz Orembo <lizorembo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion Thanks for starting this discussions @Mwendwa Kivuva<mailto:mwendwa.kivuva@afrinic.net> I like Twahir's point that community networks should not be solely for non profit. There can be other tiers for profit to encourage innovation at small scale around Internet Service Delivery. The main purpose of CN is to provide network where there's poor connectivity, but there are many areas in Kenya where there's good connectivity but people just dont see a way of benefitting from the internet. This is where some little business competition comes in and local content. On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:20 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote: On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote: Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/ Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7 Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons. Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/lizorembo%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. -- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
My suggestion is that the CNSP License should be countrywide and should not be limited to a sub-county. This will make it more attractive to sponsors if any. If provided countywide, this could cater for delivery of internet services to schools, health centres, recreation centers, small businesses, etc. in the underserved areas in a county rather than being restricted to a subcounty. Also a county should open to more than one CNSP if there is demand or if the area is unerserved with one CNSP. Additionally the CNSP should be supported by USF. Regards Vitalis On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:55 AM Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanks for starting this discussions @Mwendwa Kivuva <mwendwa.kivuva@afrinic.net>
I like Twahir's point that community networks should not be solely for non profit. There can be other tiers for profit to encourage innovation at small scale around Internet Service Delivery.
The main purpose of CN is to provide network where there's poor connectivity, but there are many areas in Kenya where there's good connectivity but people just dont see a way of benefitting from the internet. This is where some little business competition comes in and local content.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:20 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/
Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7
Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons.
Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/lizorembo%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.
--
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/volunga%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.
On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 09:29, Vitalis Olunga via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
My suggestion is that the CNSP License should be countrywide and should not be limited to a sub-county. This will make it more attractive to sponsors if any. If provided countywide, this could cater for delivery of internet services to schools, health centres, recreation centers, small businesses, etc. in the underserved areas in a county rather than being restricted to a subcounty. Also a county should open to more than one CNSP if there is demand or if the area is unerserved with one CNSP. Additionally the CNSP should be supported by USF.
Thanks Vitalis,
I see you have used countrywide, and countywide interchangeably. Did you mean a CN should be limited within a county? Thanks for adding your support for CNs to get access to USF. Regards
Vitalis
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:55 AM Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanks for starting this discussions @Mwendwa Kivuva <mwendwa.kivuva@afrinic.net>
I like Twahir's point that community networks should not be solely for non profit. There can be other tiers for profit to encourage innovation at small scale around Internet Service Delivery.
The main purpose of CN is to provide network where there's poor connectivity, but there are many areas in Kenya where there's good connectivity but people just dont see a way of benefitting from the internet. This is where some little business competition comes in and local content.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:20 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/
Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7
Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons.
Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/lizorembo%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.
--
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/volunga%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.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/kivuva%40transworldafr...
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.
Mwendwa, I would say geographic area, specifically expand it to cover county other than sub county. On Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:21 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:34 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Another example of a CN just across the border is Bosco Uganda, it covers almost the whole of Northern Uganda https://boscouganda.com/connectivity/
Coverage map - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1kufmf0mqiOEb5mJiuPt2X-joSSO6PEul&hl=en&ll=3.0014236517916895%2C32.17317130000001&z=7
Kenya has always led in matters innovation, let not this framework be a limiting factor rather let it widen our horizons.
Thank you Twahir. You are advocating that the license should allow a community network to operate beyond a sub-county? What is your proposal on either geographic area or population a single license can cover? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
Sorry for the typo error. It should be countywide On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:06 AM Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/volunga%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.
On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 10:05, Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
Very interesting that NY has underserved people. "The Internet is central to our lives, but in New York City far too many people don’t have access."
Thanks Kivuva for pointing out that for profit tier licences are already in place. Can there be special categories under CN that also provide content? Here are my thoughts Adam. ISPs and MNOs have done a great job in connectivity. But they still lack in relevant local content. That's why Internet in the rural is still perceived as a luxury commodity. So an approach similar to community radios would be good to push this adoption mashinani, and maybe create competition for big players to step up. (Like Royal Media group and its vernacular stations) On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:15 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 10:05, Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
Very interesting that NY has underserved people. "The Internet is central to our lives, but in New York City far too many people don’t have access." _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/lizorembo%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.
-- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
Hi Liz Yes, definitely a massive need for local content, or more accurately, localized content. Some content, such as health and education may be fairly standard (though does require local language versions), but other content such as on agriculture is highly localized based on type of agricultural product, local climate, soil etc. But I am not sure how a license for providing internet connectivity can help with the local content issue? In fact, kenya has a fairly good ecosystem of businesses/software developers for providing local content riding on existing connectivity networks (and sometimes in partnership with them). Local content is getting better and better, though awareness of that local content is not there yet amongst users, and needs more collaborative efforts amongst content providers, connectivity providers, local institutions (schools, clinics etc), local community leaders etc to get the word out about useful content. At the moment one does not need a license to create digital content necessarily, but there is a “content service provider” license at the CA for those who provide content through a telecommunications network (rather than just as a cloud service). The definition for this is: “provide content related services to end users who are customers of the application service providers. Content service providers use the infrastructure of Network Facilities providers and the Systems of the Application Service Providers to reach their customers. The services offered by content service providers are of information, entertainment, education, health, social etc nature that can either be text, voice, video clips delivered to a customer’s mobile device on request or as subscribed to by the customer.” Note, for this license: application fee: 5k, operating license fee: 100k, annual operating fee: 0.4% of turnover or 80k). Are those fees barriers for more content providers registering as CSPs? From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Liz Orembo via kictanet Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:29 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Cc: Liz Orembo <lizorembo@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion Thanks Kivuva for pointing out that for profit tier licences are already in place. Can there be special categories under CN that also provide content? Here are my thoughts Adam. ISPs and MNOs have done a great job in connectivity. But they still lack in relevant local content. That's why Internet in the rural is still perceived as a luxury commodity. So an approach similar to community radios would be good to push this adoption mashinani, and maybe create competition for big players to step up. (Like Royal Media group and its vernacular stations) On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:15 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 10:05, Benson Muite via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net Very interesting that NY has underserved people. "The Internet is central to our lives, but in New York City far too many people don’t have access." _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/lizorembo%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. -- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
The same is replicated across the globe. Many people are of the notion that when we talk about developed countries or areas then we mean connectivity is 100%! This is farthest from reality. We need CNs across the globe to reach the unconnected... these are what may be termed as difficult to connect people; the people ISPs won't touch as doesn't impact their bottom line positively YET when we look at the SOCIAL PROFITS that can be derived from a forgotten community getting connected... availing telehealth care, on demand lessons, live classes... The social dividends are immeasurable! On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:16 AM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 10:05, Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
Very interesting that NY has underserved people. "The Internet is central to our lives, but in New York City far too many people don’t have access." _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 05/29/21, 08:34:19 AM
@Benson Muite <benson_muite@emailplus.org> not really surprising, it is the reality. That's not the only CN in the Global North, perhaps England's B4RN <https://b4rn.org.uk/> would shame the biggest telcos across the globe. [image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 05/29/21, 08:15:33 AM On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:06 AM Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.* * * *Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
Surprisingly, community networks are also used in New York: https://www.nycmesh.net
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
On 5/29/21 8:17 AM, Twahir Hussein Kassim wrote:
@Benson Muite not really surprising, it is the reality. That's not the only CN in the Global North, perhaps England's B4RN <https://b4rn.org.uk/> would shame the biggest telcos across the globe.
Guifi.net <https://guifi.net/en> and Freifunk <https://www.freifunk.net/> are also interesting examples. Guifi.net seems to include larger institutions such as universities so can have experienced technical personnel running the network. Volunteers can help for last mile connectivity in established communities typically with a high population density. It seems that B4RN is government subsidized since costs in sparsely populated areas may be relatively high.
If B4RN is government subsidised, then makes a good case for the Kenyan Government to subsidise CNs... after all we borrow a lot of legal structures from the Queen's land 😄 On Sat, May 29, 2021, 10:19 AM Benson Muite via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
On 5/29/21 8:17 AM, Twahir Hussein Kassim wrote:
@Benson Muite not really surprising, it is the reality. That's not the only CN in the Global North, perhaps England's B4RN <https://b4rn.org.uk/> would shame the biggest telcos across the globe.
Guifi.net <https://guifi.net/en> and Freifunk <https://www.freifunk.net/> are also interesting examples. Guifi.net seems to include larger institutions such as universities so can have experienced technical personnel running the network. Volunteers can help for last mile connectivity in established communities typically with a high population density. It seems that B4RN is government subsidized since costs in sparsely populated areas may be relatively high.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
Probably incentives are better and require less administration. It is interesting that Freifunk routes much of their traffic through Sweden due to the legal structure of responsibility for content that passes through a network one is running. On 5/29/21 12:30 PM, Twahir Hussein Kassim wrote:
If B4RN is government subsidised, then makes a good case for the Kenyan Government to subsidise CNs... after all we borrow a lot of legal structures from the Queen's land 😄
Hi Twahir USF did a webinar a month or so ago to share the draft findings of the updated report. It is much more accurate than KNBS. I attach two screenshots, if I may, below. If CNs can be for-profit, and also cover a large area, how is the license any different to existing licenses for tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3 NFPs? The only difference is the low fees. In which case, just remove the fees for the other licenses and there is no need for a specific CN license… and with those fees lowered, the hundreds of existing tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 licensees may be more willing to venture into some of those areas you mention. On the other hand, if there are already ISPs around those areas, the issue is not supply, as I mentioned previously, it is all about demand: lack of affordable devices, lack of affordable energy, lack of relevant content, lack of skills, lack of awareness and so on. I 100% agree that these issues must be addressed, but a licensing framework for CNs or even ISPs will not address a single one of those issues. Those are issues to be addressed by USF, Industry players (including ourselves) and everyone else. Affordability is of course a critical issue too, and no doubt lowering licensing fees for tier 1s, tier 2s and tier 3s will help somewhat if the CA were willing or able to do that. But affordability is also a complex issue. In supplying a network there is infrastructure, backhaul, power, customer acquisition, customer service, billing systems, CRM systems and much more besides. And of course the license fees, corporate taxes etc. On the demand side there are also other issues, including VAT on airtime/data for example. It would be a very worthwhile conversation and a necessary strategy to have in terms of addressing all these other issues above, but very different to this discussion on a licensing framework for CNs. Just giving a CN a license will not address any of those demand-side issues or any of those other supply-side issues. We need to acknowledge that. Regards Adam [cid:image001.jpg@01D753A6.1F73FA90] [cid:image002.jpg@01D753A6.1F73FA90] From: Twahir Hussein Kassim [mailto:twahir@hussein.me.ke] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:24 AM To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Cc: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion Adam, Some info that CA gives is not in tandem with what KNBS states. See my comments below On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> 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. Kenya has a youthful rural population; the latest data from the census 2019 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) reveals. In this case, 35.7 million Kenyans (75.1%) are below 35 years, while 32.73 million (68.9%) live in rural areas. Source: https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rura... Given these details, I wonder how we can reconcile the figure to 4% not covered by broadband. The framework is definitely a step in the right direction. 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. The aim of the framework while stated is for licensing however, the licensing is focused on addressing a bigger issue - The Digital Divide. If the license were not to focus on matters digit literacy, availability of digital devices, power then it will simply be putting regulation over nothing. The Digital Divide is very real and it cannot be addressed piece meal. 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. Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability. Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi. 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). Limiting areas for CNs to the neighborhood would make no sense in as far as CNs normally operate. Take examples of CNs in Africa... Zenzeleni - https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/ it covers at least a span of 60km if not more by now. This is equivalent to the distance between Mombasa and Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale, etc. CNs should not be restricted within locations. The last ACCESS GAPS Study am aware of was done in 2016, as per CA's website an EOI is dated to begin and end on 27/05/2021 - https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-service... 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<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Badam.lane>=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com<mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com>> 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<https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/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.
Hi @Adam, now let's get *down *on this On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:45 AM Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Twahir
USF did a webinar a month or so ago to share the draft findings of the updated report. It is much more accurate than KNBS. I attach two screenshots, if I may, below.
*Surprised that there was silence on such an important issue. There is nothing on CA's website on the matter, a search on Professor Google on Access Gaps report returns the 2016. I wonder, was this an invite only event or was this supposed to be for the public at least the ICT people who would have a word or two on the matter.* *Wondering if the event was recorded, and if presentations from it can be shared.* *@KICTANET probably it would be good to organise a session with CA to delve into that report plus USF utilisation. Unfortunately there is no information regarding to what has been done so far OR it is there but not accessible; either way that info is critical. * *As Kenyans would say "vitu kwa ground ziko different"; both coverage maps you have given show areas that appear on the maps as covered by the telcos but in reality are not. I would be very specific, there is are areas that I can pinpoint that there is almost 0% coverage of either 1 or both the networks: -* *Kilifi County - Sokoke, Mabirikani, Mlima wa kuku, Adu etc* *Kwale County - Majoreni, Wasini Island* *Lamu Island - Airtel you have to be seated in an elevated area to get good reception to go online.* *The Access Report unless it was done from a theoretical point of view on HOW FAR the coverage is, the reality is very far off.*
If CNs can be for-profit, and also cover a large area, how is the license any different to existing licenses for tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3 NFPs? The only difference is the low fees. In which case, just remove the fees for the other licenses and there is no need for a specific CN license… and with those fees lowered, the hundreds of existing tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 licensees may be more willing to venture into some of those areas you mention.
*Adam, the modus operandi of MOST CNs is to get backhaul from the big boys (read Liquid, Safaricom, Airtel etc) and drop it down to areas where the big boys won't go. This doesn't affect the Telcos bottom line rather it boostes it. What was otherwise unconnected has become connected via the existence of CNs, thus the argument that they should be wrapped up together with the guys who actually give them internet to connect the unconnected tastes a bit sour.*
On the other hand, if there are already ISPs around those areas, the issue is not supply, as I mentioned previously, it is all about demand: lack of affordable devices, lack of affordable energy, lack of relevant content, lack of skills, lack of awareness and so on. I 100% agree that these issues must be addressed, but a licensing framework for CNs or even ISPs will not address a single one of those issues. Those are issues to be addressed by USF, Industry players (including ourselves) and everyone else.
*Agreed. However, lets analogise on this. Supposing the area MP came to the local school to give exercise books and the pupils don't have text books, would it be wrong for them to put an ask for text books too? This is the scenario, CA has opened a communication channel for spectrum to address CNs; Wanjiku is simply riding the wave to want other aspects of CN also addressed. Admittedly they might end up not being addressed, but word is out that this isn't enough other aspects need to be put in place to have the issue wholesome.*
Affordability is of course a critical issue too, and no doubt lowering licensing fees for tier 1s, tier 2s and tier 3s will help somewhat if the CA were willing or able to do that. But affordability is also a complex issue. In supplying a network there is infrastructure, backhaul, power, customer acquisition, customer service, billing systems, CRM systems and much more besides. And of course the license fees, corporate taxes etc. On the demand side there are also other issues, including VAT on airtime/data for example.
*This is where CNs come to play. Where a Telco would give you 10GB and 400 minutes talk time at 1000, CNs would offer "unlimited" internet for much less. Most likely the speeds would be lower, hower they are sufficient for one to get buy and that is the value addition of CNs to the Internet Supply chain. Let's not fight them as biting into our cake rather let's look at them as extending the market to areas where we had no reach.*
It would be a very worthwhile conversation and a necessary strategy to have in terms of addressing all these other issues above, but very different to this discussion on a licensing framework for CNs. Just giving a CN a license will not address any of those demand-side issues or any of those other supply-side issues. We need to acknowledge that.
Regards
Adam
*From:* Twahir Hussein Kassim [mailto:twahir@hussein.me.ke] *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 12:24 AM *To:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Cc:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
Adam,
Some info that CA gives is not in tandem with what KNBS states. See my *comments* below
On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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.
*Kenya has a youthful rural population; the latest data from the census 2019 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) reveals. In this case, 35.7 million Kenyans (75.1%) are below 35 years, while 32.73 million (68.9%) live in rural areas.*
*Source: https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rura... <https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rural-population/> *
*Given these details, I wonder how we can reconcile the figure to 4% not covered by broadband.*
*The framework is definitely a step in the right direction.*
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.
*The aim of the framework while stated is for licensing however, the licensing is focused on addressing a bigger issue - The Digital Divide. *
*If the license were not to focus on matters digit literacy, availability of digital devices, power then it will simply be putting regulation over nothing. The Digital Divide is very real and it cannot be addressed piece meal.*
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.
*Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability.*
*Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi.*
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).
*Limiting areas for CNs to the neighborhood would make no sense in as far as CNs normally operate. Take examples of CNs in Africa...*
*Zenzeleni - https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/ <https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/> it covers at least a span of 60km if not more by now. This is equivalent to the distance between Mombasa and Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale, etc. CNs should not be restricted within locations.*
*The last ACCESS GAPS Study am aware of was done in 2016, as per CA's website an EOI is dated to begin and end on 27/05/2021 - **https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-service... <https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-services-to-undertake-ict-access-gaps-study-in-kenya>* /
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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 05/29/21, 09:57:20 AM
Twahir On that last point, I don't know if you are legally guaranteeing to be cheaper....if so how long will you guarantee that and I'll sign up :) nowadays the telco packages are actually quite cheap (arguably too cheap, some of those telcos are losing money!) If telcos didn't pay a fortune in spectrum and taxes they'd be cheaper. Ultimately why would a CN be so much cheaper (especially if they're also for-profits) since it's same business model... Role out infrastructure to serve a market, and there's hundreds of telco/ISP in Kenya in a competitive market? I'm struggling to see the difference between an ISP and a CN from your definitions/requests or see why CA shouldn't just reduce fees for tier 3 license. Wouldn't that meet your needs? In which case the problem just comes down to CA willingness to sacrifice fees.... Adam -------------------------------------------------- M: +254-790985886 Deputy CEO, Government Affairs Huawei Kenya From:Twahir Hussein Kassim <twahir@hussein.me.ke> To:Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Cc:KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date:2021-05-29 10:05:21 Subject:Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion Hi @Adam, now let's get down on this On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:45 AM Adam Lane < adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Twahir USF did a webinar a month or so ago to share the draft findings of the updated report. It is much more accurate than KNBS. I attach two screenshots, if I may, below. Surprised that there was silence on such an important issue. There is nothing on CA's website on the matter, a search on Professor Google on Access Gaps report returns the 2016. I wonder, was this an invite only event or was this supposed to be for the public at least the ICT people who would have a word or two on the matter. Wondering if the event was recorded, and if presentations from it can be shared. @KICTANET probably it would be good to organise a session with CA to delve into that report plus USF utilisation. Unfortunately there is no information regarding to what has been done so far OR it is there but not accessible; either way that info is critical. As Kenyans would say "vitu kwa ground ziko different"; both coverage maps you have given show areas that appear on the maps as covered by the telcos but in reality are not. I would be very specific, there is are areas that I can pinpoint that there is almost 0% coverage of either 1 or both the networks: - Kilifi County - Sokoke, Mabirikani, Mlima wa kuku, Adu etc Kwale County - Majoreni, Wasini Island Lamu Island - Airtel you have to be seated in an elevated area to get good reception to go online. The Access Report unless it was done from a theoretical point of view on HOW FAR the coverage is, the reality is very far off. If CNs can be for-profit, and also cover a large area, how is the license any different to existing licenses for tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3 NFPs? The only difference is the low fees. In which case, just remove the fees for the other licenses and there is no need for a specific CN license… and with those fees lowered, the hundreds of existing tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 licensees may be more willing to venture into some of those areas you mention. Adam, the modus operandi of MOST CNs is to get backhaul from the big boys (read Liquid, Safaricom, Airtel etc) and drop it down to areas where the big boys won't go. This doesn't affect the Telcos bottom line rather it boostes it. What was otherwise unconnected has become connected via the existence of CNs, thus the argument that they should be wrapped up together with the guys who actually give them internet to connect the unconnected tastes a bit sour. On the other hand, if there are already ISPs around those areas, the issue is not supply, as I mentioned previously, it is all about demand: lack of affordable devices, lack of affordable energy, lack of relevant content, lack of skills, lack of awareness and so on. I 100% agree that these issues must be addressed, but a licensing framework for CNs or even ISPs will not address a single one of those issues. Those are issues to be addressed by USF, Industry players (including ourselves) and everyone else. Agreed. However, lets analogise on this. Supposing the area MP came to the local school to give exercise books and the pupils don't have text books, would it be wrong for them to put an ask for text books too? This is the scenario, CA has opened a communication channel for spectrum to address CNs; Wanjiku is simply riding the wave to want other aspects of CN also addressed. Admittedly they might end up not being addressed, but word is out that this isn't enough other aspects need to be put in place to have the issue wholesome. Affordability is of course a critical issue too, and no doubt lowering licensing fees for tier 1s, tier 2s and tier 3s will help somewhat if the CA were willing or able to do that. But affordability is also a complex issue. In supplying a network there is infrastructure, backhaul, power, customer acquisition, customer service, billing systems, CRM systems and much more besides. And of course the license fees, corporate taxes etc. On the demand side there are also other issues, including VAT on airtime/data for example. This is where CNs come to play. Where a Telco would give you 10GB and 400 minutes talk time at 1000, CNs would offer "unlimited" internet for much less. Most likely the speeds would be lower, hower they are sufficient for one to get buy and that is the value addition of CNs to the Internet Supply chain. Let's not fight them as biting into our cake rather let's look at them as extending the market to areas where we had no reach. It would be a very worthwhile conversation and a necessary strategy to have in terms of addressing all these other issues above, but very different to this discussion on a licensing framework for CNs. Just giving a CN a license will not address any of those demand-side issues or any of those other supply-side issues. We need to acknowledge that. Regards Adam [cid:179b6cbe6164ce8e91] [cid:179b6cbe6165b006a2] From: Twahir Hussein Kassim [mailto:twahir@hussein.me.ke<mailto:twahir@hussein.me.ke>] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:24 AM To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> Cc: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion Adam, Some info that CA gives is not in tandem with what KNBS states. See mycomments below On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:45 PM Adam Lane via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> 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. Kenya has a youthful rural population; the latest data from the census 2019 by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) reveals. In this case, 35.7 million Kenyans (75.1%) are below 35 years, while 32.73 million (68.9%) live in rural areas. Source:https://kenyanwallstreet.com/census-2019-datashows-kenya-has-a-youthful-rura... Given these details, I wonder how we can reconcile the figure to 4% not covered by broadband. The framework is definitely a step in the right direction. 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. The aim of the framework while stated is for licensing however, the licensing is focused on addressing a bigger issue - The Digital Divide. If the license were not to focus on matters digit literacy, availability of digital devices, power then it will simply be putting regulation over nothing. The Digital Divide is very real and it cannot be addressed piece meal. 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. Unserved areas exist within cities. Take an example of Nairobi; we have Poa Internet, Tunapanda serving the masses where major telcos have failed. The question is not only about coverage but also about affordability. Mombasa has Muoroto, Bangladesh, Kisumu Ndogo... all remain unserved. Yet the town is teaming with all ISPs fighting for businesses within CBD and industrial areas of Shimanzi. 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). Limiting areas for CNs to the neighborhood would make no sense in as far as CNs normally operate. Take examples of CNs in Africa... Zenzeleni - https://zenzeleni.net/our-journey/ it covers at least a span of 60km if not more by now. This is equivalent to the distance between Mombasa and Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale, etc. CNs should not be restricted within locations. The last ACCESS GAPS Study am aware of was done in 2016, as per CA's website an EOI is dated to begin and end on 27/05/2021 - https://ca.go.ke/document/expression-of-interest-eoi-for-consultancy-service... 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<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Badam.lane>=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke>]On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com<mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com>> 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 fordirect download here<https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/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. [Mailtrack]<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&>05/29/21, 09:57:20 AM
Thank you Adam. See responses inline. On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:44 PM Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> 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
Some questions always asked in the access debate are; is coverage equal to affordability, accessibility, or usability? Can you have broadband coverage and yet not be able to use it? What other models can help bring more internet users onboard? 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 Can local ingenuity help Community Network thrive where other operators have failed? One inexpensive way I have seen CNs thrive is through sharing the cost of backhaul while using inexpensive solutions to distribute the last mile to all community members where traditional operators will not venture. but they should certainly be given a chance. Certainly community networks should 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.
Great points. I guess this was one of the key functions of USF, that the fund will also be used to subsidize setting up and operationalizing the hard-to-reach areas. 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.
This is a good point. The framework tries to simplify the application process by using a tried and tested template, that for community broadcasters. Probably that process will need to go through a "road test."
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).
Interestingly, Community Networks feel they should not be constrained in such a small area. This is the interesting push and pull of different stakeholders. My question is, why do you want the CNs to be constrained to regions where commercial operators who can afford (beyond providing shareholder value) don't want to venture? If a community feels they can provide internet cheaply than traditional operators, should they have that self-determinism to chat a path for cheaper access? An example is how KENET provides internet at cost to their community of colleges and schools, while commercial operators still thrive in those areas.
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.
Also, community networks rely on traditional ISPs for backhaul. Probably we can say CNs complement and extend ISPs? It would be great to hear what the few CNs in Kenya and other stakeholders think about competition with ISPs. My take would be CNs serve users who the ISPs have not reached either in cost or availability. It is still a competitive environment. 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.
Very useful to have different tools to solve the access gap. This framework for community networks should be limited to areas that are
un-served only.
Regards
Adam
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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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
Hi Barrack So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises. I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used. I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference. The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes. Adam From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Cc: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion 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 <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> 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<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Badam.lane>=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com<mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com>> 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<https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail... 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
Dear Adam, Many thanks for your detailed responses which are appreciated, I understand your perspective. My thinking is if we bring more of the unserved and underserved on board the cake will be bigger in addition to the other benefits articulated in my previous email. Having said that, I acknowledge the fact that those that go first always pay a hefty price but equally benefit if they deploy the right strategies. I propose that we start with an open mind as was the case when Prof Njuguna was faced with a decision of allowing mpesa to operate and tighten the rope as we move along depending on the ground we are able to cover. Best Regards On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:16 PM Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Barrack
So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises.
I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used.
I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference.
The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes.
Adam
*From:* Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM *To:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Cc:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Hello Mwendwa, Thank you for this discussion. The report is very commendable and will help people in understanding community networks and their deployment which will help in bridging the divide and inclusion. Coming from a village with poor network and limited or no connectivity, Encouraging CN deployments in rural areas would be a great plan for areas like ours. Warm regards, Nzambi Kakusu. On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 12:54, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear Adam,
Many thanks for your detailed responses which are appreciated, I understand your perspective. My thinking is if we bring more of the unserved and underserved on board the cake will be bigger in addition to the other benefits articulated in my previous email. Having said that, I acknowledge the fact that those that go first always pay a hefty price but equally benefit if they deploy the right strategies. I propose that we start with an open mind as was the case when Prof Njuguna was faced with a decision of allowing mpesa to operate and tighten the rope as we move along depending on the ground we are able to cover.
Best Regards
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:16 PM Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Barrack
So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises.
I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used.
I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference.
The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes.
Adam
*From:* Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM *To:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Cc:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/kakusuj7%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.
-- *jNzambiKakusu*
Good People Great conversation. As we continue to discourse, a special thanks to the CA and our other partners for making this a reality. This is true *MultiStakeholderism* with one overarching objective - To make this country a better place and leave NO ONE behind when it comes to connectivity. Regards *Ali Hussein* Digital Transformation Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:53 PM nzambi kakusu via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Hello Mwendwa,
Thank you for this discussion.
The report is very commendable and will help people in understanding community networks and their deployment which will help in bridging the divide and inclusion.
Coming from a village with poor network and limited or no connectivity, Encouraging CN deployments in rural areas would be a great plan for areas like ours.
Warm regards, Nzambi Kakusu. On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 12:54, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear Adam,
Many thanks for your detailed responses which are appreciated, I understand your perspective. My thinking is if we bring more of the unserved and underserved on board the cake will be bigger in addition to the other benefits articulated in my previous email. Having said that, I acknowledge the fact that those that go first always pay a hefty price but equally benefit if they deploy the right strategies. I propose that we start with an open mind as was the case when Prof Njuguna was faced with a decision of allowing mpesa to operate and tighten the rope as we move along depending on the ground we are able to cover.
Best Regards
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:16 PM Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Barrack
So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises.
I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used.
I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference.
The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes.
Adam
*From:* Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM *To:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Cc:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/kakusuj7%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.
-- *jNzambiKakusu*
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/info%40alyhussein.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.
@Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> will get back to your first response as needs me to have a huge cup of sweetened coffee before I tackle that thus handing others first ☺ How do we gauge the demand-side where access is not available? Let me take you on a short trip to Lamu Island, I visited Lamu for the first time in 2016. Promptly at 7pm during those days, CITIZEN's NIPASHE news would be projected through the use of a laptop and projector (unfortunately the practice was stopped under the new Governor). The convergence of people at that central point during WAKATI WA HABARI was phenomenal... I think I can only equate it to the olden days where MBIYU YA MGAMBO (trumpet / drums calling for meeting) was sounded. After people watched news they would discuss the issues from a local perspective - creation of local content, demand for local content! Need for local content though being talked about has not been given the weight it deserves, the Lamu Scenario is a good way to start! On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:17 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Hi Barrack
So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises.
I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used.
I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference.
The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes.
Adam
*From:* Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM *To:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Cc:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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 kictanet@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/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] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 05/29/21, 08:55:52 AM
Twahir Yes I have seen those community gatherings in front of The Fort there. They're excellent, but I dont see that it relates to licenses. As I mentioned in another post, unless your content is being distribute over a telco network (think USSD, SMS etc), just having a website, app or YouTube video content doesn't require any license .... yet, who knows if that could be the next thing to be taxed ;) -------------------------------------------------- M: +254-790985886 Deputy CEO, Government Affairs Huawei Kenya From:Twahir Hussein Kassim <twahir@hussein.me.ke> To:KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Cc:Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> Date:2021-05-29 09:16:57 Subject:Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion @Adam Lane<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com> will get back to your first response as needs me to have a huge cup of sweetened coffee before I tackle that thus handing others first ☺ How do we gauge the demand-side where access is not available? Let me take you on a short trip to Lamu Island, I visited Lamu for the first time in 2016. Promptly at 7pm during those days, CITIZEN's NIPASHE news would be projected through the use of a laptop and projector (unfortunately the practice was stopped under the new Governor). The convergence of people at that central point during WAKATI WA HABARI was phenomenal... I think I can only equate it to the olden days where MBIYU YA MGAMBO (trumpet / drums calling for meeting) was sounded. After people watched news they would discuss the issues from a local perspective - creation of local content, demand for local content! Need for local content though being talked about has not been given the weight it deserves, the Lamu Scenario is a good way to start! On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:17 PM Adam Lane via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote: Hi Barrack So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises. I agree with your comments. Spectrum is priced too highly. It is priced out of reach for many who could provide telecoms services, and the price of spectrum is reflected in the cost that consumers pay directly (and indirectly, in that in some areas the telcos won’t invest in, having already invested so much in spectrum). Tier 1 licensees are making good use of their spectrum, but many tier 2 or tier 3 (or other spectrum holders such as in government) may not have many sites, so indeed, their spectrum is being under-used. I am not against community networks, but I am a realist in that they won’t make a massive difference since a) so many issues are demand-side, not supply-side, as my other emails explain; and b) there are so many costs to running a network; and c) existing providers are operating in a competitive market and most are not making excessive profits (or are actually loss-making) so it is hard to say the existing market has many problems that a community network could resolve. I am not saying they cannot try, they should be encouraged, but community networks in of themselves may not make a big difference to the digital divide. Other solutions, such as spectrum pricing, VAT etc etc could have a big difference. The reality is that the CA makes 8.5bn KES a year in license fees and remits 4.7bn KES to Treasury to be spent on whatever treasury wants. Let alone the money (tens of billions) that treasury collects in VAT on devices, excise duty on airtime and data and many other taxes. Adam From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> Cc: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion 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 <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> 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<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Badam.lane>=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke>]On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM To: Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com<mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com>> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com<mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com>> 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 fordirect download here<https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail... 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 kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@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/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. [Mailtrack]<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&>05/29/21, 08:55:52 AM
Triple DITTO on that @Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> 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 <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> 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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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= huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> *Cc:* Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> *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 <https://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 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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 kictanet@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/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] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 05/29/21, 08:50:34 AM
Thanks @Mwendwa Kivuva <kivuva@kictanet.or.ke> and the entire who is who in KICTANET and her partners for bringing this on, I must say that it couldn't have come at a better time. My *responses* below On Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:21 PM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
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-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.
*This is a welcomed move, late in the day as it may be but we are here, we intend to make the most of it.* 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.* *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.* 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.* 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.* 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.* 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. *
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?
*I believe I have handled the above questions within my responses above.* *CNs are most probably the silver bullet we need to bring down the Digital Divide Ogre that continues to roam our rural villages.*
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/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.
Dear Mwendwa and Colleagues, This is a great discussion. First i would like to thank the Communications Authority for its innovativeness and determination to engage stakeholders on matters under its purview. I would also like to thank the Kenya ICT Action Network for leaving up to its vision of catalizing access to ICTs and the Association of Progressive Communications and other partners who have made this initiative possible. My responses are inline On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:20 PM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
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-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.
*This is a welcome move. Reading the draft licensing framework i noted that previous , a license existed which was meant for resellers of Communication services which did not require payment of any fees. I noted that this license was withdrawn because there were no applicants for it. I would like to request for further clarity from the drafters on this issue and whether we could adopt or have adopted some of the provisions for Community Networks. Be that as it may the Community Network License is a welcome move.*
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.
*This is a good proposal. However where possible, Community Networks should be allowed to establish subsidiaries to operate the networks if and when they scale. There is a very thin line between Community Radio and Community Networks and they require unique attention and expertise which may call for creation of Special purpose Vehicles. However the initiating organization should have a Community Centric outlook.*
3. Two letters of support from Community Leaders as part of the application process for CNSP to ensure community ownership
*I agree with Twahir this might not be necessary provided the organization is a duly registered not for profit entity serving the Community.*
3. Geographical coverage of a CNSP will be a sub-county boundary
*Counties and Sub Counties vary and overlap in some instances. I would want to understand the rationale behind the proposal for the county but would propose that we go for the county boundary.*
4. License period of 10years with License Application fee Ksh1000, Initial Operating License Fee Ksh 5000, and Annual Operating Fee Ksh5000.
*I find the fee to reasonable provided it is unified*
6. Spectrum Fee: Fee waiver for non-protected access to lightly-licensed and license-exempt frequency bands by wireless access systems
*This is a good proposal. There are large areas of the country where frequency is unutilized or underutilized that could be of benefit to the Community. Provided CA Safeguards are respected, we should allocate more unutilized spectrum for Community Services. Usage of the same can be monitored to ensure that it is only used for intended purposes.*
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
*This is a good proposal. In any case Community Networks aquire bandwidth from providers at a cost which contributes to the USF kitty. The beauty of Community Networks is they spur innovation by relying on expertise found within the Community which contributes to fostering a culture of innovation across the country.*
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 _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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
participants (9)
-
Adam Lane -
Ali Hussein -
Barrack Otieno -
Benson Muite -
Liz Orembo -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
nzambi kakusu -
Twahir Hussein Kassim -
Vitalis Olunga