Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
good-practice:start [2021/07/22 11:50] – ↷ Page name changed from good-practice:overview to good-practice:start stevegood-practice:start [2024/07/05 12:01] (current) – steve
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Enabling Regulation ======+====== Good Practice ======
  
-Although the business models of national operators and local commercial operators providing connectivity are fairly well understood, less is known about local social-purpose operators and their role in providing affordable access to communication in places where the commercial operators see no interest. Among them, a number of community-owned networks have demonstrated their ability to contribute to closing the rural access gap. This is being increasingly recognised in the outcomes of many international fora on connectivity gaps, as shown in the [[overview#recognition_of_local_social-purpose_operators| Recognition in Policy documents]] section below.+Although the business models of national operators and local commercial operators providing connectivity are fairly well understood, less is known about local social-purpose operators and their role in providing affordable access to communication in places where the commercial operators see no interest. Among them, a number of community-owned networks have demonstrated their ability to contribute to closing the rural access gap. This is being increasingly recognised in the outcomes of many international fora on connectivity gaps, as shown in the **[[international-organisations:start|The Role of International Organisations]]** section of the wiki.
  
  
 There are a variety of barriers that local social-purpose operators face because most regulatory frameworks have been designed primarily to cater for national operators deploying their own infrastructure. This wiki presents an analysis of solutions that have been implemented by regulators worldwide to address the key barriers faced by local operators,  grouped in the following categories: There are a variety of barriers that local social-purpose operators face because most regulatory frameworks have been designed primarily to cater for national operators deploying their own infrastructure. This wiki presents an analysis of solutions that have been implemented by regulators worldwide to address the key barriers faced by local operators,  grouped in the following categories:
-  * [[overview#operator_licensing|Operator Licensing]] +  * [[start#operator_licensing|Operator Licensing]] 
-  * [[overview#spectrum_licensing_and_fees|Spectrum Licensing and Fees]] +  * [[start#spectrum_licensing_and_fees|Spectrum Licensing and Fees]] 
-  * [[overview#backbone_and_backhaul_infrastructure|Backbone and backhaul Infrastructure]] +  * [[start#backbone_and_backhaul_infrastructure|Backbone and backhaul Infrastructure]] 
-  * [[overview#financial_support|Financial support]] +  * [[start#financial_support|Financial support]] 
-  * [[overview#access_to_network_information|Access to network information]]+  * [[start#access_to_network_information|Access to network information]]
  
 Regulatory interventions identified in these five areas are making it more possible for local operators to provide coverage in places where there was none, as well as considerably more affordable telecommunication services in areas where users do not have the disposable income to afford the data packages available from national operators. Regulatory interventions identified in these five areas are making it more possible for local operators to provide coverage in places where there was none, as well as considerably more affordable telecommunication services in areas where users do not have the disposable income to afford the data packages available from national operators.
Line 85: Line 85:
 One of the main barriers to the adoption of an enabling regulatory framework for local operators is that few people know they even exist. This applies not only to the rural communities that are most likely to benefit, but also to policy makers and regulators, and development organisations. Lack of awareness is compounded by the view among most policy makers and funders that access markets can be sufficiently well-served by a handful of large (multi)national operators competing to provide services of sufficient coverage and quality, and at an affordable price. However, there is an increasing body of experience that indicates that support expanding the telecommunications operator ecosystem to include local operators.  One of the main barriers to the adoption of an enabling regulatory framework for local operators is that few people know they even exist. This applies not only to the rural communities that are most likely to benefit, but also to policy makers and regulators, and development organisations. Lack of awareness is compounded by the view among most policy makers and funders that access markets can be sufficiently well-served by a handful of large (multi)national operators competing to provide services of sufficient coverage and quality, and at an affordable price. However, there is an increasing body of experience that indicates that support expanding the telecommunications operator ecosystem to include local operators. 
  
-==== Global recognition ==== 
  
-A number of global policy positions have now reached similar conclusions. Among them:  
  
-===  ITU-D: Telecommunications for rural and remote areas - The World Telecommunication Development Conference (Dubai, 2014) Recommendation 19 === 
  
-Recommendation 19[(https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC17/Documents/WTDC17_final_report_en.pdf)] includes the following: 
  
-<callout>10. that it is important to consider small and non-profit community operators, through appropriate regulatory measures that allow them to access basic infrastructure on fair terms, in order to provide broadband connectivity to users in rural and remote areas, taking advantage of technological advances;</callout> 
  
-<callout>11. that it is also important that administrations, in their radio-spectrum planning and licensing activities, consider mechanisms to facilitate the deployment of broadband services in rural and remote areas by small and non-profit community operators;</callout> 
  
-=== UN Ecosoc WSIS resolution 2019 === 
- 
-Numeral 54[(https://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ecosoc_res_2019d24_en.pdf)] includes "//Community Networks//" as an emerging topic.  
- 
-=== The Report of the United Nations Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Digital Co-operation === 
- 
-The report [(The Age of Digital Interdependence, Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalCooperation-report-for%20web.pdf)] states that: 
- 
-<callout>Governments have an important role to  play  in  creating  a  policy  framework  to  enable  private  sector  enterprise,  innovation, and cooperative, bottom-up networks (page 12) 
-</callout> 
- 
-and concludes in its recommendations that: 
- 
-<callout>Second, investments should be made in both human capacity and physical infrastructure. Creating the foundation of universal, affordable access to electricity and the internet will often require innovative approaches, such as community groups operating rural networks, or incentives such as public sector support. (page 29)</callout> 
- 
-=== The Annual Deliverable 2019-2020 from ITU-D Study Groups Question 5/1: Telecommunications/ICTs for rural and remote areas ===  
- 
-The report includes[(https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/oth/07/23/D07230000020001PDFE.pdf)]: 
- 
-<callout> 
-the following recommendations can be made for now: 
- 
-  * Ease regulatory requirements for community network operators. 
-</callout> 
- 
-=== COVID-19 Response Statement from the G20 Virtual Ministerial Meeting on April 30, 2020  === 
- 
-The response includes[(https://g20.org/en/media/Documents/G20%20DETF%20COVID-19%20Ministerial%20Statement_EN.pdf)]: 
- 
-<callout>Furthermore,  digital  capacities should be expanded, in particular by increasing  broadband connectivity using fixed, mobile, and satellite technologies and by exploring non-traditional means of connectivity,such as community networks. 
-</callout> 
- 
-=== Other ITU documents=== 
- 
-Aside from the [[overview#the_annual_deliverable_2019-2020_from_itu-d_study_groups_question_51telecommunicationsicts_for_rural_and_remote_areas | Annual report]] mentioned above, here are other ITU documents produced in 2020 that mention community networks on several occasions. These include:  
- 
-  * ITU Smart Villages Blueprint[(https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-SMART_VILLAGE.NIGER-2020-PDF-E.pdf)] 
- 
-  * ITU-D Last Mile Connectivity Guidelines[(https://www.itu.int/md/D18-SG01-C-0362/en Note that accessing this document requires [[https://www.itu.int/en/ties-services/Pages/default.aspx|TIES access]] at the moment, please get in contact with [[mailto:itu@apc.org|itu@apc.org]] to request access)] 
- 
-==== Regional recognition ==== 
- 
-=== Africa === 
- 
-In Africa, the **Specialized Technical Committee on Communications and Information Technologies (STC-CICT) from the Africa Union** [[ https://au.int/sites/default/files/decisions/37590-2019_sharm_el_sheikh_declaration_-_stc-cict-3_oct_2019_ver2410-10pm-1rev-2.pdf 
- | included]], in its 2019 **Sharm El Sheikh Declaration (STC –CICT-3)** the following text directing the African Union Commission to: 
- 
-<callout>29. PROMOTE the formulation of strategy and pilot projects for Unlocking Access to Basic Infrastructure and Services for Rural and Remote Areas including Indigenous Community Networks, and develop guidelines on legislation on deployment of technologies and ICT applications, to accelerate infrastructure role out in collaboration with ATU and other regional institutions;</callout> 
- 
-Additionally, the **Broadband Commission “Connecting Africa Through Broadband: A strategy for doubling connectivity by 2021 and reaching universal access by 2030”** [[https://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/DigitalMoonshotforAfrica_Report.pdf | recognizes]] the role of community networks in 3 of the 7 Objectives of its Action Plan. Of particular interest is Objective 5:  
-<callout>Provide direct funding support for extending affordable broadband access to commercially challenging rural and remote areas, to women, and low-income users</callout> 
-and the recommendations under Objective 1 “Ensure that the commercial broadband ICT market is open and structurally prepared for competitive private investment": 
-<callout>Adopt open wholesale and retail telecommunications market entry policies, especially competitive and unified licensing regimes, and liberal, dynamic spectrum policies. Such policies should also accommodate community and nonprofit focused network operators who offer services in underserved areas. 
-</callout> 
-=== Americas === 
- 
-In the Americas region, the Inter-american Telecommunications Commission tracks the implementation of resolution ITU D-19 regarding small, not for profit and community operators, through resolution 268-PCC1. The report[(https://www.redesac.org.mx/regulacion)], presented in 2018, shows the development of inclusive regulation for small and community operators in each of the countries.  
- 
-=== Asia === 
- 
-In Asia Pacific, community networks are a relatively new topic. Still, they were discussed in 2019 at the Third Session of the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway Steering Committee and WSIS Regional Review and included in its deliberations[(https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20Report%20-%20Third%20AP-IS%20SC_0.pdf)].  
 ==== National recognition ==== ==== National recognition ====