[kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion
Alex Watila
awatila at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 13:41:09 EAT 2021
thanks
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, 09:33 Tony White via KICTANet, <
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> For those actually interested in low-cost implementation, this
> upcoming webinar from Canonical (Ubuntu) may prove useful:
> https://ubuntu.com/engage/5g-and-lte-networks-webinar
>
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 18:50, SAMUEL O. via KICTANet
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the update
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2021, 16:33 Adam Lane via KICTANet <
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Barrack and Mwendwa for your excellent comments.
> >>
> >> I believe extending power for Wi-Fi will lead to more interference, not
> less, and that the problem isn't so much the lack of spectrum (Wi-Fi
> already has more than IMT yet IMT is fulfilling 90 or 95% of the internet
> currently I guess), but the way Wi-Fi works through using unlicensed
> spectrum. Letting the CNs use IMT would be better, whether they are
> licensed directly or lease from an existing licensee who's not using their
> spectrum in that location.
> >>
> >> I believe the CA's framework does suggest exploring that option and I'd
> recommend some pilots in these various options to see what's technically
> feasible as well as whether existing licensees are willing to enter into
> these agreements for reasonable prices (if they're not using/planning to
> use the spectrum in that area, then any revenue for them could be better
> than nothing, even if little, though CA could mandate it to be made
> available for a very small admin fee, I.e.g. Use-it-or-lose it concept) or
> make some specific spectrum available for CNs to use, e.g. 700MHz that
> would be really good for fixed wireless access in rural areas and for which
> there's some unused spectrum currently but which currently requires 2.5bn
> to get...
> >>
> >> Out of interest I am not sure if Mawingu counts as a CN since its quite
> big now, but the friend I'm staying with at the moment pays them 5k a month
> and a 15k set-up fee for the router and installation for 5mbps, whereas
> Safaricom charges the same for same speed using 4G (basically unlimited
> data, though after 400GB they'll reduce to 1mbps) with router about 10k
> according to their website. So in this case the pricing is basically the
> same (obviously depending on actual coverage being available or not).
> >>
> >> Interesting to note that Safaricom fiber is cheaper than 4G but of
> course availability is limited to some urban areas.
> >>
> >> Adam
> >> --------------------------------------------------
> >> M: +254-790985886
> >> Deputy CEO, Government Affairs
> >> Huawei Kenya
> >> From:Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
> >> To:Adam Lane <adam.lane at huawei.com>
> >> Cc:KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>;Heiko
> Rehm <hrehm at pyra-mite.net>
> >> Date:2021-05-31 16:00:39
> >> Subject:Re: [kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks
> for Kenya online discussion
> >>
> >> On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 18:52, Adam Lane <adam.lane at huawei.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mwendwa
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Everything has gone silent, even though this is a controversial topic!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Probably it is a hard topic, and of course, it has a level of political
> weight behind it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I can stir up some debate…
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Firstly, it would be helpful to clarify what the problem is before
> trying to identify the solution. For example, is it a lack of spectrum or
> is it the cost of spectrum or is it something else? Actually there is quite
> a lot of spectrum available in Kenya that is completely un-used (for
> example, in 700 Mhz band that is good for rural areas) and some that is so
> under-used (by some ISPs and some government users) that the best thing to
> do would be to return it to the CA and let the CA license it to someone
> else to use. [In relation to the Spectrum Fees Topic] Certainly the cost of
> that spectrum is a challenge for many, and it is very commendable that the
> CA proposes to Review spectrum fee framework recognising the need for
> significantly reduced fees for underserved/rural areas. I fully support
> this and it should be applicable to ALL spectrum license holders to
> encourage as many as possible to connect more unconnected areas. Fees can
> help work out who to allocate spectrum to that is serious about using it,
> but it also adds major costs. There are multiple fees at the moment, not
> just for spectrum licenses but also per base station using it, and even for
> using spectrum for backhaul to base stations.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since CA licensing is unified, from the webinar we had on this topic,
> they had indicated they would do a review as you have proposed for the
> entire sector.
> >> The challenges around spectrum are many, for example
> >> a) CA charges an annual registration fee for 5GHz Wifi for Point to
> Point connections. PtP/PtMP are important for community networks
> >> b) Current equipment used for WiFi has less range and strength because
> of the low permitted radiated power rating. Increasing this will make the
> WiFI equipment more reliable especially in rural areas.
> >> c) If the range of frequency in the license-exempt WiFi spectrum is
> extended, it would reduce the current congestion where communities are
> complaining that their connections are not reliable.
> >> d) We need to build the technical capacity of operators and businesses
> to enable them to conform to regulatory requirements. As Barrack has
> indicated in his reply, "Spectrum has been a very opaque subject to many."
> >> e. As you have pointed out, there is a lot of allocated spectrum that
> is being hoarded. Spectrum refarming can be employed to govern the
> repurposing of spectrum bands to more efficient technologies, investments,
> or new services where the spectrum is needed most
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Secondly, it is important to understand that connectivity relies on
> infrastructure investments, the business case for which need some
> predictability. One cannot build a network (whether a community network or
> a “regular” ISP) without some guarantee that the infrastructure will still
> be usable for 5 years or 10 years etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Probably this is where innovation and new ways of doing things should
> be allowed to thrive? There are many institutions ready to fund innovative
> connectivity solutions for the common good because it is in innovation,
> trial and error ... where new things come into being. I wonder is community
> networks operators can tell us what is the minimum requirements to setup a
> small network for a typical Kenyan village.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also, it is critical to avoid different providers using the same
> spectrum too close to each other that it causes interference. These kind of
> issues are what makes shared spectrum tricky. When does one decide the
> spectrum is not being used in a location and let someone else use it
> compared to recognizing the license holder just has not yet got around to
> building in that location but will do “soon”?
> >>
> >> One of the recommendations for the shared spectrum framework is to
> expand the frequency on license exempt spectrum, and also increase the
> power of equipment used. Does this sound as a viable solution?
> >>
> >> The two proposed solutions above are:
> >> a) Adjustment to PtP and PtMP EIRP levels could dramatically increase
> the potential of WiFi equipment in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz to deliver access in
> rural areas. See Appendix 2 for specific recommendations.
> >> b) extending the range of frequencies available for license-exempt
> use. This would have the impact of reducing congestion in backhaul
> connections by increasing the range of license-exempt frequencies;
> >>
> >>> Leasing spectrum from a license holder could be a viable option (i.e.
> that license holder agrees to let someone else the their spectrum in a
> particular location for a fee and for a determined time). [In relation to
> IMT spectrum topic]
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting solution. I am not sure what the rest feel. There is one
> school of thought that things this leads to hoarding a public utility with
> the expectation of exiting the investment at a profit.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In relation to this a critical issue with investment in infrastructure
> and having predictability is the issue of wanting to change a spectrum
> usage after equipment has been invested in. Let me give 2 example:
> >>>
> >>> 1) TV White Space regulations have been available in some
> countries (e.g. US, UK) for many years but have had very little adoption.
> Meanwhile some of those frequencies have been used for regular mobile use,
> e.g. 600 Mhz network in the US and achieved wide scale and are particularly
> useful for rural coverage. What if equipment is deployed to use TVWS in
> this frequency but gets little adoption so the CA wants to change to mobile
> use; what to do with the existing equipment? How to avoid interference with
> the new equipment? [In relation to dynamic spectrum access topic]. Since
> there is plenty of spectrum available in Kenya, just some is not well used
> and could be taken back/re-distributed and some is too expensive, there may
> not be a huge need for TVWS, but if ISPs can get it to work with the
> geolocation databases, and if they can get good enough Quality and Speeds,
> they could try.
> >>
> >> +1 on spectrum refarming.
> >>
> >> As you have indicated, if anyone wants to experiment in investing in
> TVWS, we should give them the opportunity.
> >>
> >> The Tier1 operators in Kenya are not deficient in spectrum. What the
> proposal is trying to do is give the small guy in the village access to
> usable spectrum to serve themselves, since the big boys are not serving
> them at the moment.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Use of equipment in unlicensed spectrum – once it is in use in
> the market then it cannot be taken out of the market and new equipment
> brought in. With licensed spectrum it is easier to manage. So for example
> as countries weight up spectrum for wi-fi vs 5G, if later there is more
> demand for 5G, it will not be possible to remove wi-fi equipment since
> there is no record of who owns it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Third, it is important to recognize the need and benefits from
> economies of scale. Nationwide providers get this from non-infrastructure
> based operations (e.g. creating an organization with administration
> functions, customer service functions, core network, billing systems etc)
> and they also get this from having common infrastructure. This is a
> challenge for localized spectrum access [in regards the IMT spectrum topic].
> >>
> >>
> >> There is a community network in Easter DRC - the Idjwi island, an
> underserved area with a population of three hundred thousand people on Lake
> Kivu - called Pamoja Net with IMT spectrum. There was a blog by Nzambi
> Kakusu on the KICTANet website
> >>
> >> This is a viable option especially in areas prone to terrorism -
> community control gives it so many advantages.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [on the license exempt spectrum] It is clear that in Kenya the
> majority of people use mobile for their access (from a base station that is
> using either microwave or fiber) or they are using wi-fi for their access
> (from a mobile router or a home fiber router). Most ISPs that provide wi-fi
> networks also use fiber as their backhaul. In the future more and more
> people may be able to use both mobile routers (5G capacity) or home fiber
> routers (fiber). In fact there is need for more spectrum for mobile, as
> more and more people will use 4G and 5G mobile routers to give them wi-fi
> at home especially in rural or less dense places where fiber may be
> expensive. In these cases there is no need for more spectrum for wi-fi.
> Wi-fi provides only short-range internet and is easily blocked by walls,
> and with 7+ Gbps capacity that is more than enough for the small number of
> users for each access point (It can get 7Gbps because it already has 560
> Mhz of spectrum, way more than mobile) whereas each mobile base station
> will support thousands of users. Mobile base stations cannot work with
> unlicensed spectrum.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think the bigger point is - how do we bring the guys doing KCPE and
> KCSE in year 2021 access to online learning tools? (usecase). How do we
> help the farmers tackle locusts in June 2021?
> >>
> >> What I am trying to say is, the bigger operators will one day take the
> internet to everybody. But if I am in the village, I also want the same
> opportunities for my child now, for my farm now, for my economic
> empowerment now. Life is for the moment.
> >>
> >> Do you think those people, no matter how few, may benefit from better
> WiFi? So that when they pull backhaul from their provider, it is less a
> hustle serving their communities leggaly through PtP/PtMP.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also [on license exempt spectrum], it is noted that in the CA document
> that there is frequent interference for those using it for backhaul. This
> is an inevitable problem with unlicensed spectrum which causes quality
> issues, making it unsuitable for large scale deployments of backhaul in
> dense populations (with other users of wi-fi for personal use as well as
> use for backhaul intefering).
> >>
> >>
> >> True. The congestion is a major issue. You find a small area with
> hundreds of equipment. But then that shows there is a need. Hunger.
> Increasing the range and power may help those who can afford more powerful
> equipment serve their communities better.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I know this can get quite technical, but I hope that some of this
> information may be useful. Note some comments I have made are
> simplified/generalized to try to be brief and not too technical.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks so much Adam for the healthy debate. I guess their are two side
> to this coin. And it is true that this topic is part of the deep end
> because it is very technical.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=
> huawei.com at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:20 PM
> >>> To: Adam Lane <adam.lane at huawei.com>
> >>> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
> >>> Subject: [kictanet] Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks
> for Kenya online discussion
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Listers,
> >>>
> >>> The tread on Licensing framework is on fire and doing very well. Thank
> you all for the contributions, reading, learning, relearning ... Please
> continue debating on that thread.
> >>>
> >>> We will start a new thread on the proposed "Shared Spectrum
> Framework". The Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community
> Networks for Kenya that was issued by the Communications Authority of
> Kenya, available for direct download here.
> >>>
> >>> License Exempt Spectrum
> >>>
> >>> WiFi has emerged as a powerful technology for both access and backhaul
> around the world but regulation has not fully kept up with the backhaul
> developments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The draft framework recommends:
> >>>
> >>> · Review the Guidelines on the use of Radiofrequency Spectrum
> by Short Range Devices to amend EIRP limits for 2.4 GHz & 5 GHz Wi-Fi for
> Point-to-Point and Point-to-Multipoint use.
> >>>
> >>> · Review options for lowering the barrier to use of other
> license-exempt bands for PtP and PtMP use, including 24 GHz and 60 GHz.
> >>>
> >>> · Expand the range of frequencies available for license-exempt
> use, especially in the 5 & 6 GHz range
> >>>
> >>> · To strengthen collaborations with service providers to foster
> standards and regulatory inclusion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dynamic Spectrum Access
> >>>
> >>> · To expedite the commercial availability of geolocation
> database service and implement required mechanisms to make the TVWS
> spectrum available immediately to operators.
> >>>
> >>> · To establish an incubatory period for TVWS technologies.
> >>>
> >>> · To evaluate with regional regulators the feasibility of a
> common approach implementation of geolocation databases
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IMT Spectrum
> >>>
> >>> · Establish a regulatory sandbox for localised spectrum access
> for small operators in an unassigned LTE band.
> >>>
> >>> · Conduct a review of international approaches to the creation
> of more localised access to spectrum to inform the establishment of a more
> permanent mechanism for local spectrum access that is well adapted to the
> Kenyan context.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Spectrum Fees
> >>>
> >>> · Review spectrum fee framework recognising the need for
> significantly reduced fees for underserved/rural areas.
> >>>
> >>> · Consider a spectrum fee reduction scheme for non-profit
> community networks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Questions:
> >>>
> >>> · What are your comments on the proposed recommendations?
> >>>
> >>> · What in your opinion are the most important considerations
> the proposed shared spectrum framework should address?
> >>>
> >>> · Are there gaps you have identified in the existing licensing
> framework in respect to spectrum assignment and utilization?
> >>>
> >>> · How would you recommend CA to address the identified gaps?
> >>>
> >>> ______________________
> >>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> KICTANet mailing list
> >> KICTANet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
> >>
> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ochiengsoja%40gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> KICTANet is a multi-stakeholder Think Tank for people and institutions
> interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. KICTANet is a
> catalyst for reform in the Information and Communication Technology sector.
> Its work is guided by four pillars of Policy Advocacy, Capacity Building,
> Research, and Stakeholder Engagement.
> >>
> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> >>
> >> KICTANet - The Power of Communities, is Kenya's premier ICT policy
> engagement platform.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > KICTANet mailing list
> > KICTANet at 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/tony.mzungu%40gmail.com
> >
> >
> > KICTANet is a multi-stakeholder Think Tank for people and institutions
> interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. KICTANet is a
> catalyst for reform in the Information and Communication Technology sector.
> Its work is guided by four pillars of Policy Advocacy, Capacity Building,
> Research, and Stakeholder Engagement.
> >
> > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> >
> > KICTANet - The Power of Communities, is Kenya's premier ICT policy
> engagement platform.
>
>
>
> --
> Tony White
>
> _______________________________________________
> KICTANet mailing list
> KICTANet at 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/awatila%40gmail.com
>
>
> KICTANet is a multi-stakeholder Think Tank for people and institutions
> interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. KICTANet is a
> catalyst for reform in the Information and Communication Technology sector.
> Its work is guided by four pillars of Policy Advocacy, Capacity Building,
> Research, and Stakeholder Engagement.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
> KICTANet - The Power of Communities, is Kenya's premier ICT policy
> engagement platform.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20210602/25d24f03/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list