<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="ZH-CN" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi Mwendwa<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Adam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Listers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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
<a href="https://ca.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Licensing-and-Shared-Spectrum-Framework-for-Community-Networks-May-2021.docx.pdf">
direct download here</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Today, we will discuss the licensing aspect of the community networks. and tomorrow about the shared spectrum framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Community Network Licensing framework proposes;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Community Network Service Provider (CNSP) License to be created within the Unified Licensing Framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3. Two letters of support from Community Leaders as part of the application process for CNSP to ensure community ownership<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3. Geographical coverage of a CNSP will be a sub-county boundary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4. License period of 10years with License Application fee Ksh1000, Initial Operating License Fee Ksh 5000, and Annual Operating Fee Ksh5000.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">6. Spectrum Fee: Fee waiver for non-protected access to lightly-licensed and license-exempt frequency bands by wireless access systems<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">=========<br>
<br>
- What are your comments on the proposed licensing framework?<br>
- What gaps have you identified in the proposed licensing framework? <br>
- How would you recommend addressing the identified gaps?<br>
- What recommendations do you have for CA to improve entry into the telecommunications market in Kenya?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Looking forward to an engaging discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">______________________<br>
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya<br>
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwendwa-kivuva</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>