<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Adam,</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best Regards<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:16 PM Adam Lane <<a href="mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com">adam.lane@huawei.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="ZH-CN">
<div class="gmail-m_-2746850035190759017WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">Hi Barrack<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">So far I was just commenting on the licensing aspects, but will certainly also comment on the shared spectrum framework when that arises.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">Adam<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> Barrack Otieno [mailto:<a href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com" target="_blank">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 28, 2021 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" target="_blank">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Adam Lane <<a href="mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com" target="_blank">adam.lane@huawei.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi Adam,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:44 PM Adam Lane via kictanet <<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" target="_blank">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">Hi Mwendwa</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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).</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">Regards</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US">Adam</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)" lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> kictanet
[mailto:<a href="mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Badam.lane" target="_blank">kictanet-bounces+adam.lane</a>=<a href="mailto:huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke" target="_blank">huawei.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>]
<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 <<a href="mailto:adam.lane@huawei.com" target="_blank">adam.lane@huawei.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mwendwa Kivuva <<a href="mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com" target="_blank">Kivuva@transworldafrica.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [kictanet] Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks for Kenya online discussion</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Listers,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></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" target="_blank">
direct download here</a>. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Community Network Licensing framework proposes;<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3. Geographical coverage of a CNSP will be a sub-county boundary<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Questions:<u></u><u></u></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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Looking forward to an engaging discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></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><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">_______________________________________________<br>
kictanet mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" target="_blank">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/kictanet" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/kictanet</a><br>
Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/</a><br>
<br>
Unsubscribe or change your options at <a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com" target="_blank">
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br clear="all">
<br>
-- <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US">Barrack O. Otieno<br>
+254721325277<br>
+254733206359<br>
Skype: barrack.otieno<br>
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Barrack O. Otieno<br>+254721325277<br>+254733206359<br>Skype: barrack.otieno<br>PGP ID: 0x2611D86A<br> <br><br><br><br></div>