[image:18154,right]We, at guifi.net, have an interest in the public consultation on the next generation public access (NGA) networks, and are pleased to share our concerns and suggestions

• About who we are and what we do
• Current issues of concern to propose solutions
  1. Enable wholesale availability to all at the FTTN
  2. Explicit recognition for open networks built by peer to peer agreements at the user loop
  3. Promote best practices / unlicensed spectrum
  4. Clarification of unlicensed spectrum regulations
• Closing considerations

About who we are and what we do

At guifi.net, we have promoted the deployment of telecommunications networks, based on peer to peer connection agreements, since 2004. Our participants connect their own network segment with others.

We declare that our network is open, free and neutral: Open because we publish complete information about how it works and its components, allowing the participation of everyone who is interested; Free because the conditions are the same for everyone. We do not have a single or corporatised owner who may impose unilateral conditions on others; and Neutral because the extent of the peer to peer agreement is limited to the terms of connectivity only, and not the content.

This network has expanded primarily by using wireless technologies and through various kinds of tools that we have developed. We jointly support this model of self-building/managed networks. Every participant is responsible for the management of her own network segment, and is open to contributions of others. We work with "as is" connectivity, together with the rest of the network. We also do not have a service level commitment with third parties. Until now, the scope of our activities have been in what we call the user loop, and currently provides broadband to more than 5,000 homes. Our total network “path” extends over 6,000 kilometers of connections. We experience continuous and sustained growth, based entirely on self-generated user demand.

We chose this model for various reasons. Among these we have listed the following illustrations, without intending to limit our reach:        

1. The need to seek solutions where there were no options for access to broadband, often in rural areas
2. The demand from technology enthusiasts, freenetworkers or volunteers
3. The demand from small and medium-sized service companies in the network territory, that see options and possibilities to lend their services
4. Interest from small municipalities interested in improving digital inclusion
5. Interest from professionals or businessmen who prefer a model where they maintain decision-making control over investment costs
6. Interest from professionals and small businessmen based on lower TCO, reliability and control over service levels, and ownership over the segment of the network of their interest.

In July 2008 we established a foundation in order to support these initiatives.

Current issues of concern in the proposed solutions

1. Enable universal wholesale availability at the FTTN.

   According to information gathered from our participants, their initial interest arises from the ability to gain Internet access. However, once the loop is built, they find that they are forced to purchase access at retail, even though the provider concerned has no interest or costs associated with the network. Alternatively they use public shared access, with its limitations.
   This is because there is either no mechanism for the commercial delivery of bandwidth to end-users at wholesale pricing, or it is not public.
   Therefore we suggest that wholesale prices have to be published and accessible to all at the FTTN nodes, for those who want to get the access from there.

2. Explicit recognition.

   We have never doubted the legitimacy for developing our model, ever since telecommunication markets were liberalised. Formally, we have never had any problems at all. However, till this day, there is still a mindset or perception that telecommunications remain heavily regulated, and available only to those who are privileged to get administrative authorisations.

   The regulatory framework in Spain, called "Ley General de Telecomunicaciones 32/2003", seeks to recognize this liberalisation. However, at the same time, Article 5.2 requires a "notification" which is effectively discretionary. Some of the terms and conditions that apply in order to have the effect of the "notification" formally accepted are complex or very difficult for open networking models with no single ownership. In addition, this is required prior to initiating the activity, enabling the Spanish regulatory agency (CMT) the ability to impose severe sanctions in case this is missed.
   This creates uncertainty and confusion,  a fact that is often opportunistically used by those who promote other models, such as proprietary or franchising models, since the "notification" process is quite clearly targeted at facilitating these.
   There is a reference to "autoprestación", which could be assimilated to "autoservicio" (self-service), but this is a word that doesn't exist in the Spanish dictionary. It is ambiguous therefore, and subject to discretionary interpretation. Most importantly, it doesn't mention peer to peer agreements on an "as is" basis, as we have described above, in the introduction.
   This is a contradiction, and means effectively that in return for being free of regulationary restrictions, or even a mention in the framework, we fail to be delivered a service that is supposed to be free.
   We propose to make an explicit reference in the authorisation for running open networks such as ours. For the purpose of publicising NGA’s own information, we recommend the use of new channels which are nowadays possible, such as publishing information to the internet through web sites or XML feeds, in a near to real time basis, that remain available for public inspection and audit.

3. Promote best practices / unlicensed spectrum

   When using the limited spectrum available for the purpose, there is no doubt that the most efficient way to do this is when the operation is carried out jointly by all concerned. This occurs naturally and spontaneously on outdoor open networks, that use frequencies that do not require licensing, and in turn this is technically possible by sharing a physical network layer carrying distinct logical networks.

   However, the regulations do not dictate that, in case of conflict, a recommendation or preference for common usage rather than exclusive, or for the promotion of best practices through adopting new technologies that are publicly available.

   If we add this to the grey areas referred above, in the previous paragraph, and the inertia that sometimes leads the government to retain its management control, we find that in practice, a paradox has developed. The publicly (government) funded, subsidised or owned networks are often oriented to proprietary or franchise formats. Favouring such networks leads to a situation that is likely to displace open networks promoted by civil society or even, de facto, amount to the privatisation of unlicensed spectrum. The publicly owned networks already have significant advantages, partly because they handle much of the public domain and public budgets, and it would seem logical to encourage their coexistence with open networks, not against.
   For this reason, we recommend for public administrations to encourage embracing open networks, at least to a comparable extent as they already do while supporting ‘proprietary’ models, and recognize the benefit of best practices/common usage of unlicensed spectrum.

4. Clarification of unlicensed spectrum regulations

   The telecommunications equipments, including wireless, are increasingly becoming commercially available at a large-scale to the users. We believe that this is very positive. However wireless regulations are often outdated. In particular, it refers to measurement criteria that is incomprehensible to end users, and often out of the context of today's general usage. This also creates more legal uncertainty.
   We therefore propose that the rules have to be clarified, using a language comprehensible to the people, and oriented to certify equipments for particular real world scenarios instead of using complex metrics that are not possible for ordinary users to measure.

We strongly believe that open network models, such as ours, are good for the development of an information society. Due to their openness, they are also a perfect scenario for affording equal opportunities to all and fair competition, where enterprises can provide their services and get a value from them, instead of exploiting ‘acquired’ rights.

Enabling user self-sufficiency, and promoting best practices while using the unlicensed spectrum, are signs of positive social and civic development. Despite our modest contribution and dimension, there is no fair reason to prevent the development of our model and meanwhile push for the benefit of other, more exclusionary, models. We have described our own experience, but we are aware that there are several other such initiatives all around Europe, some of which face similar problems and concerns.

We're fully available to provide more details upon request.

Best regards,

Ramon Roca.
Fundació per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net

Credits for the british-english version to:

Vickram Chrishna
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com