[Ninux-day] Fwd: Re: Wrap-up

Fri Dec 4 09:49:20 CET 2009

Thanks Paolo for providing a much more wider and updated view on the 
legal frameworks.

Art. 5 of the 2002/20/CE looks very much changed. Is that new text 
already in force?
We should take a look at the new 2002/20/CE and the Italian legislation 
to find out how is being granted the "general authorization".

I'm pointing that because what we would need in a short time is to 
clarify the uncertainty on getting involved in community networks. To 
strength community networks as well as the activism, we do require 
cooperation on the civil society and other orgs, including authorities, 
local municipalities, etc. Those orgs might be very sensible in getting 
involved if there are legal concerns.

But on the other hand looks difficult to complain about a restrictive 
reading of the current setup which in fact is not being applied at all 
(AFAIK, no one in has been approached in Italy because of installing a 
wireless equipment outdoors and linking with others). Under that 
circumstance, looks difficult to complain at the UE against a member 
state for something which don't really does, because we are already 
under the general authorization.

A key point here might to clarify everything is to find out how we can 
esnure that the general authorization includes those practices, without 
requiring any other specific or individual authorization while using 
unlicensed spectrum.

In Spain, we just informed (not asked for authorization) to the 
regulator about our activities, pointing clearly that we would not ask 
for any permission on an indivifual basis, so everybody is entitled to 
join the network without concerns. The regulator was fine with that, 
maybe also very much afraid for getting thousands of requirements for 
authorizations... which was something we are capable if needed by just 
sending a list of our nodes.

So thinking in what could be the next action, how we can proceed to 
ensure that community networks are under that general authorization in 
Italy?

Ramon.

Al 04/12/09 01:00, En/na Paolo Brini ha escrit:
> Hello Ramon!
>
> I just subscribed to the list thanks to clauz.
>
> In Barcelona I had the pleasure to be informed about guifi by Isaac
> Hacksimov and I find it a robust and exciting project! I saw that vast
> areas in the town are connected, that's fantastic.
>
> Now, I would like to clarify some points in the last posts in the
> mailing list which clauz put under our attention in order to speed up
> the process:
>
> - Directive 2002/27/EC is not relevant (it pertains to methods of
> analysis for the official control of the levels of contaminants in
> foodstuffs)
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:075:0044:0045:EN:PDF
>
> - article 5 of Directive 2002/20/EC should be studied, at the moment I
> can't find incompatibility with italian legal framework but I can be
> wrong. Note that the directive nowadays in force is:
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:108:0021:0032:EN:PDF
> It has been amended with the Telecoms Package and shall be transposed in
> national laws within 18 months (plus publication times):
> http://euwiki.org/2002/20/EC/SECOND_READING#Article__5
>
> - competition may well be the way to go, but I see some difficulties on
> how article 87 TEC as suggested may help. The article has been replaced
> with Lisbon since the 1st of december with article 107 TEU which states:
>
> 1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. [...]
>
> In the case of Pisanu law, there are not aid or State resources used to distort the competition by favouring some manufacturer, unless we try to force the interpretation of "aid" and "state resources" also to laws which prevent full exploitation of private networks etc. In this case, we should define the favoured undertakings and/or the favoured production of goods, and how the law would affect trade between Member States and Italy.
>
> You can find the new Treaty on the functioning of the European Union here:
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF
>
> Directive 1999/95/EC (http://euwiki.org/1999/5/EC) seems relevant. I
> ask: do articles 7 and 8 cover ubiquity nanostations (I think so, see
> articles 2 and 3, but I would prefer to have the opinion of you
> experts)? In this case, article 8.1 (capital is mine):
>
> 8.1 Member States shall NOT prohibit, RESTRICT or impede the placing on the market and PUTTING INTO SERVICE in their territory of apparatus bearing the CE marking referred to in Annex VII, which indicates its conformity with all provisions of this Directive, including the conformity assessment procedures set out in Chapter II. This shall be without prejudice to Articles 6, 7 and 9.
>
> can be interpreted against Pisanu law, where it requires for putting
> into service a special, not a general, authorisation from authorities,
> imposing a de facto restriction.
>
> As soon as I can I will try and put into relation with the issue the new
> regulatory framework on telecommunications provided by the Telecoms
> Package to see if I can get more ideas (especially directives
> 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC).
>
> Any incompatibility with EU laws may reinforce and amplify the pressure
> against the renewal of the Pisanu law (it must be renewed every year, it
> was an emergency decree taken on the emotional wave which rose after
> London bombing).
>
> Kind regards,
> Paolo
>
> Ramon Roca ha scritto:
>    
>> sorry, I switched to personal and didn't answer to the list.
>> anyway i was answering you ;)
>>
>> -------- Missatge original --------
>> Assumpte:     Re: [Ninux-day] Wrap-up
>> Data:     Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:29:41 +0100
>> De:     Ramon Roca<ramon.roca at guifi.net>
>> A:     clauz at ninux.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Al 02/12/09 20:19, En/na clauz at ninux.org ha escrit:
>>      
>>>   Hello, everybody.
>>>   We are trying to involve others from Italy, by writing on the "digital
>>>   freedom" mailing list, where there are many people involved in digital
>>>   rights activism:
>>>
>>>   http://linux-club.org/pipermail/digitalfreedomweek/2009-December/005327.html
>>>
>>>   http://linux-club.org/pipermail/digitalfreedomweek/2009-December/005332.html
>>>
>>>
>>>   If you find some interesting point that you want us to translate,
>>> please
>>>   ask! I was thinking that it might be a good idea to invite the people
>>>   interested in this topic to subscribe to this mailing list so that we
>>>   can have a discussion on the topic in English and coordinate
>>>   transnationally... what do you think about it?
>>>
>>>   Claudio
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Take as much advice as you can, that's always good.
>> In fact, I youd say that you have to set the green light, and after
>> that, our role is provide the support.
>>
>> Regarding the discussion, I've seen that there is also mentions to other
>> hot/important issues, like data retention and identification. I know
>> that those things are also very relevant to all of us and somehow also
>> need to be addressed, however I would prefer not to mix too much things,
>> which by the way are distinct, and go step by step. IMHO the most urgent
>> thing is to clarify and confirm the freedom for the use on non licensed
>> spectrum by anyone including individuals, and point that if Italy or any
>> other member state restricts that by the exercise of their regulatory
>> competencies, it might be against UE rules like 1999/5/CE, 2002/20/CE or
>> the competition.
>>
>> To give you an example, we do already provide much more information on
>> open networks than what private telcos do, and we never have been in the
>> feeling of the need of being affected by those regulations by now,
>> although Madrid was one of the cases and therefore is a very sensible
>> topic in Spain. Those regulations were much more addressed to mobile
>> operators an commercials ISPs, not us. The terrorists used mobile
>> phones, not wifi, wifi in real world is much more harmless compared to
>> those other technologies. That's why although I think is an important
>> issue, I don't think that we have to feel as concerned as something much
>> more very basic, which is to confirm the freedom to use the unlicensed
>> band outdoors.
>>
>> Ramon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ninux-day mailing list
>> Ninux-day at ml.ninux.org
>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/ninux-day
>>
>>      
>    