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

[Ramon Roca]

IMHO, 1999/5/EC is at the core of the argument: If current Art. 5 of the 
2002/20/CE states that we should be under the general authorization, 
without even having to notify anyone, and fall us under the 1999/5/EC 
looks clear to me that a nation regulator or a member state can not, 
afterwards, require any sort or specific authorization/notification. 
Regarding to this, to me, current 2002/20/CE looks more clear than the 
ammended, however 1999/5/EC is still mentioned on the annex.
Don't know if there is a way that Pisanu law can claim any exception for 
that.

Al 05/12/09 00:57, En/na Paolo Brini ha escrit:
> Ramon Roca ha scritto:
>    
>> 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?
>>      
> No, the amended 2002/20/EC shall be transposed within 18 months. But if
> there's something useful there, it can be used anyway "politically" to
> show future incompatibility with italian law. It should be common
> practive for Member States to adopt laws which are incompatible with
> already adopted Directives, although those Directives are not yet into
> force.
>
> I agree on the following statements. We have to think about them. As a
> side note: just in case, is there anyone who can answer to my previous
> questions about 1999/5/EC?
>
>
>
>    
>> 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.
>>      
>