<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

(14:49:49) hey_treacle: how fast is the network then

(14:49:52) hey_treacle: as thanks

(14:50:06) hey_treacle: i had a hell of a time connecting, i think its xp

(14:50:22) vortex: the only thing i would ask

(14:50:49) vortex: is that i get volume charged on the downloading during the day.

(14:50:58) hey_treacle: ah ok no problem

(14:51:14) vortex: so if you use it heavily, contributing to costs would help.

(14:51:18) hey_treacle: is it ok at night, i don't download much just the deadwood series via torrent

(14:51:36) hey_treacle: i am happy to contribute

(14:51:43) vortex: cool. you can browse through the web link i gave to see who's doing what.

(14:52:07) hey_treacle: is it ok to leave it on to download torrents at night?

(14:52:31) hey_treacle: i am getting another connection switched over but it take a week or so

(14:52:39) vortex: should be. if you can set a throttle on your bittorrent client, it might help.

(14:53:00) vortex: it's a 2m line until shoreditch exchange upgrade occurs.

(14:53:17) hey_treacle: ah right ok

(14:53:30) hey_treacle: i was hoping orange could get me 8m

(14:53:59) hey_treacle: any idea when they upgrade

(14:54:20) vortex: both my phone lines go thru shoreditch. not sure why it's taking so long for an inner exchange.

(14:55:27) hey_treacle: well thanks, i'll look into putting a limit on it at night and i'll check the link you sent. wont download anything in the day.

(14:55:41) hey_treacle: any idea what the throttle should be by the way?

(14:56:34) vortex: 2m link maybe limit torrent to say 1m leaving headroom overnight?

(14:56:59) vortex: some maybe most clients support doing that now.

(14:57:13) vortex: anyway, just thought i'd say hi.

(14:58:13) hey_treacle: i haveutorrent i think that would do it. I
only download deadwood. anyway
really. thanks for the service. have a
good day.

While initially shocking the new user (hey_treacle) in an unsolicited chat request, the discussion ended with a respectful understanding of the community network principle and philosophy. hey_treacle became an active local user of the network for several months, until they moved away from the area.

This story highlights positive methods of self-management that enable learning and direct problem resolution among participants of the community network.

It also highlights and enables an
understanding of what information
can be discovered in a network.
The issue further highlights the
necessary use of encryption to
keep communication private, both
from other people and from tools
that share the network. Care should
be taken in the selection and use
of such tools so that the usage of
the tools is in alignment with EU
and local laws and regulations,
particularly those concerning data
protection and privacy.

It may be required to not store or
log this information beyond the
immediate display use for network
management, and this may need
explicit agreement and consent
before use.

This particular tool was used in the
UK before data privacy and data
protection regulations (e.g. the
General Data Protection Regulation)
were formalised and the story
serves as an illustrative example of
feedback mechanisms that may be
useful in collective self-management
of a common community network
resource.
# 19. Respect the law, protect privacy

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

The story that concludes the previous chapter provides a good illustration of the fact that, when you are running a network, you actually process very precious content: your community's communications. Each member of the community uses this network to share their thoughts, express their feelings, search for information, and many other personal and professional activities. This network can be a new tool expanding the freedom of the community. It can also restrain it, depending on how it is managed.

Once you are aware of this, a lot of questions and doubts might arise about how to preserve your community member's fundamental rights. So, in this chapter, we go over important tips on how to treat your community's data with care

## 19.1. Are all data bits equal?

When we talk about net neutrality, which you will need to respect (it's EU law!), we are used to saying that "all bits are created equal." Hence, **you should not block, throttle or prioritise content** based on political or commercial motives. But when you are processing your users' data, all data packets might look all the same to you. However, from a legal point of view, some have specific
implications. Having a general grasp of the two distinctions explained below
will help you understand your obligations.

Personal data vs. anonymous data

Personal data is any information relating to an
individual and which may be attributed to this
individual. The scope is very wide and often
underestimated by communities. Concretely, data
such as name, surname, dynamic and static IP
addresses, email addresses and phone numbers, for
instance, should be regarded as personal data. Such
data has a strong link to a person and is part of his or
her private life.

As such, specific rules exist to ensure a higher level of protection of personal
data and protect the privacy of users. Below, we will help you understand and
follow these rules. Anonymous data relates to any information relating to an
individual, but which cannot be attributed to this individual by anyone, in any
circumstance. No legal requirement is attached to such data. Truly anonymous
data is rare. More often than not, data can, in the end, be re-attributed to a
specific individual and therefore is likely to be personal data.

Metadata vs. content

The content of a communication refers to the
information that users send or receive and which
does not need to be processed, manipulated or stored
in order for the information to be transferred. Community
networks, like any other entity, should regard all contents as personal data
in all circumstances, since they are attributed to the sender or receiver of a
communication, or both.

Metadata is a technical word that you will not
read in the law, but it refers to all the data that is
either needed to transfer the content, or in general
characterises or describes the content transfer in
some way.
Within the broader category of metadata, the law makes a distinction between the words "traffic data" and "location data". Traffic data are data processed for the transmission of a communication on a telecommunication network (or for billing purposes, when the service is not free). The data identifying the user of a service (e.g. IP address), the receiver of a message, as well as the date, time and duration of a communication are regarded as traffic data. On the internet, "cookies" can be regarded as traffic data, but they normally embed much more information than what is strictly necessary to transmit the content of communications. Location data are data processed on telecommunication networks or by Electronic Commerce Service providers, indicating the geographic position of the terminal equipment of a user.

With regard to community networks' activities, the processing of traffic and location data may be related, for instance, to the management of their network (such as the listing or the mapping of the nodes, access points and users of the network), or to research purposes. These traffic and location data may be related to the users of a community network, as well as to its participants who are running nodes and access points.

Processing metadata properly should not be underestimated. They may give away very specific and personal information regarding the daily life of the members of your community.

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

This distinction between content and metadata is crucial regarding specific data processing, especially data retention obligations, which we will discuss in Sections 19.2 and 19.3.

## 19.2. Inform your community about data processing

All members of the community will be linked to each other through your network. Creating and maintaining this link implies processing data, and very often personal data. **To protect your community's rights, you must clearly inform users, and as precisely as possible, about the data processing needed to provide**
**them with connectivity and give them access to online services.** This is a legal obligation. To fulfil it concretely, you can provide users with a legal document called "terms of use", which sums up how you process their data (a template is provided in Appendix B).

In addition to specific information, you also need a legal basis to process personal data – see article 6(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for more information. One such legal basis is simply the fact of having signed a contract or an agreement with each user. As long as there is a contract describing the service offered (e.g. electronic communication service to a member of the community), all data processing necessary to perform this contract is lawful. You could also use this agreement to establish a transparent relationship with members of the community. Terms of use therefore allow you to inform your community members, but they also give you a legal basis allowing you to process users' data for the purpose of your using the network.

However, on a philosophical level, your community might prefer having an informal and trust-based relationship. There are positive aspects as well as drawbacks to this solution.

Below, in Story 22, you can read how some community networks have dealt with this issue.

### 19.3. Do you have to log your community's communication?

This is a very heated question. Groups defending human rights and privacy have been working on this issue for almost 20 years, and it is still an unresolved matter.

France, the UK and Italy were the first countries to require telecom providers to retain all of their users' metadata for up to one year after the terrorist attacks of 2001, and soon these rules were expanded to all EU countries. The rationale was that it would allow the police to identify suspects. But with the increasing use of digital technologies, the range of metadata available to law enforcement has exploded, which means that metadata can let the police know about virtually all of your location and social interactions of the past year.

So after litigation and campaigning by human rights groups, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in 2014 that these obligations for telecom providers to retain all the metadata of all the population came down to indiscriminate and
general surveillance of the whole population. It is, the Court ruled, a bad sci-fi movie, a gross overreach of the state's surveillance power. Five years later, however, a lot of countries still refuse to comply and change their laws.

That means **you will be faced with a contradictory legal environment: the supreme court of the EU (which is supposed to have precedence on national laws) says that blanket data retention is illegal, but national law may force you to disregard that ruling and threaten you with jail if you refuse to comply.**

On this issue, your community will need to debate the best course of action. You will probably reach the conclusion that there are three main possibilities:

**Option 1: Comply with national law, retain all data listed in national law and therefore disrespect the EU court's ruling; overcomply at the expense of your users' fundamental rights. It will also be costly because you will need a lot of storage space to retain all that data (which might never be used by anybody but hey, "it's the law").**

**Option 2: Just retain basic identification subscriber information (name, postal address, and what IP address was used over the past year - or whatever duration is mandated in your national law). In their investigations, the police are often left with an IP address tied to a suspicious activity and want to find the people to whom that IP address can be traced back. You might help them move one step forward by giving authorities the identity of the subscriber using that IP address. That is what many existing community networks do, and from our experience, the police will be satisfied (they seem to understand that the law, when interpreted literally in the context of internet communications, is problematic, and it also entails dubious ethical consequences).**

**Option 3: Disobey national law and abide by EU law!** After a thorough debate and exchange of arguments, your community might be shocked by their government's unwillingness to review national legislation to better respect privacy and freedom of expression online. Existing national law clashes with your values and you want to make a point. You will hence only retain the metadata needed for the smooth technical operation of the network, for as short a time as possible. You might be taking a slight legal risk if you are served with a warrant. But you have European law on your side, you know that there will be allies to support you should that risk materialise, and you feel good about being as protective of your community's rights as one can be.
## Story #22: La Quadrature du Net stops obeying French data retention laws (by Arthur Messaud)

In late 2017, the French advocacy group La Quadrature du Net was subject to a legal request: a police officer acting under the authority of a judge asked us to transmit all data in our possession to identify a user of an account hosted on Mamot, the instance of Mastodon we are hosting on our servers.

However, La Quadrature has chosen to respect European Union law by refraining from keeping the login data of all its users (so-called "data retention" obligations).

The data we retain is only kept for technical reasons. In this case, the user targeted by the request had not used the service for at least 14 days, and La Quadrature therefore had no information about them, except an email address used for registration (required to connect to Mamot.fr). We gave this email address to judiciary authorities.

The choice of La Quadrature du Net is opposed to an ongoing practice which, inherited from a French law that today stands contrary to the law of the European Union, forces

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

hosting providers (and internet access providers) to keep for one year all information concerning the users (the IP address from which the content was published, in particular). We call on all hosting providers and internet access providers to reject this illegal practice and to comply with European Union law: Do not retain any connection data concerning your users for more than 14 days!

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>
## 20. Balance your accounting sheet

Let's go back to financial issues. At the end of the day, the long-term sustainability of the community network will be achieved by reaching a balance sheet where all the costs - initial expenditures required to set up the infrastructure (capital expenses or CAPEX), as well as recurrent expenses for maintaining and upgrading the network (operational expenses or OPEX) - are reconciled.

At the beginning, it is common to seed this by initial crowdfunding of small donations, followed by extraordinary contributions when needed. That is a simple way to get seed funding, and it may be enough for small cohesive communities.

But if the community grows and becomes diverse in terms of both participants and territories, it might be necessary to address this in a more
systematic way. So, when a new expense has to be paid,
there will be an answer to the unpleasant question:
"Why should I contribute now if there are others that
use it more?"

A more systematic way would consist of implementing a very basic accounting
system, expressed in whatever currency, measuring on one side all the
contributions and costs, and on the other side a measure of the usage of
the resources available as a commons (which is the network itself). What
usage metrics are used within a given specific scenario could vary for each
community network.

By comparing those two aspects on a periodic basis, it is then easy to
achieve settlement between costs and use, and implement corrections and
redistributions on a fair basis that is satisfactory to everyone. What's more,
by balancing the accounts with this type of accounting, another important
aspect in community networks can be solved: the coexistence of volunteers
and professionals (for instance, small companies providing internet access
services on top of the guifi.net network, or deploying fibre to grow the network)
on the same infrastructure as a commons. Guifi.net's experience shows that
such coexistence is key for constantly scaling the community network.

One thing you should remember in establishing accounting mechanisms is to
make sure these rules are agreed by the whole community and that the rules
and the way they are implemented remain transparent. Transparency is an
important precondition to open governance.

Whether related to expenses or equipment costs, fees
or other revenue streams, most community networks
choose to make all of this data publicly available.
## Story #23: guifi.net's large-scale compensation system: how volunteers and professionals can work together to build a network commons (by Ramon Roca)

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

The community resources must be properly managed to avoid over-usage by particular users. The governance tools and procedures take into account those participants who use a significant amount of resources to compensate the imbalance between investment

in the common infrastructure and network usage among professionals. Expenditures declared by the professionals are periodically cleared according to the network usage. The calculations are done by the Foundation and are made available to the professionals.

For those engaging in economic activities around the community network (for instance, those working on laying out fibre, or for-profit internet access providers), it is required to sign an agreement.

This agreement provides that the participants should take part in the "compensation table" according to the scope at which they operate. For instance, there might be several compensation scopes: global exchange of internet traffic, territorial transport, local access to facilities and equipment in cities or villages, etc.

The "compensation tables" are regular meetings aimed at establishing the criteria for periodic compensation settlements.

So the agreement for economic activities and participation in the compensation system agreement is a legally enforceable contract that establishes the rules for participation of cases such as installers, operators, investors, public administrations, etc. It formally defines the foreseen roles and activities that entail the obligation to sign a compensation agreement.
Note that this is only enforced for those who are carrying out economic activities or making some kind of economic profit. Normal individuals or volunteers are not required to sign this agreement, although they are able to do so if they wish.

The compensation settlements are aimed at ensuring both the fair distribution of the network operation costs based on use of the resources, and the generation of the required resources to recover the investments made or to enable future ones.

**The compensations are implemented by balancing between the contributions or the expenses of each participant and their use of resources.** The balances are calculated by periodically applying the current compensation criteria. The resulting amounts are settled between the Foundation and each participant, either in cash or materials.

In order to ensure that the operators charge the reinvestment quantities agreed in the corresponding compensation tables to their customers and to increase the overall transparency, the operators must provide to the guifi.net Foundation the list of the amounts per customer they have collected in each billing cycle (on a monthly basis).

The Foundation uses this data to:

1. Calculate the compensation settlements of the next compensation cycle.

2. Ensure that the operators are properly reinvesting these funds by cross-comparing these lists with the expenses they have declared through the expenditures declaration system and other sources of information.

3. Issue the donation certificates to the end-users, where appropriate (according to Spanish regulations, a contribution to the commons infrastructure is a donation; thus, the donors, i.e. the customers of the operators, may benefit from a tax deduction).
# PART 6 : HOW TO MAKE A COMMUNITY NETWORK SUSTAINABLE?
Scaling up is always a challenge for local, bottom-up initiatives. You start with your group of friends, and for some time, informality, excitement and the fun of working together is enough to sustain the magic. You achieve a lot with very little resources and time. It feels just great.

Chances are that after some time, some people in the group might get tired. Tensions can grow. Newcomers with not-so-good intentions may join the band, and since you are not really the suspicious type, you do not really pay attention until problems start appearing. Or, it is just that you are too successful and too many people from beyond your community want to join, putting existing governance features or resources under strain. Or some people – for instance the "geeks" who are key to the technical operation of the network – just happen to centralise power. Or you run into legal questions after the first stages of growth of your network.

In this part, we consider various approaches through which you can avoid or mitigate these risks. We start by addressing how to boost your governance mechanisms to clarify roles, avoid power cliques, and promote inclusiveness. We then move to economic
and technological sustainability, exploring how you
can plan to upgrade network equipment. We end up
with legal considerations on how you can use other
people's infrastructure to expand your network, and
how to organise to enact positive changes in telecom
policy, if the latter becomes a hindrance for the
development of your initiative.
## 21. Organise your governance

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

When trying to solve governance issues, remember that you are not the first to do this, that others have succeeded beyond expectations, and so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are practitioners in your region or country that will be able and glad to help.

Even in your community, you can gather very useful information from some of your friends or seniors, parents, grandparents or neighbours. You will find people who have been involved in bottom-up initiatives in the past and who have run into similar problems as the ones you'll face in building a community network.

We provide two examples as stories - participating in a community garden, and setting up a community radio - which can help you start thinking about governance issues. We then move to another story and think about how to solve these issues, and more generally questions that you should address when thinking about improving the governance of your community network.
# Story #24: How to foster inclusive participation for all? Example from a community garden

She feels discouraged and intimidated.

Aurélie is a member of a shared garden. She buys a basket of fruits and vegetables every week and has to spend at least three weekends every year doing communal work.

She enjoys meeting new people, being in nature and having access to organic local food all year long. She sometimes participates in the general assembly of the association, but she does not really like the way decisions are taken. It is mostly the same active persons talking and new voices are not heard. She is not inclined to participate more in the management of the garden. But she sees that some improvements could be made.

For instance, when there is an excess of fruits and vegetables, or during the holidays when they are not picked up, liaising with a food bank could be done on the same day. Her neighbour is a volunteer in a food bank. But each new project has to be presented to the general assembly and approved by the managing board, and Aurélie does not want to prepare a presentation. There is a very masculine culture.
# Story #25: How to take decisions about funding and independence? Example from a community radio station

Tristan is the manager of an indie music label. His uncle, with whom he discovered music, participated in a free radio station in Lyon, Radio Canut. From 1977, he shared his passion for independent music and broadcast punk rock for one hour every Tuesday night. Some other shows, hosted by trade unionists or activists, were political, with an assumed subjectivity.

Free radio stations were not legal. The station's material was seized in 1978 and three radio hosts were taken to court in 1980 for breaking the law on radio broadcasting monopoly.

Self-management was the rule. Decisions were taken collectively by all participants. He remembers fights among the radio hosts. One was to decide if the radio should start accepting advertisements in order to have steady revenues. **Some wanted to hire a few core staff. But some wanted to stay independent, and purely volunteer-based.** They needed to find some

sources of funding.
In the end, it was decided to organise concerts and parties for fundraising.

Nowadays, the radio station still exists under a non-profit association status, and every 1st of May, a community meal is held to gather together former and current radio hosts, joined by inhabitants of the studio's neighbourhood and by demonstrators.

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>
## 21.1. An architecture of the governance

The issues that both Aurélie and Tristan's uncle were trying to solve were indeed similar and can be summed up in this way: **both collective projects were trying to address market failure, which means the absence of an equivalent good-quality public or private service.** The shared garden is a response to the lack of organic locally grown produce. Supermarkets offer organic products coming from far-away countries, and small organic shops are very expensive. The free radio station provides access to alternative culture, since only commercial music was being broadcast on public and market-based radio stations.

The problems they faced tackling these issues were similar, and are similar to problems community networks face: the organisation of the work, motivations, inclusion principles, power and authority relations, gender balance, discussion procedures, and decision-making processes. Choices to be made with regard to the nature of the product or service, the source of funding, the relation with the state, from illegality to co-optation, possible partnerships, etc.

The two stories emphasise problems in decision making due to strong personalities with divergent political views. In the garden, a dominant, confrontational style makes it hard for new persons to be heard and to propose new ideas. Formal processes had become institutionalised,

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>
which can create security, but can also be discouraging. The radio station saw tensions between those who wanted to compromise with commercial partners and those who wanted to remain purely non-commercial.

The self-management of communities and collective projects can be challenging and is hard work. But none of the organisational questions you face are completely new. Experiences from the past may help to anticipate which aspects should be taken care of. Of particular relevance are economist and Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles affecting the success of self-managed groups, which can be applied to collective projects developing shared resources that are meant to be governed as commons, and serve as guidance to ask the right questions adapted to your local community and the network's features.

## 21.2 Design principles for commons

### 1. Define clear boundaries for the group

* What is the purpose of the infrastructure?

* What resources or services are produced?

* What community does it serve, how are they identified?

* Who is entitled to access to what, and under which conditions or rules?

### 2. Adapt rules to local needs and conditions

* How is the resource or service distributed?

* What social norms apply to use of the resources?

* What are the guidelines that apply to contributions from the community?

* How are new contributors guided towards becoming productive members of the community?

* What are the means by which people can access and reuse the data?

### 3. Participatory decision making is vital
Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in writing and modifying the rules. People will be more likely to follow the rules if they had a hand in writing them.

* How does the community share ideas about how the infrastructure should evolve?

* What are the decision-making processes and the tools used to support them?

* How are differences of opinion, or innovative ideas relating to e.g. new design, new services, improvements, or organisation issues, discussed within the community?
## 4. Assessing activity and monitoring rules

Once rules have been set, communities need a way of checking that people are following them. Commons don't run on good will, but on accountability.

* Is there a monitoring process?

* Who is accountable?

* How are moderators identified and promoted? How might their privileges be removed?

* How are contributions managed or reviewed?

* How does the community measure its progress and activity?

* What metrics are available to measure quality, coverage, etc.?

* How are good uses of the infrastructure showcased?

## 5. Sanctions for those who abuse the resources or the community rules should be graduated

* What behaviours or misuse are harmful?

* How does the community document and share its norms?

* What are the means by which contributors gain or lose privileges?

* You should develop a system of warnings, fines, or informal reputation consequences in the community. Just banning those who break the rules can create resentment.

## 6. Debate and conflict resolution should be easily accessible

* How can quality or any issues be flagged and addressed?

* What processes are used to resolve debates and make decisions?

* What are the mechanisms by which community members can share their opinions, or have their voice heard?

* How are the results of debate and key decisions recorded?

* When issues come up, resolving them should be informal, cheap and straightforward. That means that anyone can take their problems for mediation, and nobody is shut out.

## 7. Recognition by higher-level authorities

* Your rules won't count if they are not legitimated.

* What type of organisation is used to manage the community resources?

* What is the process by which other organisations engage with the community and/or its representatives?
8. Small local communities work best when nested within larger networks, which can have layers of interconnection and responsibility

* How does the community interact with other similar initiatives, e.g. in a sector or broader community?

* Some things can be managed locally, but some might need wider regional cooperation - for example, an irrigation network might depend on a river that others also draw on upstream or downstream.

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>
# Story #26: Freifunk Memorandum of Understanding (by Jürgen Neumann)

A first central aspect for building an effective internal government concerns the elaboration of a specific and clearly articulated mission, usually in the form of a written charter of principles, that reflects the foundational values of the community.

The process through which a community organisation translates its mission into specific goals can vary considerably, depending on the leadership styles, forms of participation, power distribution, and surrounding environment. This process may follow a dynamic model of negotiations and bargaining both among the members of the community and with third parties that support the community. Moreover, both the specific goals and the general mission may be consistent and, to a certain extent, customised, with the characteristics and expectations of the participants. **Shaping the mission and goals to encompass the expectations, values and motivations of community members is crucial to enhance the likelihood that participants remain active and support the organisation over time.** This aspect seems to be extremely relevant to achieving a good degree of internal

consensus, so as to facilitate the processes of coordination between the members.

In this sense, it is important that the objectives to be pursued, even if they change in order to meet the transformation occurring in the surrounding context, remain compatible with the main motivations that have driven individuals to participate actively in the community. Therefore, it is important to emphasise how the intensity of the memberships, the opportunity to feel like active and integral members of the community, is closely linked to the process of building and formalising a common vision concerning how to intervene in the public sphere to address a specific set of problems:

**Key partnerships:** The network of surrounding organisations (suppliers, authorities, partners, supporters) that enable and make the commons work.

**Key activities:** The most important things that need to be done to make the commons work and deliver value.

**Clear roles/bodies:** Clear relationship and responsibilities / clear channels for participation (for everyone).

After 10 years of existence, Freifunk established a document to reflect the goals and principles of the project. They are related to core values, technical choices, social norms, the process of production and learning, and forms of
organisations. This text can serve as a basis for other CNs to develop their own set of shared values and vision. It can help to define them early on, to build a sense of community, and later on, to rely on them to take decisions or solve conflict.

## Freifunk Memorandum of Understanding

After 10 years Freifunk is quite successful, well known, and widespread. However, we don't see that the original ideas and goals of Freifunk are still taken into consideration by all communities or all community members.

It is not our intention to exclude communities which don't identify with this self-understanding. But we are interested in a basic discourse about what we are doing here jointly under the label Freifunk. This draft was written by a group associated with the Förderverein Freie Netzwerke e.V. It is meant to be a basic understanding and intends to encourage all communities to reflect on the stated topics:

### Why do we engage in Freifunk?
Which ideas are behind it? Which goals do we pursue? According to which principles do we make decisions and take action?

It is the goal of this text to develop an understanding which connects all individuals and groups who act under the label Freifunk.

### Preamble

Free (wireless) networks are

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

built and provided by many local initiatives. The users are simultaneously operators of the computer networks. They create "do it yourself" networks by self-reliantly connecting apartments, houses, streets of houses, districts, villages, or whole cities.

A Freifunk network is built in a decentralised way and is operated by many individuals. This decentralised structure of organisation deliberately promotes local activities instead of wanting to be governed by a higher entity. "Frei" (free) stands for making these networks open and anonymously accessible, they are to be operated in a non-commercial way, are not analysed and the information passing through them is not to be inspected, modified, or censored. Although Freifunk refers primarily to WLAN networks, the term "freie Netzwerke" (free networks) should be seen in a broader context. Among other things, it follows the spirit of the freenetworks.org definition. Despite all decentralisation we think it is reasonable and important to
come to a common understanding
on the basic principles of the
undertaking Freifunk, in order to act
jointly and support each other in our
activities.

## Goals of Freifunk

The use of technical networks has
become an everyday occurrence long
ago, nevertheless the underlying
power and action mechanism are
often not being reflected sufficiently.
Freifunk has declared its goals to be
(among other things) the creation of
an awareness of these contexts in
the broader society, the promotion
of free and open access to public
networks, and encouraging self-
determined actions.

In this process we would like to
include the needs of various societal
groups. We consider diversity and
a broad spectrum of ideas to be an
important foundation to reach these
goals. We would like to encourage
all participants to take matters into
their own hands, and would like to
support them in getting familiarized
with the subject matter.

We are aware that this is an
elaborate learning process. However,
we would like to avoid hierarchies
(of knowledge) caused by the desire
of participants to merely "consume"
the service.

According to our view this leads to
the erosion of the basic idea of a "do
it yourself" network.

Being Freifunkers we participate
in the political process in order to
achieve the legal preconditions

for free networks. The Freifunk
movement is non-partisan in this
respect and works across party lines.

## Principles of Freifunk

It is our wish to have the social
community building and the
technical implementation of free
networks in the communities
according to common principles:
decentralised, with as few and as
shallow hierarchies as possible, yet
with a common agreement.
Many of our principles have already
been formulated elsewhere. As
Freifunkers we commit to the
following existing documents:

* Pico Peering Agreement

* Our Vision

* Free Culture definition

* Community Wireless definition

* Principle of Datensparsamkeit (minimising data collection) and Datenvermeidung (data avoidance) (BDSG 3a)

* The hacker ethics of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), which is transferable to free networks

* The CCC's declaration of non-acceptance of discrimination and fascism, "Farbe erklären gegen Rechts", in particular the section "Die Erklärung".

## Technical principles

The Pico Peering Agreement is the
basis of our networks. For us the
following pillars constitute a free
network.

* Our nodes form a mesh network by connecting to each other.

* The term Freifunk network refers to this mesh network.

* It ends where the internet begins (i.e. where a router routes the data traffic into the internet) and
it ends where the private home network begins.

* We design our networks to be open and public: everybody can operate a node and thereby extend the network.

* Our network is anonymously accessible, neither users nor node operators should register to participate.

* Our network is non-commercial.

* Our network is uncensored.

* We abide by the secrecy of telecommunications law.

* Privacy protection and minimisation of data collection: We log neither connection nor inventory data.

* We do not save personally identifiable data.

* The disclosure of contact information as well as coordinates on the map are optional.

* Users are responsible for end-to-end encryption and anonymising their traffic.

When designing our networks we pay attention to avoid any type of centralisation. Therefore, a small admin group or individual persons having control over a whole (sub) network does not reflect our thinking.

Node operators have the choice to allow remote maintenance. Interventions on the nodes, for example firmware upgrades or other remote administration work, must be done with explicit agreement of the respective operators.

Node operators can furthermore decide whether they would like to

provide internet access, be it for the participants of the mesh network or for the public.

When doing so, **it is important that Freifunk should not be perceived as a provider of "free-of-charge internet access"**. Decisions about releases in the local communities are made jointly. The firmware for our nodes is based on free software. We publish further developments likewise as free and libre open source software (FLOSS). We aim at providing very good documentation that enables the operator to extend the firmware or suggest improvements. Openness creates confidence in the software.

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

## Social principles

A pleasant social climate is important for our communities. Freifunk should be a place that allows individuals to freely participate and feel comfortable regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, origin, beliefs, looks, age, and further (factual or attributed) traits. Social interaction should be respectful; newcomers are always welcome. We do not tolerate any form of discrimination. This means for us: there is no space for Nazis, nor racism, sexism or other forms of dehumanising behaviour.

According to our understanding, "participation" can include at least the following: using free networks and operating nodes, socialising in local communities, being active in the local or cross-regional Freifunk community by applying their own abilities.

Participation is not limited to technical skills.

Every form of contribution is explicitly welcome and is seen as an enrichment of the community. We are aware that questions of power arise in our communities: power, attribution of power, and exercise of power are promoted by centralised structures of both social and technological nature.

This is one of the reasons why we operate according to the principle of de-centrality. Also, questions of power can be related to unequally distributed technical expertise.

It is important for us to deal responsibly with this matter and to address and where it is possible to reduce imbalance of power. We would like to achieve this through maximum knowledge transfer and decentralised structures.
## Proper handling of information and knowledge

We want to learn to build and operate networks instead of having them set up and maintained by "experts". We call that "do it yourself network". We would like to empower and encourage people to actively engage in the creation of infrastructure and to research and design the impact of technology on society.

We promote the understanding of networks and network technology ("network/code literacy"), therefore we pass on knowledge at any time and make the code publicly available.

We research and experiment with infrastructure, therefore we do not have aspirations for permanent availability.

Creation of "do it yourself" networks is a process. We are aware that we may not fully attain every goal in this process. Therefore, we regularly reflect critically, without hostility. We give priority to learning and improvement of social and technological structures.

## Forms of organisation

A Freifunk community is, simply put, a loose affiliation of several individuals.

Local associations may support the group when such a registered legal entity is beneficial, e.g. for collecting donations or signing contracts; however, founding your own association is no precondition for Freifunk.

Changes are jointly decided by all active participants, not only by members of an association or supporting organisation.

For the few community-overlapping decisions we establish a "Freifunk Advisory Council", a representation of community members of the different (German) federal states. This council can be called in when there are conflicts between communities.

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>
## 22. Fund your upgrades

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

The development of sustainable business models for community networks, particularly in remote areas, can be a great challenge. A community network may provide communication and digital services for personal, social and business needs for the people who use them. Both equipment and expertise are required during the entire life cycle of the project, from the very beginning of planning stages, to the potential wind-up of the infrastructure, should it be recognised that it no longer is fit for purpose.

To gain sustainability, it is generally a good idea to keep your expenses as low as possible. Before installing an expensive device, ensure there is a sufficient number of individuals and organisations in your community willing and able to pay for using it. At the same point, it is usually better to over-budget for expenses than to under-budget. You might face unforeseen costs, especially during the first years of operations, while you learn how to better manage your network.
Keeping your costs down should not be at the cost of quality, because low-quality equipment is more likely to malfunction. You could be spending more on maintenance in the long run. The larger and more complicated your infrastructure becomes, the more financial and labour resources you should allocate. Often this relation is not linear but exponential. If you have a quality problem with your equipment once it is rolled out, it can cost you an enormous amount of money to fix it. Concurrently, your income will decrease while the service is unavailable.

Keep in mind the rapid advancement and changes in technology and think about how and when it may be time for you to reinvest in newer and cheaper or better devices to keep your infrastructure up to date. As mentioned before, it is highly important that you save enough to be able to do so, when necessary. To fund the ongoing maintenance and improvements, the costs for equipment, and the human labour in setting up and running the services, various models can be considered. In the following story, you will learn about the basics of the more complex model set up by the guifi.net foundation.
# Story #27: Good practices for funding and upgrades at a large scale implemented at guifi.net (by Ramon Roca)

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

At guifi.net, there are just a few but very fundamental principles, embedded within the governance we have developed over the years.

The network usage is monitored to ensure that the network is never congested at peak times, and can indicate when an upgrade is going to be needed. For example, once the user capacity usage starts to consistently exceed 50% or more of the available capacity, that must trigger a plan for an appropriate capacity upgrade, e.g. by updating the technology.

Since the monitoring over time allows us to identify clear trends of when 50% will be exceeded, the timing for the expense of the upgrade becomes predictable.

Once the budget for the upgrade is finalised, it can be charged upfront, or partial regular amounts can be offset against credit in guifi.net's compensation system (see Story #23). Thus, by adhering to simple processes, the network never gets congested, and the funding is always available through the guifi.net compensation system to perform the required upgrades to network resources.
## 23. Know the law regarding access to infrastructures

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

When you are building a network, you are actually building your own infrastructure. But at some point, you might want to access other infrastructures to expand the reach of this infrastructure. Now, they might be run by people who are not directly part of the community. Let's see a little bit how the law might regulate this.

### 23.1. Free Wi-Fi hotspots: Do I have to password-protect our connection?

Now that you have your piece of network up and running, and you are about to give access to your network to your community, you might be wondering how you can do it. If you provide access to the network and the wider internet through wired lines, chances are that users will be known community members who subscribe to the network. Except for specific regulations like
so-called "data retention" regimes, which we already discussed in Chapter 19, nothing specific is required.

But if you choose to do like Freifunk and other similar community networks – or even if one of your members chooses to open its private Wi-Fi network to share it with its neighbours – offering public access through free and open Wi-Fi hotspots, things can get more tricky. One of the first questions will be:

**Is it possible to let users access the network freely or do we need some kind of access control, authentication and similar security means?**

EU law provides that telecom operators and intermediaries cannot be held liable if a third party uses their services or connection to commit an unlawful act. This may vary depending on national laws but, in principle, as a community network, you do not have to password-protect it on your own initiative.

However, recently, there was a case where a member of the Freifunk community had opened the Wi-Fi network of the music store he owned. Some people in the vicinity used the network to share copyrighted content on a peer-to-peer network, and the store's owner was then taken to court by Sony Entertainment for being liable for copyright infringement.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said that he could not be held liable. In these cases, the court said, all a national judge can do in this regard is to ask you to take measures in order to stop an unlawful act committed thanks to the access to free Wi-Fi hotspots. That means, for instance, putting in place password protection and giving that password only to a number of identified people. So, basically, until you are taken to court and until a judge asks you to password-protect a Wi-Fi hotspot, you do not have to worry. When you receive such an order, you should comply with it, keeping in mind that only a judge or a public authority can ask you to take such measures (CJEU, Tobias McFadden, C-484/14, 15/09/2016, § 80).

So, from a practical point of view, you are free to decide whether you prefer to password-protect it or not. Your decision will mostly be based on who you want to have access to the community's network. The lack of password protection is a more inclusive approach, one favoured by most community networks. However, your community might have specific reasons to control or reduce the access to the network. It is up to you to decide.
Story #28:
Freifunk's dealings
with the police:
don't password
protect unless
required by a
judge (by Jürgen
Neumann)

Since the foundation of the
"Förderverein Freie Netzwerke e.V."
(FFN), the first registered legal club
in the context of Freifunk, we have
had several enquiries by the police.
The police contact the FFN, because
the wireless networks are all called
Freifunk or have something with
Freifunk in their network name.

When you search the internet for
Freifunk, you will find our website.
On the website you find the FFN as
responsible body. Also many of the
internet gateways in the Freifunk
infrastructure use an IP address
registered with the FFN.

The usual police enquiry looks like
this: a police officer contacts the
FFN via email and asks for the name
and address of a person that used a
certain IP address in a certain area
of Germany at a certain time. They
also send us a court document or a
reference to it.

Freifunk is a completely open
public wireless network. It is

accessible by everyone and does
not require any authentication. The
same is true for all other networks
where people access the internet,
be it in a library, cafe, etc. where
you might have to enter a shared
Wi-Fi password but not provide
your identity. So, we immediately
inform the police officer that we are
providing an open public wireless
network without registration and
logging, and that we just cannot
give that kind of information. And
that is it. They are always satisfied
with these explanations.

You may think that this is a door
open for all kinds of criminal
activity. But statistics show that
there is only a very little percentage
of abuse, compared to the total
number of users. To give you some
numbers: Freifunk operates more
than 45,000 access points all
over Germany with hundreds of
thousands of users all together.
At the same time, Freifunk
communities receive less than 10
police enquiries per year.
## 23.2. How can the community access other infrastructures?

After having seeded your first nodes, or even at the launch of your community network, if you want to interconnect your network with other people and services than your own, or simply make new network deployments, you may need access to existing infrastructure.

In some cases, this will be very easy. If you want to connect your local network to the internet, you might find that there is a telecom company (often called a transit operator) operating in the area with which you can contract so that they can collect your traffic and carry it to and from the global internet. In other cases, you will want to expand your network to reach out to new members of the community. You can expand your network by using the networks of other entities. It can be another telecom infrastructure which you would like to use by renting some capacity from the telecom provider managing it. It can also be a water supply system, an electrical grid, railways, or any other physical network that can be used to deploy your own cables much more cheaply than would have otherwise been possible.

In any case, such infrastructures will likely be owned by a larger private company, or in some cases by local governments. This is a bit more tricky. The good news is that the law is on your side. In 2014, the European Union adopted a Directive to encourage the development of high-speed digital networks. EU legislation requires that national and local administrations facilitate as much as possible the deployment of high-speed networks. The goal is precisely to make your life easier.

* When you ask for a permit to deploy network components on existing physical networks, those operating these networks have to give you an answer within four months.

### National and local administrations should provide information about existing physical infrastructure.

If they do not, you can directly ask network operators to give you information regarding their own facilities, so you can have a better idea of what is possible and needed for your own deployments. The entities running such infrastructure can only refuse you access for "objective reasons".

* Access to existing infrastructure should be given to you on "fair and reasonable terms" (including technical or operational conditions and of course, the price charged to let you access the facilities). These conditions cannot be disproportionate or discriminatory.
* If for one reason or another you have a conflict with another network operator, there is a specific, fast and accessible procedure available in your country. Your national regulatory authority can give you further information if needed. You can find your national authority on the "Telecommunications national regulatory authorities" list maintained by the EU Commission.

Unfortunately, more often than not, these favourable requirements are not actually enforced either by states or regular telecom operators.

In Spain and France, as the following stories illustrate, community networks have decided to stand up for their rights and protest against unfair and discriminatory policies.
# Story #29: guifi.net denounces the non-application of the European telecommunication and competition regulation (October 2018)

Today (26 October 2018), the guifi.net Foundation lodges a complaint before the European Ombudsman. It urges the European Commission to act against the bad practices happening within member states and to ensure compliance with the EU telecommunications and competition law.

The complaint describes actions in conflict with economic interest, bad practices and barriers to entry that exist in all areas of the Spanish state.

The decision to file the claim is based on the continuous and systematic breach of the European regulations regarding telecommunications and competition, and very specifically of Delegated Regulation 330/2016, of 9 September 2016, relative to the measures to reduce the cost of the deployment of high speed electronic telecommunications networks (this law transposes Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament, which allows the access of public communications networks providers to existing physical infrastructures, regardless of their location).

The wrongful actions, or the lack of action, are caused by private

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>
companies but also at all levels of
the administration and in different
jurisdictional areas. It provokes
a deadlock situation (mutual
blockade) that ends up making
network management projects of
guifi.net unfeasible, when their goal
is only to create an infrastructure
that reaches the entire territory to
connect all households in order to
end the digital divide.
# Story #30: FFDN's open letter to incumbent operator Orange and Arcep, the national telecommunication authority in France (October 2018)

Gentlemen,

The deployment of optic fibre is ongoing in France. As the EU Commission noted in its Brief C(2017) 8038 sent to Arcep, a network between a few operators sharing a local loop is currently being established. This network is not accessible for a lot of operators.

Particularly, the absence of active offers (where little equipment from third-party operators is necessary to reach subscribers connected to these networks) leads to a lack of diversity of offers, and therefore an important delay in several markets. (See the market analysis of the French telecom regulator, Arcep, about the fixed-line market. The Commission replied, in the note mentioned above, to this specific analysis.)

The French Competition Authority has called for caution regarding wholesale markets, which are necessary to spur

competition in the fibre market. The Authority especially emphasised the need for active, or bitstream, offers. Such offers allow tiny operators to be part of some markets which can be deemed to be niche markets since they are very different from mainstream offers. These demanding markets exist both for professional and private subscribers. However, the offers of integrated big telecom operators do not cover them.

In December 2015, the national telecom regulator had already established guidelines about active offer pricing on the shared optic local loop in Public Initiative Networks (PINS) (networks built by local public authorities). Article L. 1425-1 of the General Local Authorities Code obliges Public Initiative Networks to be accessible without discrimination between operators. The lack of reasonable active offers goes against the effectiveness of this right.

The market power of Orange (the incumbent telecommunication operator) is peculiar. Orange operates in all areas where a call for intention of investment is organised and was contracted to operate a lot of PINs. Moreover, technology used by Orange in fibre-to-the-home networks is entirely compatible with an active offer delivered according to widespread professional standards.

Recent techniques are also compatible with the delivery method of active offers. The obligation weighing on PINs to provide a reasonable offer, including active offers for small operators in line with the regulator's guidelines, is easy to achieve for Orange from a technical point of view.
The lack of availability of such an offer in reasonable terms clearly shows a shrinking of the market and the lasting worsening of competition. As such, it should worry regulators. Indeed, the French coverage of optic fibre is directly leading to this shrinking, and the recovery of the dominant position of Orange, both on the infrastructure and on the retail market. If it wanted to, Orange could help the regulator to enhance the smooth operation of the broadband market for companies, as well as the wholesale market of private individuals for niche markets.

The opening of active offers does not imply modification of infrastructure, nor investment in network equipment, which are already here. It does not imply anything new in terms of network engineering, and the investment in marketing tools is very reasonable. This effort is probably the easiest to carry out right now, before any action of the regulator forced by authorities.

This choice, which would be a sign of Orange's goodwill, would prove that the closing of the market does not stem from a mischievous purpose which could be regarded as a dominant position abuse, but an inadvertent by-product of the sequencing of current deployments and the commercialisation of useful offers. This choice would also be a powerful incentive for other operators of PINs as well as for other shared optic local loop operators.

It should therefore play a strong role to enhance the whole market and make it healthier. Finally, for Orange to propose such offers in a consistent way between all geographical areas where Orange

operates the optic local loop, would help diversify the base of users of these local loops. Many markets are currently miscovered, meaning that the area is covered by fibre network, but the latter is used by very few people. Thus, developing active offers would be a choice able to enhance the rate of use of these networks.

It appears to us that this choice, quite easy for Orange, is favourable for all involved parties. For our community networks, as for every other operator concerned, this would avoid litigation and delay in the use of fibre optic.

For Orange, this is a way to show its good will and increase the use of the optic local loop. For the telecom regulator, this is a way to clean markets that are being blocked by lack of competition.
Remaining at your disposal to discuss this if needed,

For the Fédération FDN, the French federation of community networks, Oriane Piquer-Louis, president of the Fédération, Benjamin Bayart, president of the Fédération
## 24. Engage in political advocacy

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

As you might have understood by now, not only can telecom policy be at odds with the needs of community networks, but it also often stands in their way. Over the years, community networks across Europe have faced similar issues in this regard.

These range from seeing the agencies in charge of telecom regulation fail to assist community networks, to having to deal with lawsuits. Such legal and policy obstacles can really put the community under stress, create tensions, discourage participation and threaten the network's sustainability.

It should not be this way. In 2016, netCommons reached out to several European CNs and started listing some of the most frequent policy and legal obstacles faced by community networks across Europe. Among the most urgent and common issues were topics tied to legal threats looming on people openly sharing their Wi-Fi networks, or the fact that access to publicly funded networks was overly expensive for community networks. An overarching issue was the fact that telecom policy makers in national capitals or in Brussels
completely disregard community networks and fail to involve them in the policy-making process.

This netCommons effort came at a particular moment. The European Union was in the process of revising its telecom laws, applicable across all EU member states. So, we seized this opportunity and engaged in what was likely the first pan-European effort of community networks in "political advocacy" - or what is often referred to as lobbying. Simply put, we wanted to address lawmakers, present our demands and ensure that new legal provisions would be adopted to address our needs. **To do so, in March 2016, netCommons researchers drafted an open letter that was signed by more than 30 European community networks. We then sent it to the EU Commission, national governments, and members of the EU Parliament to make the demands of community networks known.**

Over the course of the following months, as the EU Parliament worked to reform EU-wide telecom policies, several community networks partnered with netCommons researchers and digital rights activists to follow and influence the legislative process, and turn these demands into actual policy. Ahead of crucial votes, we identified some of the most influential people in the Parliament. We sent them a short analysis explaining to them what was at stake. We drafted and translated press releases. Not everything was perfect but we did our best.

You might have discovered by now that telecom policy is often not very effective. It is prone to what economists call "regulatory capture". It can take many forms, from conflict of interest to outright bribery. A 2014 report by the EU Commission listed telecommunications as the second business sector most prone to corruption, right behind the construction sector. The thing is, it is a policy field where, for the most part, only experts, lawyers and big industrial players have a say. It is generally too technical for "average" citizens to get interested and invest resources in it, as it is demanding in terms of time, money and knowledge and skills. Yet, community networks have both the expertise and legitimacy to intervene. And when they do, they bring a dissenting view and help ensure that telecom policy is developed with the interests of actual citizens in mind, not just those of large corporations. For this reason, their contribution is generally valued by telecom regulators, and sometimes a very constructive dialogue can take place (the problem is that it often is hard to translate that dialogue into actual policies that support community networks).

Now that community networks across Europe and the world are turning into some kind of a movement, a key objective for the years to come is to ensure that telecom policy allows their development. At your level and when you see fit, you should take part in this collective effort by engaging in policy
<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

advocacy: you will realise how some small changes in regulation can make your life and those of your fellow community members much easier. They can help you expand your network much faster and allow your community to reach its objectives more easily. **The good news is that our pan-European effort paid off!** European law – which all member states must respect – now clearly says that policy makers should pay special attention to community networks and take into consideration their regulatory needs. This creates an avenue for you to reach out to policy makers in your locality, your country or even at the EU level to address your needs, so as to overcome policy and legal obstacles.

In the same way, netCommons efforts led to community networks being included in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Internet Universality Indicators, a tool to evaluate internet policies in force in each country. The avenues are there, but achieving change won't be easy. It will require dedication and good strategies. However, as our story and other examples suggest, it can be extremely rewarding and even fun! So let us now turn to some practical steps you might want to consider in this process. Here, we assume that in your community, you already have people with a background in law or policy skills. If not yet, don't worry. Community networks at the beginning often reach out to like-minded organisations, such as digital rights groups. In other words, if you don't have policy and legal capacities in-house yet, it can still be done.
## Start by defining your policy objective

Is there a public network you would like to interconnect to? A radio frequency that would make for a highly effective long-distance link between two villages? Great! But why is law or regulation getting in your way? Is it that it explicitly prevents you from doing what you would like? Is it just silent on the situation? Or is it favourable to you, but simply not respected?

## Identify key policy makers

Identify key policy makers who are somehow responsible or competent with regard to your situation and ask for a meeting. The goal here is to establish contact and present your case. Making them know that you exist is a first step. Often, these people are just completely unaware of the fact that a local community can self-organise to meet their connectivity needs. They only focus on the few large telecom providers, and might even tend to disregard small telecom businesses. Once you have raised their awareness and exposed your problems, they might be able to help and quickly remedy the situation.

## Consider various advocacy and campaign strategies

If and when you feel that just reaching out to policy makers is not enough, you will need to find leverage to exert pressure. That is, you will need to switch to activist mode. **Do you need to go on a fact-finding mission to gather data that you can present to regulators and make your case more convincing?**
**Should you organise a public protest in your town to pressure local politicians? Is litigation the best course of action?**

If you are unsure, try to reach out to experienced activists in your community who might be able to help you devise the best plan. Ask existing community networks for their advice and opinions. For instance, you can use a mailing list called Telecommons, set up by netCommons and La Quadrature du Net to gather community networks and digital rights activists in Europe. Others might have faced similar issues and can also offer extremely useful information based on their experience.

## Gather support and make your case known to a wider audience

Regardless of the mode of action that you think is best, you will need to make the ongoing dispute known to your community and other interested people, and gather support from them and other organisations (other community organisations, local businesses, etc.). **The more people know about the ongoing dispute, the more costly it becomes for regulators and politicians to ignore or block your demands.**
You will also need to think about how they can best assist or work with you. That means you will need to be able to clearly articulate the problem and the favoured solution, find the right slogans, and the right analogies to explain complex technical and legal issues. You can use mainstream media and social media. Document each step of your advocacy action by putting out a press release; seek and respond to media interviews. Regularly broadcast news on your social media accounts.

## Once you have obtained a favourable decision, make sure it is implemented

It is likely that at some point, your efforts will pay off. Yes: that radio frequency you longed for will be made available. Yes: the judge agreed that the tariffs charged by a network owner to access its infrastructure were outrageously high. But then what? What you are interested in is seeing actual changes on the ground. After a well-deserved celebration and as soon as you see that things might linger, go back and establish a good strategy that can ensure that this good decision is implemented so that your community network can flourish.
# Story #31: guifi's tractor protest (by Ramon Roca)

In 2009, in a small rural village located between Barcelona and the Pyrenees, I worked with a group of friends and started interconnecting pig and cow farms with fibre-optic cables.

After setting up this local autonomous network, we sought for a gateway to connect them to the regional and global networks. A telecommunications backbone network owned by the public company managing railway infrastructures across Spain passed through the village, and it could be used for that purpose. When we asked the entity managing that network, guifi volunteers were told that they would have to pay a fee of 500,000 euros to rent access to it.

In the process, we discovered that another public network passing through the village could be used. That one was owned by the Catalan government. So, we got in touch with the Catalan authorities, which first denied that they even had a backbone in that location. Confronted with the fact that they did own the cable, the officials in charge were now open to the idea of helping us interconnect on fair conditions, but the discussions dragged on for years. The officials claimed that existing regulation

prevented them from offering access to citizen-driven initiatives.

In 2012, three years after the beginning of the project, we were still waiting. We lost patience and decided to increase the pressure on the Catalan authorities to test their goodwill.

In early spring 2012, we announced we would hold a "tractor protest": we warned that on the following Sunday, we and other farmers in the area would drive our tractors on public roads to slow down traffic and delay people driving from Barcelona to ski resorts in the Pyrenees. Our call to protest came as a surprise to the authorities. Wanting to avoid the bad publicity, they pledged to speed up the process, and a few months later, our local network was finally interconnected with the Catalan public network, thus benefiting from an affordable gateway to the rest of the guifi networks and the broader internet.

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>
Story #32:
"Freifunk instead of
fear" campaign on
secondary liability
in Germany (by
Jürgen Neumann)

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

Freifunk's model of public Wi-Fi networks depends on the participation of people willing to share their traditional Wi-Fi network within their vicinity. But for a long time, rules regarding "secondary liability" discouraged our users from doing so.

These legal rules effectively meant that people openly sharing their connection could be sued for possible offences committed by other users. The recording industry developed a tactic whereby it

would send letters to Freifunk participants claiming that their Wi-Fi hotspot had been used to exchange copyrighted content on peer-to-peer networks, and asking them to pay huge sums of money or else face a lawsuit. As a result of this legal regime, people were scared to share their connections, and this hampered the growth of Freifunk while putting a lot of stress on our members.

To remedy that situation, in 2010, we started a campaign called "Freifunk statt Angst" ("Freifunk instead of fear"). We set up a campaign website, and partnered with NGO Digitale Gesellschaft and others to start a coalition of activist organisations calling for new legal protection for people sharing their Wi-Fi networks. We documented and intervened in several lawsuits involving some of our participants, and assisted in developing a tool to automatically generate answers to the threatening (and illegal) letters sent by copyright-holders.

In 2012, we also offered to protect our users by developing a small device called the Freedom Fighter Box. Plugged into your Wi-Fi router, the box channelled the Freifunk traffic through routers and virtual private network (VPN) tunnels to Sweden, thereby anonymising the origin of the connections, and thus making it impossible to trace a particular communication to the owner of a Wi-Fi hotspot.

During this campaign, Freifunkers were also asked for help at a crucial
moment in the lawmaking process in 2015. To influence lawmakers, we asked them to sign a relay petition, while sending letters to Members of Parliament based on a template we provided, and here again a website was set up to help participants identify their elected representative. Some of us also met with policy makers in person and debated with them. The campaign eventually succeeded in amending the law in May 2016. It is not perfect but it is a huge step forward.

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

1

<footnote n="1">1. A Freedomfighter Box of the freifunk project</footnote>
## 25. Assess your sustainability

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

Here is a final "sustainability" checklist, specially designed for community networks. The aim of the list is to generate discussion and thinking around the issues it raises with the ultimate aim of helping the formulation of solutions which promote sustainability. The answers to these questions should be read as indicative, as opposed to definitive, of the sustainability potential of a community network initiative.

### 25.1. Economy

#### (Un-)sustainability issue: Monopoly power and corporate concentration

* To what extent is the community network supported by non-profit/ commons-based network access and services provision?

* To what extent does the community network rely on a commercial provider?

* What is the nature of this provider (e.g., for-profit vs. not-for-profit/self-managed/social enterprise, or local vs. non-local)?

* To what extent does the model of network provision of the community network face competition from commercial for-profit telcos on the basis of quality of signal/provision, lower cost and/or better network maintenance?
## (Un-)sustainability issue: Survival, skills and resources

* To what extent does the community network manage to survive economically, i.e. to afford the necessary hardware and labour-power necessary for running the network? How does it do that?

* To what extent can the community network ensure that it has enough resources, supporters, workers, volunteers and users?

* To what extent does the community network rely on internal funding sources?

* To what extent does the community network rely on external funding sources? How regular are they?

* Are there possibilities for the community network to obtain public or municipal funding or to cooperate with municipalities, public institutions or the state in providing access and services?

* To what extent are there people to provide the technological skills for running/maintenance/upgrade of the community network?

* To what extent are there people to provide skills in accounting, law and advocacy?

* To what extent does the community network rely on a single individual or a small group of actors for providing the necessary resources (time, skills, money)?

* Can the risk be avoided that the community network becomes a "secondary internet" that is marginal, slower and less attractive than other services? How? What strategies can be used for avoiding marginalisation and resource precarity?

## (Un-)sustainability issue: Governance and democracy

* To what extent is the community network controlled by the community? Is the community network collectively controlled by its members as a commons?

* How can the community network best ensure that it is a not-for-profit project?

* To what extent is the community network controlled by the local/municipal authorities?

* To what extent is the community network controlled by private corporate interests?

* What are potential dangers of collaboration with or inclusion of private for-profit companies? How can they be avoided?

* Are those who work professionally for the maintenance of the network fairly remunerated for their labour so they can lead decent lives?

## (Un-)sustainability issue: Network wealth for all

* Is the network large enough to attract significant numbers of users so that this community can have mutual benefits from network effects?
* How can possible congestion and slowing down of the network best be avoided if it is very popular?

* To what extent does the community network provide free-of-charge/cheap/ affordable network and internet access for all?

* If subscriptions are used, are they affordable?

* To what extent are there different pricing schemes such as for residential users, small enterprises, bigger firms, and public institutions (e.g. schools)?

* How can the community avoid or lower the digital divide?

* How can the community network help network neutrality, to avoid differentiated internet services with slower internet for some and faster for others?

* How can the community network avoid the commodification of access (i.e. using access fees) and users (i.e. using advertisements) that bring about inequality of access and the exploitation of users' digital labour?

## (Un-)sustainability issue: Community needs

* To what extent are the community needs served by the community network?

* To what extent are the needs of diverse individuals (e.g. by gender, age, nationality) and groups in the community served by the community network?

* To what extent are the needs of local businesses served by the community network?

## 25.2. Nature and environment

### (Un-)sustainability issue: Energy use

* To what extent does the community network rely on relatively environmentally friendly energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, biomass and waste energy)?

* To what extent does the network rely on suppliers of such energy forms? How is the source of energy checked?

* What is the share of the total energy consumed per year by the network that is based on relatively clean power sources?

### (Un-)sustainability issue: E-waste

* What is the average lifespan of different types of hardware used in the community network?

* Can measures be taken for ensuring the long-term re-use and update of hardware?

* If hardware devices have to be replaced, is it possible to recycle the old ones? How?
* If hardware devices have to be trashed, is it possible to do so in a way that does not threaten humans and nature? How?

* If hardware devices have to be trashed, is it possible to do so in a way that avoids the creation of e-waste that is shipped to developing countries where it poses threats to e-waste workers, other humans and nature? How?

* If old hardware devices that a network no longer uses are donated to other networks, can it be ensured that this does not result in a two-tier internet access structure, in which poorer communities have slower internet access than others?

## 25.3. Politics and organisation

### (Un-)sustainability issue: Participation/governance

* How is the community network governed? How does it decide on which rules, standards, licences, etc. are adopted?

* To what extent does the community network allow and encourage the participation of community members in governance processes?

* To what extent are there mechanisms in place for conflict resolution and for proceedings in the case of the violation of community rules?

### (Un-)sustainability issue: Privacy enhancement and protection from surveillance

* To what extent does the community network enhance the protection of privacy of user data?

* To what extent does the community network provide opportunities for active user involvement in the management of their data? What are the skills required and how are they provided?

* To what extent and for how long are user data kept in servers controlled centrally (e.g. by the network administrators)?

* How do you guarantee that data storage is done in line with data protection regulation and is privacy friendly?

## 25.4. Culture

### (Un-)sustainability issue: Conviviality, learning and community engagement

* How closely knit is the community? To what extent are trust and solidarity present and how are they manifested?

* To what degree is the community network able to foster a culture of
togetherness and conviviality that brings people together? In what ways?

* To what extent does the community network provide mechanisms for learning, education, training, communication, conversations, community engagement, strong democracy, participation, cooperation and well-being? In what ways?

**(Un-)sustainability issue: **Unity in diversity**

* To what degree is the community network a "geek public" that has an elitist, exclusionary culture or a "community public" that is based on a culture of unity in diversity?

* How can a culture of unity in diversity best be achieved?
# PART 7 : APPENDICES
# Appendix A. The Pico Peering Agreement v1.0

## Preamble

There are now many community networks, but they are separated geographically and socially and do not form a coherent network. This document is an attempt to connect those network "islands" by providing a minimum baseline template for a peering agreement between owners of individual network nodes: the Pico Peering Agreement.

The Pico Peering Agreement (PPA) is a way of formalising the interaction between two peers. Owners of network nodes assert their right of ownership by declaring their willingness to donate the free exchange of data across their networks.

The PPA is maintained at http://picopeer.net by a group of volunteers from around the world. It is intended to be used as a template for other small-scale peering documents and licences.

## Agreement

### 1. Free Transit:

The owner agrees to provide free transit across their free network.

The owner agrees not to modify or interfere with data as it passes through their free network.

### 2. Open Communication:

The owner agrees to publish the information necessary for peering to take place.

This information shall be published under a free licence.

The owner agrees to be contactable and will provide at least an email address.

### 3. No Warranty:

There is no guaranteed level of service.
The service is provided "as is", with no warranty or liability of whatsoever kind.
The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time with no notice.

**4. Terms of use:**

The owner is entitled to formulate an "acceptable use policy".

This may or may not contain information about additional services provided
(apart from basic access).

The owner is free to formulate this policy as long as it does not contradict
points 1 to 3 of this agreement (see point 5).

**5. Local Amendments:**

(to be filled in ad-hoc by the node owner as this document is implemented).

**Definition of terms**

**Owner:** The owner of the node has the right to operate their network equipment and to donate any part of its functionality to the FreeNetwork.

**Transit:** Transit is the exchange of data into, out of or across a network.

**Free Transit:** Free transit means that the owner will neither charge for the transit of data nor modify the data.

**Free Network:** The Free Network is the sum of interconnected hardware and software resources, whose FreeTransit has been donated by the owners of those resources.

**The Service:** The Service is made up of Free transit and Additional Services.

**Additional Services:** In terms of the PPA, an additional service is anything over and above Free Transit. For example, provision of a DHCP server, a web server or a mail server.

**The PPA in practice**

The PPA shall be implemented in data readable form following agreed
standards in community network node databases to facilitate automatic
interconnection of nodes.
# Terms of Use for Community Networks (netCommons template)

Version 1 December 2018

These Terms of Use, otherwise named Terms of Service, or Terms and Conditions, are meant to be a template licensing or a contractual agreement between a community network and its new members. Such a text aims at explaining how the service – that is, "electronic communication service" – is run, and the relationships between the users and the service, including each party's rights and obligations. They reflect how you intend to protect the fundamental rights of your users while providing this service.

We provide this template to give you an overview of mandatory provisions, which you can adapt and tailor to your local situation. We drafted it in a way that would make it compatible with the Pico Peering Agreement (Appendix A). This template focuses on internet access, as a core activity of community networks (CNs). For additional services such as hosting services, you may want to add more specific clauses. The following references provide additional model clauses:

https://tosdr.org

https://tldrlegal.com

"Alternative policies for alternative Internets", by Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Journal of Peer Production, Issue 9 on Alternative Internets, September 2016.

## B.1. Introduction

Dear future member of the community,

You will find below our Terms of Use. These provisions give you an overview
of our service, how our community network works, how this may impact your rights, and what are our respective obligations.

Any reference to community, "our", "we", "us" refers to [name of your community network], established in [geographical address]. Conversely, "you" refers to the user of the service provided by the community, or, as we prefer to put it, "you" refers to the member of the community that you will become by agreeing to these terms and joining the community.

We describe the relationship we intend to develop with you (B.2).

Then, we focus on how you can have access to the network (B.3).

Finally, we explain how we try to preserve your privacy while processing your personal data to the extent requested by the law (B.3).

You are free to accept or to refuse these Terms. Make sure to think about it and please feel free to contact us at [contact email address] if you need any further information.

In addition, to make sure all electronic communication services respect the European and national regulatory framework, as well as your fundamental rights, there is a specific independent authority in every EU member state.

In [your country], this regulator is [put your authority here]. You can find it on these official lists maintained by the EU:

- Telecommunications national regulatory authorities

- Data protection authorities

## B.2. Creating a trust-based relationship

### Article 1: Description of the service and quality

Comments: Here you should describe the service you offer to each member of the community. You should specify the kind of technology that you are using (Wi-Fi, fibre, xDSL). It could be along the lines of the following examples. Moreover, if you want to guarantee a certain level of service, and want to join the Pico Peering Agreement (Appendix A), make sure your provision is compatible.

#### 1. Service provided

Our community network provides access to an electronic communication network through [you can specify here which technology you are using]. This service gives access to the internet [if this is the case for your community].

#### 2. Quality of the service

There is no guaranteed level of service. However, the community network will do its best to provide a suitable service for each of its members.
**Article 2: How to join the community**

By signing or otherwise accepting this agreement, you will become a member of our community network. This implies that we will provide you the service described in Article 1, according to the terms of this document. This also gives you the right to participate in the governance of the community network according to our internal rules defined in another document [link to the governance rules, if they exist elsewhere].

**Article 3: Modification of terms of use**

You will be notified of any modification of terms of service through the contact information you have provided. We will give you a reasonable time of [reasonable delay of a few weeks] to take notice of these changes, which you can of course refuse (but that would mean we might stop providing you with some of our services).

**Article 4: Price of the service [optional]**

Comments: You can specify here whether the service is free or not.
The service is provided for free.

Or

The service is not provided free of charge. We will ask you to pay a fee corresponding to [amount] by [means of payment] per [month/year].

**Article 5: Duration and termination**

**1. Termination at the user's initiative**

You can leave the community whenever you want. Just send us a message to the contact address given. You do not need to give us a reason.

**2. Termination at the community network management's initiative**

Although we do our best to thrive and remain sustainable, it may be that we are forced to stop our activity for some reason. Should that be the case, we will do our best to inform you beforehand, as soon as we know that we will be ending the service that we provide. Also, you no longer have the right to participate in the governance of the community if you do not respect our internal rules defined in another document [link to the governance rules, if they exist elsewhere].

**B.3. Ensuring access to our infrastructure**

**Article 6: What the community is accountable for**

Our community network is what we can call a "mere conduit". This means that we do not initiate the transmission of information nor select its receiver. Users like you do. We only transmit the information and do not select or modify it as it passes through our network (see Article 7). As such, we cannot be held liable
for any wrongdoing committed by users of our network and services. Every
user is therefore responsible for their own activities on the network and may
be legally liable for any wrongdoing.

A judge, or a specific public authority, has the power to require us to take
measures aimed at stopping a wrongdoing committed through our network.
In this case, we will have to comply. If this happens, you will be informed
beforehand.

Comments: In concrete terms, with the current legal framework, this might
imply adopting authentication procedures for those using the network and the
services of the community. For instance, a CN may have to password-protect
access to its Wi-Fi hotspots.

Article 7: Open communication and net neutrality

1. Authentication

Comments: There are two options.

Our general rule is that

We do not ask you for personal information or identification to access the
service. There is no authentication system or password [optional: except in the
scenario described in Article 6].

Or

We ask you for information in order to access the service. This information
includes: [add information requested from users such as first name, surname,
email address, etc.]. We collect, process and store this information in
accordance with Articles 8, 9 and 10 of this Agreement.

2. Network neutrality

We do not modify or interfere with data as it passes through the network.

B.4. Protecting your privacy

In this section, you will find our privacy policy. It is written in compliance with
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the main European legislation
dealing with privacy and the protection of personal data.

It is in force and directly enforceable in EU member states since 25 May 2018.
For inquiries regarding data protection, you can contact [put here the name
of the person running the network and able to reply to users, which can be
different from the previous contact information given. It can also be the same].
## Article 8: What data do we collect?

We collect the following information about you in order to run the service or to comply with legal obligations (see Article 10): [add what data your CN collects, such as:

* first name

* surname

* postal address

* email address

* IP address

Optional: We may also collect some technical data attached to your connection (amount of data used, duration time of your connections to the network, etc.) for internal use, such as statistical analysis and the technical management of the network. We will do our best to anonymise this data to the extent possible.

## Article 9: How do we process collected data?

### 1. Processing for internal use

We process your data in order to provide you with the service described in Article 1 of this Agreement. Otherwise, we will ask your specific consent to process your personal data.

### 2. Disclosure to third parties and data transfer outside the EU

We do not normally disclose your information to third parties. If we need to disclose information to third parties, we will inform you about the person and the safeguards attached and ask your specific consent. Likewise, if we need to transfer your data outside of the EU we will inform you of the terms and existing safeguards before asking your specific consent.

## Article 10: Retention of data

Comments: For this specific issue you have several choices, depending on the legal provisions applicable in your country of operation as well as your political beliefs. For now, the legal framework is complicated and so is most community networks' position on the matter. This is because national laws are likely to be incompatible with European standards of users' rights (which have precedence over national law). Thus, you have three main options, and you should inform the members of the community which one you pick:

1. To avoid legal risks at the national level you can comply with your national laws.

2. To respect EU law (which is supposed to override national law) and protect your users' fundamental rights, you can decide to disobey your national laws.

3. This is a compromise in the face of the legal contradictions between national and European law. You could choose to retain less data, i.e.
only the data actually requested during criminal investigations. For
more details about this tricky choice, see Chapter 19, and you can also
consult netCommons Deliverable 4.3, Version 1.2, pp. 76-78

First option:

We retain data in compliance with national laws. We collect all traffic and location
data and store it during [put here your the legal duration required in your country;
for instance, for Greece, France and Spain it is one year].

Second option:

We do not retain your data, except for the short time needed to run the service and
ensure its smooth functioning (statistical analysis, traffic management, cyber
attack prevention, etc.), that is [state a specific duration in days, weeks or months.
This duration cannot be longer than what your national obligations require, if these
exist in your country. For instance, in Greece, France and Spain, you cannot retain
data for more than a year.].

Third option:

We collect and store your IP address and identity for the legal duration required by
national law. This data only allows investigative authorities to ask us to identify
the subscriber corresponding to a given IP address. No more.

Article 11: Your rights

1. Right of access

You have the right of access to information relating to how and why we process
your personal data. You can ask us, for each processing, the purpose, the category
of data concerned, the duration of retention and the persons who have access to
this data (besides the community network). We do our best to provide you with
such information through Article 8, 9 and 10. Should you need further information,
we will reply to your request as soon as we can. You can ask us for a copy of your
personal data (to the extent that we are processing data in one way or another). We
will deliver it to you as long as it does not violate the rights of another person.

2. Right to rectification

You have the right to ask us to modify personal data that we process if this
information is inaccurate or incomplete.

3. Right to erasure

You have the right to demand that we delete your personal data when:

* This information is no longer necessary for the purpose of its original
processing.

* You withdraw your consent for its processing and there is no other legal basis
allowing the processing.

* You object to the processing.
* The processing of this personal data is unlawful.

* This erasure is necessary to respect a legal obligation weighing on the community network.

* In such cases, we will erase your personal data as soon as possible.

### 4. Right to restriction of processing

You may have the right to ask us to limit future processing of your personal data. As a general rule, when processing is restricted, we are still permitted to store personal data that has already been collected, but not use it. Beyond storage, when you use your right to restriction, any processing is only allowed if such processing is necessary to provide you with the service, comply with legal obligations, or if you have explicitly consented to that processing. You may think of this right to restriction as an alternative to requesting the erasure of your data.

This right to restriction of processing is only applicable when:

* You contest the accuracy of your personal data that we process and we still need to store your data while verifying your claim.

* Our processing of your personal data is unlawful, but for some reason you oppose erasure and request restriction instead.

* We no longer need the personal data but you need it in order to establish, exercise or defend a legal claim.

* You use your right to object (see point six 6 below), but we are considering whether our legitimate grounds override your interests in erasing the data.

### 5. Right to data portability

You have the right to ask us for your personal data in a readable format. You can transmit this data to any other person (such as another provider of service). We will give you this information as long as it does not violate the rights of another person. When it is technically possible, we will directly transmit this data to the person you have selected.

### 6. Right to object

You have a right to object to any processing of your personal data when the legal basis of this processing is our "legitimate interest" as data processors or when that processing is "carried out in the public interest" (See Article 21 of the GDPR). If anything is unclear to you, do not hesitate to contact us. We will be there to listen and explain. To join our community, sign/click here: [sign in].
# Appendix C.
## Guidelines for policy makers

This Appendix is also published as an autonomous document on netCommons web site Enabling the Telecommunications: Guidelines for Policy-Makers and part of Deliverable 4.4

Across Europe, community networks (CNs) represent a growing movement of organisations that operate local communication infrastructures, sometimes federated at the regional or national levels. These networks, most of which also provide access to the global Internet, are operated as a commons. That is, rather than being driven by for-profit motives, their key focus is on providing connectivity while striving for democratic governance, social inclusion, education, and human rights with respect to communication technologies.

These organisations vary considerably in terms of sizes, types of network infrastructures and political cultures. Yet, despite their diversity, they are united by the common objective of building networks that meet the communication needs of humans (rather than those of objects and machines), through networks that are built and run by communities, for communities, focused on local empowerment, affordability and resiliency. Today, they collectively provide broadband connectivity not only to tens of thousands of individual European citizens and residents in rural or urban settings, but also to organizations including small and medium sized companies, schools, healthcare centers, social projects and many more. In many cases, they have complemented or out-competed mainstream operators, by providing cheaper and faster Internet connectivity than incumbent players. Thanks to their infrastructures and through their various activities, they foster scientific and engineering experiments, help local hosting and service providers come together to mutualise investments and share costs, they support digital literacy and technological sovereignty through workshops and other educational activities.
Yet, despite these achievements, policy-makers at the national and European levels have so far mostly neglected the existence of community networks and specific regulatory needs. Worse, regulation is often hampering these initiatives, making the work of their participants and volunteers harder than it should be. This time is now over: Once it is adopted by EU lawmakers, the European Code of Electronic Communications (ECEC)<fnref n="1" /> will offer new provisions requiring all policy-makers in the telecom field to take into account the special policy needs of community networks. The UNESCO "Internet Universality Indicators" released in 2018² also assess country performance based on the existence of an appropriate legal framework for establishment of community networks. In other words, it is no longer enough to "let CNs be". They should be actively supported by dedicated policies.

In accordance with these recent developments at the European and international levels, this policy brief offers an overview of approaches that policy-makers, and in particular National Regulatory Authorities (NRA), should explore to foster the growth of community networks.

## C.1. Inviting community networks to the policy table

Although CNs have often partnered with municipalities and local public authorities, national and European regulators need to pay more attention to their activities when drafting regulation. community networks have both the expertise and legitimacy to take an integral part in technical and legal debates over broadband policy in which traditional, commercial ISPs are over-represented. community networks can bring an informed view to these debates, allowing for a policy-making process more attuned to the public interest.

This is all the more important considering that article 3.3.e) of the forthcoming European Code of Electronic Communications provides that: "Member States, BEREC and the EU Commission, in fulfilling their missions pursuant to the code, should take due account of the variety of conditions relating to infrastructure, competition, end-user and consumers circumstances that exist in the various geographic areas within a Member State including local infrastructure managed by individuals on a not-for-profit basis."

<footnote n="1">1 Proposal for a directive establishing the European Electronic Communications Code. COM/2016/0590 final - 2016/0288 (COD). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=comnat:COM 2016 0590 FIN</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 UNESCO's Internet Universality Indicators: A Framework for Assessing Internet Development (2018). Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002658/265830e.pdf (visited on 08/13/2018).</footnote>
This language covers most, if not all, of CN models and suggests that regulators should actively mobilize the knowledge of community networks. CNs have both the expertise and legitimacy to participate in technical and legal debates over broadband policy, to make the underlying political issues more salient, and to bring an informed view of the effect of existing policies on the ground.

In sum, they bring a dissenting view that can only open up new policy paths, and stimulate a debate to ensure that telecom policy stays in tune with the public interest. Of course, for enabling real participation, there is a need for policy-makers to provide remote participation schemes and design consultation processes in a way that makes them available [accessible] to volunteer-based initiatives.

### C.2. Lifting unnecessary regulatory and financial burdens

Many CNs are Internet access providers, offering access to the Internet to many users. But considering their small market size and special governance features, regulators should get rid of unnecessary regulatory burdens, such as fees or red-tape that are unnecessary or illegitimate when imposed on small and/or non-profit entities.

In Belgium for instance, the registration fee that telecom operators must pay to the National Regulatory Authorities (NRA) is at 676C for the first registration, plus 557C every following year (for those whose revenues are below 1MC, which is the case for many community networks). Even such small fees can hinder the growth of small networks that efficiently serve tens of households. In France, Spain and Germany, it is free, which might explain why the community network movement is much more dynamic in these countries. Likewise, taxes intended for large corporate firms in the telecom sectors should not apply to smaller, non-profit operators.

Fortunately, the new European Code of Electronic Communication contains recitals to that effect. Recital 48 for instance provides that:

> "competent authorities should duly take into account, when attaching conditions to the general authorization and applying administrative charges, situations where electronic communications networks or services are provided by individuals on a not-for-profit basis. In the case of electronic communications networks and services not provided to the public it is appropriate to impose fewer and lighter conditions, if any at all, than are justified for electronic communications networks and services provided to the public."
> 
> In the same spirit, recital 52 states that:
"to the extent that the general authorisation system extends to undertakings with very small market shares, such as community-based network providers, or to service providers whose business model generates very limited revenues even in case of significant market penetration in terms of volumes, Member States should assess the possibility to establish an appropriate threshold for the imposition of administrative charges."

We therefore call on policy-makers to make the most of these new provisions and systematically explore what administrative charges, procedures or conditions should be revised to accommodate the special needs and capacities of community networks.

### C.3. Limiting civil and criminal liability for people sharing Internet access

Several laws seek to prevent the sharing of Internet connections among several users by making people responsible (and potentially liable) for all communication made through their Wi-Fi connection, and create legal risks for people sharing their connection.

In Germany, rights-holders have used a "secondary liability" doctrine to dissuade people from sharing their Internet connection with other users in their vicinity, thereby chilling the growth of the community networks movement. In France too, copyright law imposes a form of secondary liability regime, hereby creating significant legal uncertainty for people sharing their network connections with other users. In 2017, two German courts have also made controversial application of the McFadden ruling to the European Court of Justice, holding individuals who had shared their Wi-Fi connection liable for copyright infringements committed by other users.

Here again, the new European Code of Electronic Communications brings useful developments in this regard, stressing in article 55.3 that:

"[policy-makers and telecom providers should not] restrict or prevent end-users from allowing reciprocally or more generally accessing to the networks of such providers by other end-users through radio local area networks, including on the basis of third-party initiatives which aggregate and make publicly accessible the radio local area networks of different end-users."
The same article also reaffirms that "in any event", the liability exemptions provided by "Article 12 of Directive 2000/31/EC shall apply"<fnref n="3" />.

Open WiFi sharing – and it particular the model pioneered by CNs like the Germany-based Freifunk – is now acknowledged and encouraged by this new provision. It should be used to ensure that the right to share one’s connection if effectively guaranteed. In the same spirit, where they exist like in Italy, telecom operators’ contract clauses that forbid subscribers to share their connections with others should be prohibited.

### C.4. Expanding the spectrum commons

It is not just Internet wireless access points that can be shared, but also the intangible infrastructure on which radio signals travel. Wi-Fi, as an unlicensed portion of the spectrum and therefore a commons open to all, is a key asset for community networks willing to set up affordable and flexible last-mile infrastructure.

Unfortunately, these Wi-Fi frequency bands are currently very limited. Not only are they getting increasingly subject to congestion in densely populated areas, they are also exposed to new technical standards that use the so-called ISM frequency band (like LTE-U) that hamper the reliability of Wi-Fi communications. Last but not least, existing frequency bands for Wi-Fi (5,6 Ghz and 2,4 Ghz) have physical constraints that prevent them for being used for longer radio links. In the face of such challenges, a new approach to spectrum policy is needed whereby policy-makers expand unlicensed Wi-Fi bands.

Other types of frequencies should also be made available either on an unlicensed (preferred scenario), or on an affordable and flexible authorization schemes. Such frequency bands for instance include so-called TV white spaces in lower frequencies (which allow for cheap and resilient long-distance links, for instance in rural areas), as well as the 12Ghz and the 60Ghz bands (for which radio equipment is affordable and which can help us build high-bandwidth point-to-point radio links). Once made accessible to community

<footnote n="3">³ Article 12.1 of the directive on the information society establishes the so-called "mere conduit" principle: "Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider: (a) does not initiate the transmission; (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission."</footnote>
networks, they can help roll-out and expand cheap and resilient wireless infrastructures.

Shared and unlicensed access to the radio spectrum embodies the core principle of general authorization mechanism enshrined since 2002 at the EU level. In 2012, the European Radio Spectrum Policy Programme further called on policy-makers to assess the "need for and feasibility of extending the allocations of unlicensed spectrum" in the Wi-Fi bands<fnref n="4" />. That same year, a EU Commission study also called for a new 100 MHz of license-exempt bands as well as for higher power output limits in rural areas to reduce the cost of broadband Internet access deployment<fnref n="5" />. But unfortunately, no concrete action has since been implemented.

In the upcoming European Code of Electronic Communications, new provisions also encourage shared and unlicensed use of spectrum (see article 4.4, 45.2, 46.1). Policy-makers must understand the need and urgency of implementing a reform of spectrum policy favouring unlicensed and shared access to this vital resource, and more generally innovative licensing schemes that could benefit community networks<fnref n="6" />. For instance, in 2015, the Mexican NRA amended its frequency plan to set aside part of the 800 MHz band for "social purpose" licensing. To qualify for a social-use license, applicants must demonstrate that the spectrum would be used to service communities of 2,500 people or less, or communities located in a designated indigenous region or so-called "priority zone." community networks like Rhizomatica have relied on this social purpose licensing to develop networks in areas not served by traditional telecom providers.

### C.5. Updating open-access rules on private and public telecom infrastructures

As our societies transition to last-mile fiber-optic networks, there is a risk that community networks will be left behind. To promote competition, diversity, resilience and local empowerment in telecom markets, regulators should urgently update open access rules that once were the cornerstone of European telecom policy to make them fit for Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) networks.

<footnote n="4">4 See recital 25 of the decision 243/2012/EU of 14 March 2012 establishing a multianual radio spectrum policy programme.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Simon Forge et al. (2012). Perspectives on the value of shared spectrum access. Support for the preparation of an impact assessment to accompany the Commission's Initiative on the Shared Use of Spectrum, SMART 2011/0017. SCF Associates Ltd.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Unleashing community networks: Innovative Licensing Approaches (2018). Tech. rep. ISOC. URL: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/unleashing-community-networks-innovative-licensing-approaches/ (visited on 12/04/2017).</footnote>
To do so, different strategies can be identified depending on whether existing infrastructure is privately owned or public.

In France, the first publicly available ISP was a non-profit organization called French Data Network (FDN). Created in 1992, FDN it still in operation today. But like many alternative landline ISPs, FDN does not have enough funding to deploy its own cables. It has to rent those of larger players.

Two kinds of access can be rented: either passive or active access. Passive access means that a provider actually rents access to the physical cables of another operator, installs its own equipment in key part of the network and manages every technical aspect of the access provided to users. Renting passive access is expensive and suited to providers who are able to reach out to large number of users in a given area, or to companies with very specific needs. The alternative is active access (also called "bitstream"), which amounts to simply renting part of a network already managed by another operator. It does not require to install equipment and is much cheaper. Even though it does not give as much technical control as passive access, it still allows ISPs such as FDN to provide the tailored services that its members and subscribers are looking for.

The problem is that whereas active access is now readily available in most ADSL markets, it is still a far-fetched dream for fiber networks. In France, only the four largest telecom firms are able to invest in fiber optic last-mile networks. Worse, these telecom companies are often alone in a specific area, which leads to a monopolistic situation from the perspective of end-users. The root cause is that there is currently no bitstream offers allowing smaller operators or community networks (CNs) to use the infrastructure rolled-out by these dominant players to provide their services to end-users.

Despite fears that it would reinforce monopolistic trends when it was first proposed, the Code of Electronic Communications was amended to safeguard regulatory room for manoeuvre. NRA will still be able to engage in asymmetric regulation (i.e. more stringent regulation of dominant market players). Most crucially for alternative providers like CNs, who do not have the financial power to join the so-called "co-investment agreements" (whereby large telecom companies come together as a cartel to deploy a joint FTTH network in a given area),

"NRA should also safeguard the rights of access seekers who do not participate in a given co-investment." Recital 165 also makes clear that access to NRA will retain the ability to impose active access obligations on network owners, when "access to passive [network] elements would be economically inefficient or physically impracticable." Policy-makers should therefore use their powers to ensure that active access offers are available for community
networks across local markets, especially when they review (and attach conditions to) co-investment agreements adopted by large telecom providers. Another pressing issue is that of public networks. Like the radio spectrum, networks built with taxpayers money should be treated as a commons and, as such, remain free from corporate capture. Today, their management and exploitation is often delegated by public authorities to large network operators. These entities usually adopt aggressive and untransparent pricing schemes designed for incumbent players that make it extremely costly for small access providers to interconnect with these networks. It is unacceptable that citizen initiatives designed to serve the needs of populations whose connectivity needs are badly served by traditional telecom providers be kept away from public networks. Access to these networks for non-profit entities like community networks as well as small businesses should be guaranteed, at a reasonable and proportionate cost. To do so, policy-makers should also mandate that all public networks come with active access offers and pricing schemes that makes it possible for small players, in particular community networks, to offer services on these networks.

### C.6. Protecting free software and user freedom in radio equipment

In 2014, the European Union adopted Directive 2014/53/EU on radio equipment<fnref n="7" />. Although the Directive pursues sound policy goals, it might actually impair the development of community networks. Indeed, community networks usually need to replace the software included by the manufacturer in radio hardware with free and open source software especially designed to suit their needs, a collective process that improves security and encourages the recycling of hardware, among other benefits. Article 3.3(i) of the said Directive creates legal pressure for manufacturers of radio devices to ensure the compliance of the software loaded on these devices with the European regulatory framework. As a result, there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to lock down their devices and prevent third-party modifications of the hardware.

Policy-makers should provide a general exception for all free software installed on radio devices by end-users and operators (the latter being liable if their software lead to violations of the regulatory framework), so that users' rights are safeguarded. An alternative approach would be to exempt all WiFi routers from Article 3.3(i). Further, they should require router manufacturers to open their devices for installation of third-party, open source software. As an example of this, the FCC explicitly refers to free and open source software

<footnote n="7">7 Directive 2014/53/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC.</footnote>
when stating that third-party software should not be prohibited.
Manufacturers should also be required to enable the free and open
source development communities with sufficient information of possible
consequences that firmware changes may have.

### C.7. Exploring other measures supporting the development of community networks

Beyond the most urgent measures listed above, there is a wide range of policies that can foster the growth of community networks. They could for instance explore how Universal Service funds could be used to bring targeted support to community networks as a way of tapping into their experience in building cheap and resilient networks serving the needs of underserved populations. There is a great deal that can be done to boost transparency, for instance by providing clear guidance on regulatory requirements and exemptions applicable to CNs, by compiling up-to-date databases on already existing infrastructure (passive/active offers available, licensing regime, spectrum availability etc.) or on programmed civil engineering work so as to reduce the cost of fiber deployment. By opening to the world of community networks, policy-makers, and NRA in particular, will be able to think of many creative measures to better fulfil their tasks and duties, and eventually better serve the public interest. community networks have long faced a hostile regulatory framework. But since their various models have achieved considerable results, they are nevertheless an increasingly popular way for serving the connectivity needs of people and are starting to get the recognition they deserve. Much still needs to be done to lift the obstacles that hinders their development and allow community networks to unleash all their potential. Building on new European and international policy orientations, now is the time for policy-makers to work with these initiatives to ensure the sustainable development of telecom infrastructures.
# Appendix D. Glossary of legal and technical terms

## Access network

An access network (also known as the "last mile") is a technical infrastructure that offers any host the ability to join or leave the global network at any time. The access part of the network, frequently called its "last mile" or a local area network (LAN) in campuses or enterprises, enables a person with a device to connect to the core, or backbone, network through which it can then access all available services, hosted on servers spread around the globe. Examples of access networks include the copper wire subscriber lines connecting landline telephones to the local telephone exchange or cell towers linking local cell phones to the cellular network that is often referred to as 3G/4G. In most cases, wireless is also the access to the "wired" last mile. This is thanks to the unlicensed spectrum that is free for use by radio devices, and the corresponding cheap wireless Wi-Fi devices that make it easier to connect from a short distance to wired internet connections in homes, public spaces, airports and cafes, without the need for wires, and in a way that is much less expensive than 3G/4G data contracts.

## Access point

Access point (AP) is a technical term used in Wi-Fi (more precisely in the IEEE 802.11 standards) to identify the device to which hosts connect to access a wireless local area network (WLAN), either at home or in any Hotspot.

## Advocacy

The legal framework may not reflect your values and include your needs, or even worse, it may hamper your activity. Various advocacy or lobbying strategies are available and documented in this guide: protests, online public campaigns, coordination with allies, drafting of Amendments, discussions with local, national and EU policy makers, and Litigation.
## Amendment

Legal texts can be laws (in specific countries), directives (at the EU level, which should be transposed into national laws), or EU regulations (which are directly enforceable). In the process of writing them, and of reforming them, members of parliament, as well as activists, draft so-called amendments, small propositions to change the existing draft. Such amendments will be negotiated, discussed and voted on. They are key battles for Advocacy for the inclusion of community networks and their needs in the legal framework.

## Antenna

Technically, an antenna is a device that couples your communication device with the "wireless medium". In other words, it transfers the communication signal from your device to electromagnetic waves (in transmission) and from these waves to your device (in reception). There are three types of antennas that can be used for wireless Wi-Fi communications. First, directional antennas can establish a wireless link between distant locations, possibly many kilometres away. This link could be imagined as a very long "cable", and usually requires a "line of sight" along the imaginary line connecting two locations, which needs to be clear of obstacles (walls, trees, etc.). Such links are often called "backbone" links since they establish the wider coverage area of the network and are not accessible by end-users. Second, an omnidirectional antenna, attached to an access point (AP), can spread "cables", radio signals, in all directions around it and makes it easy for many devices to connect at the same time and independently from their relative location. In the case of common household devices with omnidirectional antennas, the distance between the AP and the small omnidirectional antennas inside the hosts must be much smaller, at most a few hundred metres, and usually less, depending on the environmental conditions. Third, sector antennas lie between these two extremes, restricting the signal within a certain angle. Omnidirectional and sector antennas can also be used to create direct links between devices, which are easier to set up (the antennas find each other automatically if more easily when they fall in each other's range) and thus the corresponding networks are easier to expand, but they are more costly in terms of noise and interference. A cellular base station use a set of three or more sector antennas operating in licensed frequencies (unlike the 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies often used for Wi-Fi, licences for these frequencies are bought very expensively by the corresponding operators). Due to the configuration, size and power of their antennas and the relatively lower frequencies they use, mobile phone base stations often have much larger areas of coverage than routers that use Wi-Fi to connect with mobile devices.

## Autonomous system

An autonomous system (AS) is a TCP/IP-based network managed by the same
administration with the same routing protocol. Internet service providers (ISPs) are normally ASs. Your community network is by definition an AS unless it is composed by more than one "island" using different routing protocols.

### Beacon

A broadcast frame (packet) transmitted every 100 metres by 802.11 access points (APs). It contains the BSSID and many other parameters used to manage the Wi-Fi connection in the specific BSS.

### BSS

A basic service set (BSS) defines a Wi-Fi (802.11) wireless local area network (WLAN), in other words, all the stations that communicate with the same access point and the AP itself.

### BSSID

The identifier of a BSS, i.e. the "name" of the Wi-Fi network as announced by your laptop or smartphone. It is broadcast by the access point (AP) in beacons.

### Client

A client is a host that wishes to consume a service from a host over the network.

### Client/server

The client/server service model is the classic service architecture of internet services, inspired by traditional business models. The service resides in a host, the server, that is constantly listening for requests coming from the clients. Clients always initiate the communication procedure to obtain the service.

### Community network

An access network set up by a community of people organised into a legal entity or not. Community networks are normally managed as commons.

### Data centre

A large facility hosting a large number of servers and other computing devices that provide services either to a large company or offer computing and hosting services for rent to the general public.

### Data controller

The person who determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. See Article 4(7) of GDPR.
## Data retention

Data retention refers to the collection and storage of traffic and location data, without further analysis, for an extended period of time. This allows future access by a competent authority which can request specific information from the telecom operator retaining the data.

## Domain name system (DNS)

The DNS identifies the distributed database and the protocol to use it that translates domain names (e.g. "www.guifi.net") into IP addresses used by the IP protocol to deliver packets.

## DSL

Digital subscriber line (DSL) is a family of technologies that are used to transmit digital data over the standard twisted pair "last mile" carving three separate channels, one for voice and two for data (uplink and downlink), on this transmission medium. In telecommunications marketing, the term DSL is widely understood to mean asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL), the most commonly installed DSL technology, normally used for internet access.

## Electronic communication service (ECS)

Legal term used in European law (Directive 2002/21/EC) for services provided by means of electronic signals. It could be, for instance, a service offered through telecommunications or broadcasting networks. It excludes services which do not imply the transmission of signals.

## European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)

The EECC is the forthcoming framework for telecommunication law within the European Union. The current content of the Code is described in netCommons Deliverable 4.3, version 1.2, "European Legal Framework for CNs", Section 2.4.5. "Development and perspectives of the EECC for CNs", p. 56. Ethernet (IEEE 802.3)

A protocol to share the same communication medium, originally a coaxial cable. The term today identifies all the protocols that were derived from this initial standard, often using switching techniques to increase the capacity of the network. Ethernet technology today allows communications from 10 Mbit/s to 100 Gbit/s and more.

## Gateway

A Router (or Node) that interconnects an access network to the global internet. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) This is the new major regulation framing movement and processing of personal data in Europe. It replaces Directive 95/46/EC. It establishes a
specific framework for data processing in communication networks and in digital services in general. For a clear introduction and overview, see: 2018 reform of EU data protection rules.

## Host

A host is a computer that behaves as a communication endpoint over the internet. Hosts use the network to consume or provide services, and are normally differentiated between clients and servers, based on the main role they play in the Client/server model.

## Hosting

Hosting is the process of providing a facility where a server is made available on a network (usually by a provider that makes servers available for rent in a Data centre with reliable and available network connectivity to the internet).

## Hotspot

A hotspot is a physical location where people may obtain internet access using Wi-Fi technology, via a wireless local area network (WLAN). The term is normally reserved to places where several access points (APs) are coordinated to offer service over an entire building or campus, always identifying the network with the same BSSID.

## Hybrid space

Used here to refer to its social dimension and hybrid (digital and physical) nature, as information and communication technologies mediate interactions between people.

## IEEE

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is a private association incorporated in the USA providing industrial standards in all the engineering fields that include electrical or electronic technologies, including computer science and telecommunications. In particular, the 802 project defined the de-facto standards for all technologies related to local area networks (LANs) and short-range communications, including Ethernet (IEEE 802.3), Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11), and Bluetooth and Zigbee (IEEE 802.15).

## Information society service (ISS)

Information society service (ISS) is a legal term that refers to a wide range of economic activities taking place online. ISSs are not solely restricted to services giving rise to online contracting but also extend to services which are not remunerated by those who receive them (as long as they are an economic
activity). In this way, ISSs include services offering online information or
commercial communications, or those providing tools allowing for search,
access and retrieval of data, but also services consisting of providing access
to a communication network (for details regarding information society
services, see CJEU, Sony v. McFadden, September, 15, 2016 and Directive
2000/31/EC), but you can also refer to netCommons Deliverable 4.3.

Interconnection

In telecommunications, interconnection is the physical linking of an
operator's network with equipment or facilities not belonging to that network.
Once a machine or a network is connected to another network, they can
exchange traffic directly.

(Intermediary) liability

Liability is a duty to compensate a wrongdoing. It can arise from a breach of
an obligation imposed by the law. Depending on the breach, it can be criminal
or civil liability. Intermediaries and CNs will mostly face civil liability issues as
they may cause damages to someone as a consequence of a privacy breach or
defamation, or in cases of intellectual property rights' damages.

Internet service provider

An internet service provider (ISP) can offer both an electronic communications
service, such as access to the internet, and other services, such as providing
web-based content (see Directive 2002/21/EC). In legal documentation, the
term used more often is Information society service (ISS), but the two terms
are not strictly synonymous – for instance, an ISS may not refer to the internet
at all.

ITU

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a technical branch
of the United Nations dedicated to defining global standards for
telecommunications, including the overall management of the spectrum and
its assignment to different telecommunication services and technologies.

LAN

A local area network (LAN) is an access network with a local scope. Hosts
connected to a LAN communicate with one another directly, without a
gateway or router in between them (for example, hosts connected to the
same Wi-Fi access point or to an Ethernet switch). Sometimes LANs are not
interconnected to the global internet – contrary to public access networks
offered by internet service providers (ISPs) – and are called "intranets",
meaning that they offer services only to a specific company or to a group of
people.
Often intranets are "extended" LANs, meaning that they comprise several LANs interconnected by routers or Ethernet switches with large capacity.

## Last mile

The last mile is a term used by communications companies to refer to an Access network that reaches into the residential homes and offices of their customers (or to their phones in the case of mobile service providers).

## Litigation

Litigation is an Advocacy strategy which consists of starting a case in court against a specific law or measure, which can impact more broadly on other community networks, open Wi-Fi or human rights.

## Line of sight (LoS)

Line of sight refers to the existence of an unobstructed pathway between two antennas exchanging traffic. This is normally the only condition that makes it possible to sustain a high-capacity link at high frequencies (greater than 2 GHz).

## Metadata

Metadata is a technical word referring to all the data and information necessary to provide a telecommunication service, i.e. the transfer of user data across a network. You will not find this term in the law. Laws use the terms "traffic data" and "location data". Traffic data are data processed for the transmission of a communication on a telecommunication network (or for billing purposes, where the service is not free). The data identifying the user of a service, the receiver of a message as well as the date, time and duration of a communication are regarded as traffic data. Location data are data processed on telecommunication networks or by electronic communication services providers, indicating the geographic position of the terminal equipment of a user.

## Network

A telecommunication network is the ensemble of transmission means, switching devices and other means that allow computers and other terminals and hosts to communicate. Terminals are often also considered part of the network, even if technically they use the network to communicate and are not strictly part of it. The term is rather generic and is used with different meanings in different contexts, from the global internet in some cases to a single LAN in others.
## Node

See Router.

## Non-line of sight (NLoS)

A radio connection that is obtained without line of sight. It is the normal condition in cellular networks and Wi-Fi access with omnidirectional antennas that exploit multipath propagation due to reflections and refractions of the electromagnetic waves.

## National regulatory authority (NRA)

National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) are national independent bodies ensuring the implementation of a specific branch of European and national law. They overview a part of a market and are often able to sanction operators if they fail to comply with their obligations. There is one for data protection law (national data protection authority) and one for telecommunication law in every country of the European Union.

## Peer-to-peer (P2P)

A peer-to-peer (P2P) service is a service that is provided by many hosts that each simultaneously act as both a client and server (i.e. they hold an equal peer relationship to each other).

## Peering

In computer networking, peering is a direct interconnection of administratively separate networks normally based on the TCP/IP protocol stack (the protocols of the internet) for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the two networks. To have a peering contract the networks need to be directly interconnected. Peering contracts are very often based on a free exchange of traffic without fees for the traffic exchanged.

## Personal data

Personal data covers a very wide range of information: any information relating to an individual and which may be attributed to this individual. Concretely, data such as first name, surname, dynamic and static IP addresses, email addresses and phone numbers, for instance, should be regarded as personal data. These kind of data have a strong connection to a person and are part of his or her private life. As such, specific rules exist to ensure a higher level of protection of personal data and the privacy of users.

## Ping

Ping is a Unix command that allows a computer connected to a network to test the reachability of other computers anywhere on the internet, as log as
connectivity exists and the remote host responds to the query. On a Linux terminal, by typing "ping <IP address>" or "ping <host-name>", you are informed on the reachability of the IP interface to which the address has been assigned and on the "round-trip time" and packet loss rate between your host and the one with the given IP address (or host name). In other operating systems there may be commands with different names, or the "ping utility" may be accessed only through Apps or graphical interfaces.

## Redundancy

In engineering, redundancy is the practice of replicating critical parts of the infrastructure, e.g. the Gateway between a LAN and the internet, or a specific link in a network that, if broken, would split the network into two unreachable parts. In networks, critical services such as the Domain name system (DNS) are also very often replicated.

## Right to the city

The term "right to the city" was introduced by Henri Lefebvre in his 1968 book Le droit a la ville to express the fight for the democratisation of urban space. It is still popular today among urban movements and social scientists who use it as a reference for the ongoing struggles in this respect.

## Radio spectrum

The radio spectrum is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum with frequencies from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Above 300 GHz, infrared and optical frequencies are approached. Electromagnetic waves in this frequency range - generically called radio waves, but including microwaves, mmWaves and other more specific terms - are widely used in telecommunications due to their generally good propagation characteristics. In general, the higher the frequency, the higher the capacity of the transmission technology that can be achieved; however, as the frequency increases, the propagation becomes less efficient and it is more difficult to transmit at long distances, especially above 3-5 GHz, where line of sight is definitely needed.

## Router (or Node)

A router or node is a network device that switches data packets (carrying communication content) between different network links, enabling distant hosts to provide and consume services. A Wi-Fi access point is often improperly called a router because it usually passes communication between Wi-Fi hosts and an Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) connection that provides further access to a router behind it, which is normally "invisible" to the user.
## Server

A server is a software process that provides services to clients running on other hosts. The term server is also used to identify the computers that provide such services.

## Server farm

A coordinated group of computers (servers) that host services and provide them with high performance.

## Service

A service is the result of appropriate manipulation (normally by several software programs and processes) of information that generates a useful outcome, i.e. an outcome that is useful to someone. It can be other information (e.g. web services, database access, etc.) or the stream of a video or music for pleasure.

## Spectrum

See Radio spectrum.

## TCP/IP

TCP/IP is the name of the protocol architecture of the internet, which takes its name from the two main protocols: the transmission control protocol at the transport layer, taking care of end-to-end transmissions including retransmissions when packets are lost and congestion control, and the internet protocol at the network layer, which takes care of routing and delivery of the data packets from the source host to the destination host.

## Terms of use

Terms of use can also be called an agreement, charter, declaration or memorandum of understanding. They are texts which contain legal obligations, such as contracts or licences, but also, in the case of CNs, the common goals, philosophical and political principles and values underlying the relations between peers. Examples are the Network Commons Declaration, the Pico Peering Agreement, the Freifunk Memo of Understanding, and the netCommons Terms of Use template in Appendix B that we propose for you to develop and adapt.

## Transit

Internet transit is the service of allowing network traffic to cross or "transit" an autonomous system (AS). Transit services are normally paid for and are used, for instance, to connect a small internet service provider (ISP) to the internet, or your community network to an ISP.
## Tunnel

In telecommunications and in relation to the internet in particular, "tunnel" refers to technologies that allow embedding a direct "logical" connection between two hosts within an entire network. Tunnels are often encrypted if they refer to specific applications, or if they are meant to protect privacy. Tunnelling is widely used at all levels in the internet, and also allows creating peering agreements between networks that do not have a direct physical connection exploiting a transit service.

## Virtual private network (VPN)

A virtual private network (VPN) is a network technology that creates an encrypted tunnel through which a computer or host can access a single server or an entire private network that would otherwise be unreachable from the host location.

## xDSL

xDSL identifies all the different versions of digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. As there are several variants of DSL connections (for instance ADSL and HDSL, which stand for asymmetric and high-bit-rate DSL, respectively), the umbrella term xDSL is used to collectively refer to this family of technologies.
# Appendix E. Suggested readings

We offer here a list of books, documents and online resources that you may be interested in reading to improve some of your skills and knowledge on community networks. They are divided by topic and are accompanied by a few lines explaining what they are about and why we suggest reading them. These go beyond, in number and depth of discussion, the short list of self-teaching materials we already presented in Chapter 12. Some of them, mostly the documents produced by netCommons, have already been pointed to in the text as sources of information, and indeed they are part of the complete documentation of the work we did to be able to produce this compendium.

## E.1. Legal, policy, history

**European Legal Framework for CNs**, by Virginie Aubrée, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Federica Giovanella, Arthur Messaud and Felix Tréguer, netCommons Deliverable 4.3, August 2018.

Why you should read it: Community networks are based on democratic governance, infrastructure managed as commons, and promotion of digital human rights. Their existence and the non-mainstream way in which they conduct their activities fall within the scope of several areas of law, all over the European Union. This document presents the status of EU legislation referring to CNs and establishes formal guidelines to respect the applicable law, as well as describing various advocacy activities aimed at influencing the current legal framework.

**Community Networks and Political Advocacy** by Felix Tréguer and Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, netCommons Deliverable 1.5, February 2018.

Why read it: If you ever had questions like:

* What are the appropriate organisational modes to engage in political advocacy in order to foster the growth of community networks as
cooperative platforms?

* How have advances been achieved by community networks through their interactions with other actors in the telecom sector and the local, national and European policy environments?

* In short, how can a CN build political advocacy capacities?

**The Rise of the Network Commons**, by Armin Medosch, unfinished book available on The Next Layer

Why you should read it: The late Armin Medosch was not able to finish this book, but the draft that he published on his blog is a great way to understand the beginnings of European community networks as well as their importance. A great activist and theorist of free networks, Medosch offers hands-on accounts in a vivid style that will take you back to the early days of community networks and their seminal importance for sustaining an organic and democratic internet.

**Alternative Communications Networks Throughout History**, by Felix Tréguer and Dominique Trudel, netCommons Deliverable 5.1, November 2016.

Why you should read it: This netCommons deliverable will take you on a journey across the history of community-owned telecom infrastructures, starting with the first telephone networks at the turn of the 19th century, continuing with the free radio movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and ending with the first IP-based community networks in the 1990s. This will help you understand recurring themes in that history, and give you a sense of the political importance of community networks.

## E.2. Ethics, social, economic

**netCommons Political and Ethical Guidelines for an Alternative Internet**, by Dimitris Boucas, Christian Fuchs, Maria Michalis, Virginie Aubree and Félix Tréguer, netCommons Deliverable 4.4, December 2018.

Why you should read it: This deliverable frames the phenomenon of community networks within a broader vision on the human rights to communicate and to have unrestricted access to digital communications and resources in general. It is divided into a more theoretical part dealing with ethics and a more practical part dealing with the implementation of such ethical principles and how community networks fit into these principles.

**Incentives for Participation and Active Collaboration in CNs**, by Merkouris Karaliopoulos, Panagiota Micholia and Iordanis Koutsopoulos, netCommons Deliverable 2.8, October 2018.

Why you should read it: Economic sustainability is always a key issue in any non-profit endeavour, all the more in commons-based ones. In view of
this, finding the proper socio-economic incentives for active participation
is fundamental. This report suggests various and novel pricing schemes
for community networks, starting from the analysis of existing community
networks. In addition, a clear theoretical framework is offered that can be used
to further research and innovation on incentives and proper balances in the
economy of a community network. The mathematical part may result difficult
to access for non-technical readers, but the rest of the document is easily
accessible for everyone.

**Community Networks and the Right to the City**, by Ileana Apostol, Panayotis Antoniadis and Alexandros Papageorgiou, netCommons Deliverable 5.5, November 2018.

Why you should read it: Digital and physical spaces are increasingly intertwined and the concept of the "right to the city" can provide important guidance to community network activists who claim our rights to the internet, but also a framework that will allow collaborations with other actors in both urban and rural areas. This netCommons report provides introductory theoretical material and examples of concrete steps toward bringing digital and urban activists closer together.

**Multi-Disciplinary Methodology for Applications Design for CNs**, including *Design Guidelines and Adoption Facilitation*, by Panayotis Antoniadis, Ileana Apostol, et al., netCommons Deliverable 3.3, April 2018.

Why you should read it: Community networks go beyond internet access infrastructures and can become the hosts of a variety of local services and applications. But for their design and successful deployment, collaboration between actors from different disciplines and with different skill sets is required. This extensive report proposes a methodology for facilitating such collaborations and, most importantly, describes how this methodology was developed over time through a real case study of the Sarantaporo CN in Greece. The complementary booklet titled "Community Servers: Bringing Community Networks to the Ground", provides easier access to this approach and will be subject to a constant co-creation process at http://nethood.org/studio/

**The Organic Internet: Building Communications Networks from the Grassroots**, by Panayotis Antoniadis, published by Palgrave Macmillan, November 2018.

Why you should read it: This is an open access article that establishes a useful analogy between the internet and agriculture. It provides a lot of introductory material on the building blocks of the internet and useful arguments on why community networks could be seen as a more sustainable and organic solution for building networking infrastructures. It also brings the question of sustainability to the fore and discusses how both internet consumption and production should be re-conceptualised in an energy-limited world.
**The Community Network Manual: How to Build the Internet Yourself**, edited by Luca Belli, 2018 DC3 Outcome, November 2018.

Why you should read it: This book launched at the 2018 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), soon after the netCommons booksprint, is a collection of very useful and complementary material to this book, including five chapters contributed by netCommons partners on scalability, the FFDN case study, legal issues, and the potential of community currencies and blockchain technology for the sustainability of community networks. There are also chapters on interesting technical aspects ranging from open hardware to open source software for local applications.

**Global Information Society Watch 2018: Community Networks**, edited by Alan Finlay, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), November 2018.

Why you should read it: The 2018 edition of APC's annual Global Information Society Watch (GISWatch) report focuses on community networks, and provides a very wide-reaching perspective on these initiatives around the world. The 43 country reports included in this book capture the different experiences and approaches in setting up community networks across the globe. This material is complemented by more technical or general thematic chapters. netCommons researchers contributed several chapters.

**Technological Sovereignty Vol. 2**, edited by Alex Hache, Descontrol, 2017.

Why you should read it: This book will help you understand how to build alternative digital technologies, and what initiatives besides community networks can help maintain freedom, autonomy and social justice when it comes to mobile telephony, translation services, online whistleblowing platforms, and ethical servers. You will draw inspiration from these narratives, and beef up your political understanding of what alternative communications are about.

### E.3. Technical

**Report on Existing Community Networks and their Organization**, by Leandro Navarro, Roger Baig, Felix Freitag, Emmanouil Dimogerontakis, Felix Tréguer, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Leonardo Maccari, Panagiota Micholia and Panayotis Antoniadis, netCommons Deliverable 1.2, September 2016.

Why you should read it: This is a comprehensive report surveying existing community networks across Europe and beyond, describing their organisation and also offering a classification (or taxonomy if you prefer) and interpretation of their organisation.

**Report on the Governance Instruments and their Application to CNs**, by Leandro Navarro, Roger Baig and Felix Freitag, netCommons Deliverable 1.4, December 2017.
Why you should read it: Albeit quite technical and theoretical, this report offers a
concise overview of good practices and bad practices for community network governance. The analysis carried out covers many different community networks in very different locations and settings, thus providing an ample perspective where everyone can find useful information for their specific case. Suggestions are given on how to improve existing governance methods and tools.

**Commotion Construction Kit**, by Commotion Wireless (CCK).

Why you should read it: The CCK is a set of documentation tools that the Open Technology Institute produced to help people set up and configure their own networks, in a "do it ourselves" way. While it primarily refers to the software developed by Commotion, it contains generic information for non-tech-savvy people on wireless mesh networks.

**RFC 3626, 7181: The Optimized Links State Protocol (v1 and v2)**, by various authors, published as IETF Request for Comments: v1, v2.

Why you should read it: OLSR is one of the better documented and supported routing protocols used for wireless mesh networks. It is used in several community networks and has two open source implementations. The RFCs explain in detail its behaviour and can be used as a reference to understand the behaviour of link state routing protocols.

**RFC 6126: The Babel Routing Protocol**, by Juliusz Chroboczek, published as an IETF Request for Comments.

Why you should read it: Babel is another routing protocol for mesh and distributed networks in general. It has an open source implementation and it is used in some community networks. The RFC can be used as a reference to understand the behaviour of distance vector routing protocols.

**LibreMesh documentation**, by various authors, published on the LibreMesh website.

Why you should read it: LibreMesh is an easy-to-use Linux distribution targeted to wireless routers, which automatically configures the routers to create a mesh network. It is used in several community networks and its documentation is well realised.

**Wireless Battle Mesh website, at battlemesh.org.**

Why you should read it: Every year, the European (and not only) community of mesh networks meets at the "Wireless Battle of the Mesh", a self-organised event where developers and activists of community networks gather. For a week all the participants present their networks and their technical advances. The website contains dozens of presentations made by community networks around the world, describing their solutions and organisations.
**A Crash Course in Mesh Networking**, by Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research, 2007, available here.

Why you should read it: Victor Bahl was the head of a group at Microsoft Research (MSR) in the early 2000s, when MSR was actively looking into wireless multi-hop networks. The 257 slides summarise many of the technical and other issues that are relevant to the set-up and operation of wireless multi-hop networks as well as solutions that the MSR team had come up with by that time. Many of these issues, such as types of interference and countermeasures, are discovered/realised/anticipated by practitioners of CNs much later in the course of CN growth.

**Multi-Channel Wireless Networks: Theory to Practice**, Distinguished Lecture at KTH-Stockholm, 2010, by Prof. Nitin Vaidya, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, video available here.

Why you should watch it: Prof. Vaidya is an established figure in wireless multi-hop networking research, and has conducted considerable research on various layers of these networks. His talk focuses on multi-channel wireless networks and could serve as an accessible tutorial for CN practitioners who want to understand more about the way wireless networks operate.

**A Week in the Life of Three Large Wireless Community Networks**, by Leonardo Maccari and Renato Lo Cigno, Ad-Hoc Networks, 2015, open access version from the University of Trento

Why you should read it: An easy-to-read scientific paper analysing characteristics and pitfalls of the topology of ninux in Rome and Funkfeuer in Graz and Vienna. These three networks were selected because of the availability of detailed topology information as well as the fact that they use OLSR, so that the analysis is homogeneous and highlights the behaviour of this protocol. It is an interesting reading showing how the topology of the network influences performance and reliability, and thus affects users. In conclusion, the better the network is planned, the better it will work, but network planning is not as easy as it may look.
Panayotis Antoniadis

Ileana Apostol

Virginie Aubrée

Adam Burns

Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay

Maria Michalis

Jürgen Neumann

Ramon Roca

Félix Tréguer

Edited by Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay
& Félix Tréguer

This guide on how to build a community network, a shared local telecommunications infrastructure managed as a commons, was written collectively by a group of pioneers of community networks in Europe, activists and researchers.

Meant for a wide audience, it is full of anecdotes as well as legal, technical, governance, economic and policy recommendations based on the three-year-long European research project netCommons. Its goal is to take the reader through a set of actions aimed at setting up and fostering the growth of community networks, and to provide a mix of practical knowledge and explanations illustrated by hands-on experiences and real-life stories.

Starting with presentations of established community networks, and an introduction to the importance and the role of community networks, it provides step-by-step guidelines and concrete information on the resources needed to start a community network, get it running, and keep it sustainable in the long term. From technical options to economic models, governance choices, legal requirements, and the various skills needed to be involved, this lively resource proposes ways to engage with a local community at every stage of a community network.

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

Internet
Society

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

APC
ASSOCIATION FOR
PROGRESSIVE
COMMUNICATIONS

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>

netCommons