Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Adding "ownership" as a new category?

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Sun, 17 April 2016 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs10@columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AACF12E08B for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0_AmJUSi55T3 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from millet.cc.columbia.edu (millet.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.72.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FC412E09A for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hazelnut (hazelnut.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.213.250]) by millet.cc.columbia.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3H325TA011464 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:03:10 -0400
Received: from hazelnut (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A61D81 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from salak.cc.columbia.edu (salak.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E3981 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-f200.google.com (mail-qk0-f200.google.com [209.85.220.200]) by salak.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id u3H339AR003179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-f200.google.com with SMTP id t5so286792614qkc.1 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZeI87+iLBKS6HWGC6GMvNH32eRoVJbXlkI1iA0C/4X8=; b=SIhAKSatkPUPzLBqOAAaSly5k/rQah79EyB3eYDUnvz2y0pSTClv1V+WDuWaZJnCxm xBXMhuylfQ65S41b/nSj2HL2kwfb2KmFioAEDzCfC3qZx1bAFicPxTsdv/5z2GV2NM0w taiDzifq9kB0b7De4TSc2HEBLOuIshwEg6/38Mhp0uprMQgdFMKzxXQQMyPRXxJy+Xag kgmBSokbBrA33XEeKwqE0AzSV74MnDpyc9Qzb8m3JUtS7v3ePeS1kgQ6nE3Zrg/iV1v/ mL7fm33KENEWx6U7OxVCHPmtqIXMy+IMCUm0WAYEIOVhXe512dTFxSAGFmNb1ikuCS8S F8lQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXgNWJGtd3aG6gnor26S3qIxzfP0fOpJRWw8hpDdzHh054G2xX87W8cJfMP4UAi2iJFR9DtMu84NszpdfJDMlOFRojFq2b6dFcQLSPA79SYQTFN4ve6wZvhum+TdOV2gJ067jPYnkQ=
X-Received: by 10.37.71.130 with SMTP id u124mr16333702yba.93.1460862189786; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.37.71.130 with SMTP id u124mr16333695yba.93.1460862189544; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.230.88 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 20:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <043a01d1962e$9acb45d0$d061d170$@unizar.es>
References: <043a01d1962e$9acb45d0$d061d170$@unizar.es>
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CACgrgBb_qBvw2q09k5AVWYvQpipSM34uGv3jKb02=JYb-n6Utw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11423c2cdfb5460530a57bd3"
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/0vcZCB1C2YfCJBKYj1llMbZHkRY>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Adding "ownership" as a new category?
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 03:03:14 -0000

An emerging model in the US is the provision of Internet access by rural
electric cooperatives. They are not-for-profit membership organizations,
with their customers as shareholders. See

http://www.nreca.coop/about-electric-cooperatives/co-op-facts-figures/

They don't seem to fit into any of the categories below. They are not
"commercial" in the traditional sense since they are not-for-profit and
member-governed.

Also, many (most, by subscriber count?) WISPs are for-profit and thus not
fundamentally different than regular commercial providers. In other words,
a WISP may be a lot smaller than (say) Verizon, and may be a
privately-owned company rather than listed on a stock exchange, but they
are otherwise the same.

Finally, for many commercial providers, customers can buy and own their own
network equipment. This is, for example, true for cable modems in the US
and for DSL modems in most countries. Thus, this distinction also seems
rather arbitrary.

Thus, in general, this categorization seems to be more anecdotal than
systematic.

Henning


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We currently have 5 "axes" in the classification:
>
> 1 Commercial model / promoter
> 2 Goals and motivation
> 3 Administrative model
> 4 Technologies employed
> 5 Typical scenarios
>
> The question is if we add "ownership" of the equipment as a new category,
> or if it is part of the "Commercial model / promoter" category.
>
> If we add it, we would have to add it in the table at the beginning of
> each subsection. It is not a big deal.
>
> This could be a possibility:
>
> a) Community networks
>
> Ownership               Usually each user maintains the ownership of the
> equipment he/she has contributed. It can be donated
>
>
> b) WISPs
>
> Ownership               the equipment belongs to the company
>
>
> c) Shared infrastructure
>
> Ownership               the community maintains the ownership of the
> infrastructure which is being shared
>
>
> d) Crowdshared approaches
>
> Ownership               the APs creating the shared network belong to
> their owners
>
>
> e) Testbeds for research purposes
>
> Ownership               the research entity usually owns the equipment.
> Users contributing their own hardware is also possible
>
>
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Mitar [mailto:mmitar@gmail.com]
> > Enviado el: jueves, 14 de abril de 2016 6:26
> > Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
> > CC: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>
> > Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments.
> Mitar review,
> > question #4. Classification
> >
> > "Hi!
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
> wrote:
> > > I think "ownership of equipment" can be seen as a part of the
> "commercial model /
> > promoter". In fact, the text in "Commerical model / promoter" already
> talks about
> > ownership: " A community that already *owns* some infrastructure shares
> it with an
> > operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes."
> >
> > Not sure if you are trying to combine these just so that there would be
> not too much
> > changes to the structure of the current draft, but you should decide
> which direction
> > you want to go. I think what Vesna also mentioned in her feedback is the
> lack of
> > clear ownership categorization.
> >
> > How I see it:
> >
> > - or we see ownership something which is part of the commercial model
> category,
> > but then we need to add additional options to this category to make it
> clear what are
> > those possible ownership combinations
> > - or we see ownership something which is orthogonal dimension to the
> commercial
> > model and then we list possible options there
> >
> > Personally, I think ownership is an orthogonal dimension to the
> commercial model.
> > But in any case I really think this should be listed in the table at the
> beginning of
> > each alternative network description.
> > The reason is that this is one of the core properties of community
> networks (and
> > some other alternative networks). This is in fact one of main
> innovations in this
> > space. We can hardly discuss alternative networks if we do not tackle
> alternative
> > models of ownership. This is why I believe ownership should even be its
> own
> > category. Because then to the readers it will be much cleaner why are
> those
> > networks
> > different:
> >
> > - they have different business models
> > - they have different ownership models
> > - they have different organizational structures
> > - they exist in areas where traditional ISPs do not (rural areas)
> > - they use technologies in innovative ways
> >
> > I think those are really important dimensions along which to describe
> networks.
> >
> > I can understand that it is maybe hard to add one more category, but I
> think it is
> > really important.
> >
>
> BR,
>
> Jose
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>