Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02 - High Altitude Platforms Internet Access

"Souma B. Wanta" <> Tue, 15 December 2015 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847591B29BF for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:47:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.737
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_91=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, REPTO_QUOTE_YAHOO=0.646, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IeFPNdEJh_Qy for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:47:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 823F61ACEB1 for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:47:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1450147672; bh=EP2TfJRoJI9nSWv8v82H7uf1ga0ayyrPwP6lKg/pCis=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=U0+PJ/VtBgcVOxrhuU9r7J8flSFbB6KhS0mGOnOpgG2/DIXVw+3Drp2i7epPbCKCBiNKwPIc/qiIJLb0pyhR+QUifaaehueSCPSYAg+zd2CN8iFeq4LvKNanxlaWMBjVNBikcBFgQGfDOUM86jWTqetGYIgM71T1ADK8U/hAaOux9G0TvvDNxDkHzF1jm9q1uJmpNcaS6ZC6JDuS9Cuz9loUrqCKUv9fvWUPsSXZd4ZGJZCvxjnPxoWjk8WJciXgS+kKW8lbnXIm1K91drV0V/gn8yF1A1lt6WVzS//CVTpLOQyhdsBf7cYyN15v0hlSvPwD9o5n+gbP6PGrDrD1Kw==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2015 02:47:52 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2015 02:44:56 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2015 02:44:56 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2015 02:44:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: tRsYDI4VRDuH3bg6h1Ne8fM0A1_gsE.64XMeycwSSJA-
Received: by; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:44:55 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Souma B. Wanta" <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9s_Arcia-Moret?= <>, =?UTF-8?Q?Javier_Sim=C3=B3?= <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1020710_785596402.1450147495331"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:15:33 -0800
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02 - High Altitude Platforms Internet Access
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Souma B. Wanta" <>
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:50:24 -0000

Treading within this same topic of Alternative Access Network Solutions and Deployments, I can't help but notice and bring up the topic and area of High High Altitude Plartforms (HAPS) which is a "more or less" or somewhat novel technology solution and technique of providing wireless information (internet) access to underserved areas in a widely deployed fashion. In fact technology has been growing so fast to the point where it challenges us ( society and industry) to come up with new ways, techniques and methods to respond to the needs of markets and consumers. So briefly put, High Altitude Platform wireless access is a defined as the use of unmanned areal devices or machines ( balloons, drones, aircraft) to provide wireless coverage to a particular area by leveraging a high altitude sky wireless transmission medium and spectrum and also satellite capabilities. This concept has recently gained traction and made even more innovative through the increased implementation efforts of internet companies such as Google, Facebook. Although this concept is at its very initial and experimental stage, I believe it holds great potential in unlocking so many internet access oppoturnities for the underserved in terms of affordability and flexibility. Even though the development efforts are being led by commercial companies at this moment, it is more likely and promising to believe that once the technologies are commercialized, there will be new models that will emerge and allow different organized or independent communities and individuals to deploy and exploit these HAP technologies at a very low cost and in a very accessible way. With Google, putting a significant focus on Developing countries for this project (Project Loon), we could certainly imagine and expect that once the trials are over, it will be a possibility for them to approach underserved communities and countries and try to offer of subsidize the technology for low cost access and usage. As a result for example, communities and populations in turn could easily acquire the techniques and deploy these balloons for their own areas and fulfill their wireless connectivity and access needs. And the whole business rationale is to work more with populations than conventional operators in deploying this. So there is a good possibility for the concept to become cheaply transferred, affordable and easy to deploy by communities. Therefore I would to suggest these technologies as qualifying ones to be also considered to be Alternative Access deployment technlogies because they hold so much potential in unlocking so many opportunities especially in cellular wireless access (4G-LTE, 5G, IoT) for underserved, rural and remote areas. So we can definitely discuss it as being a strong and qualifying option for alternative access.For more information you can peruse or go over these following links:-
Thank you,
Souma B-W

    On Monday, December 14, 2015 5:51 AM, Andrés Arcia-Moret <> wrote:

 Dear all,
I second Javier, voting "alternative". I think we’ve all agreed on the name alternative networks because it (mainly) matches an independent willingness of communities to get connected.. 

On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó <> wrote:
 I don't like the word "complementary" for two reasons:
 1) Something is complementary when there is no competition. But, why not? I don't see why a community network cannot be deployed even if it is somehow in competition with a "traditional" existing network deployed by an operator.
 2) The word "alternative" was used focusing on a number of criteria, not only on the non-existance of a traditional network.
 I vote "alternative".
 Best regards
 El 12/12/15 a las 17:03, jsaldana escribió:
Hi, Arjuna and all,In my opinion, in order to clarify if "Alternative network" = "Complementary network", we should answer two questions:A) Are all "Alternative networks" also "Complementary networks"?In the draft we are considering five kinds of networks: 1 Community Networks  
2 Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
3 Shared infrastructure model
4 Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders  
5 Testbeds for research purposesIn the case of 4, it is clear that they are a "complement," since they share the infrastructure and may reduce the CAPEX of the operator.In the case of 1, they may become a "complement". Is this currently happening?I don't think that WISPs (2) usually share their infrastructure with traditional operators. Am I right? 
B) Are all "Complementary networks" also "Alternative networks"?I think for example in the Wi-Fi network of an airport. This network can be considered as "complementary", because it may be used to offload data from the mobile network. But it is not "alternative" (it is not included in the draft), because it may be promoted by a traditional operator (not by the people), etc. 
Any other ideas?Thanks,Jose  El 2015-12-12 13:45, Arjuna Sathiaseelan escribió: 
 Thanks Mat.    I have been recently discussing with Roger from Guifi about whether community networks should be termed as Alternative Networks or should it be called Complimentary Networks considering that community networks could end up sharing infrastructure with network operators who could see this as a great opportunity to access the last mile without a CAPEX.   So is Alternative Networks the right terminology or should we have Complimentary Networks?   Regards  
 On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford <> wrote:
 I think it’s time we tried to conclude our work on draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Jose detailed the changes in the most recent update when he announced the update to the list, so I won’t repeat those here. I have not seen any further discussion.
 If you have any concerns or further comments regarding the content of this document, please raise them on this mailing list by Tuesday December 15th. I hope to initiate IRSG review of the document immediately thereafter.
 gaia mailing list
 Arjuna Sathiaseelan 
 N4D Lab:  
gaia mailing list
gaia mailing list

Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <>
Subdirector de Ord. Docente
ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
D-204, Departamental III
Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Tel: 914888428, Fax: 914887500
Web personal:
gaia mailing list


gaia mailing list