Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification

[Maria Uden <[e-mail]>]

Yes, and the technical details can be presented by themselves, in even more detail, without referring to the socio-technical context?
A test bed can have different underlying reasons, for instance be thought of as a way to raise funding for a community network.
Maria

From: Henning G Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: den 10 februari 2015 15:30
To: Maria Uden
Cc: Jose Saldana; [e-mail]; Matthew Ford
Subject: Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification

Another approach is to look at the underlying motivation for these approaches, i.e., addressing deployment and usage hurdles:

* reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user, or both)
* providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional carrier-based financing)
* reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network administration)
* leveraging expertise
* reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in general; relevance, etc.)

Most of the examples given, except the testbed, seem to fall into one or more of these categories. Given that there are likely more solutions than the examples discussed, it might be helpful to focus on the goals, as that then also allows to evaluate whether and to what extent a solution meets the goal. Otherwise, it's just technology for coolness' sake.

Henning

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Maria Uden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
The classification is interesting as information but, is it not only examples, after all? Or, what is the purpose? An analogy: My experience as teacher is that the more detailed descriptions the more the students will ask – because each detail opens questions. Like the fractals one sees in these nice maths/science pictures. They will feel insecure and instead of getting to action themselves wonder if they can really do it, as it is so defined into details what “it shall be about”.
Cheers,
Maria

From: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: den 9 februari 2015 16:27
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Matthew Ford'
Subject: Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification


Hi all,



Mat has sent this suggestion:



> A general observation: I find the taxonomical aspect a bit lacking at present. I would

> like to have a sharper identification of the characteristics of identified alternative

> network types that distinguishes them. Is it the commercial model? Is it the

> centralisation or decentralisation of network management? The descriptions are fine

> as far as they go, but if there's something unique about the different types that

> clearly distinguishes them it would help to call that out better. Maybe a matrix of the

> various identified types of network and some of the important characteristics would

> be appropriate.



This is the current classification (section 2):



     2.1.  Community Networks

       2.1.1.  Free Networks

     2.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs

     2.3.  Shared infrastructure model

     2.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders

     2.5.  Testbeds for research purposes



Mat, are you suggesting to include a table like this?:



             | Commercial model | centralization | technologies | typical   |

             |                  |                |              | scenarios |

             +------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+

CNs          |                  |                |              |           |

WISPx        |                  |                |              |           |

Shared inf   |                  |                |              |           |

Crowdshared  |                  |                |              |           |

Testbeds     |                  |                |              |           |