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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Fri, 06 May 2016 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 CC40A12D940 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 02:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 XRSKA66BzDzV for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 02:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3D012D932 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2016 02:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u469iumD011091; Fri, 6 May 2016 11:44:57 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Henning Schulzrinne' <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, 'gaia' <gaia@irtf.org>
References: <043a01d1962e$9acb45d0$d061d170$@unizar.es> <CACgrgBb_qBvw2q09k5AVWYvQpipSM34uGv3jKb02=JYb-n6Utw@mail.gmail.com> <000001d19f01$f1090960$d31b1c20$@unizar.es> <CACgrgBYtGrS347TwF=GwxdvgvdaUu-dYRo791jLNH5hFvjNr0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACgrgBYtGrS347TwF=GwxdvgvdaUu-dYRo791jLNH5hFvjNr0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 11:45:10 +0200
Message-ID: <01da01d1a77b$fb785b80$f2691280$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01DB_01D1A78C.BF045FD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQH5duxkSWgy1Cxb38e4nn09fe7JkgLiZRH5AU7HNxcBzNrO+Z8sGLwA
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/93tD5iQeUr1FEqwc2PMdJWbVUBI>
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: Fri, 06 May 2016 09:45:17 -0000

Hi, Henning and all,
 
I have written this text trying to summarize Rural Electric Cooperatives. I have used your reference.
 
It would be a new category, as they do not seem to fit in any of the existing ones.
 
5.5.  Rural electric cooperatives
 
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial       | rural electric cooperative                     |
   | model/promoter   |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and        | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital  |
   | motivation       | expenditures in Internet access                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
  | Administration   | The cooperative may partner with a local ISP   |
   |                  | to operate the network                         |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies     | wired (fiber) and wireless                     |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | Typical          | rural                                          |
   | scenarios        |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
 
       Table 5: Rural electric cooperatives' characteristics summary
 
   A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public
   utility to its members.  In some zones (e.g. rural and low populated
   areas in U.S.), the so-called "rural electric cooperatives" are
   becoming popular, especially in zones where the nearest investor-
   owned utility would not provide service, believing there would be
   insufficient revenue to justify the capital expenditures required.
 
   In many zones, this problem is not limited to electricity, but also
   to telecommunications infrastructure, as mainframe Internet providers
   have decided not to improve Internet access.  Some rural electric
   cooperatives started installing fiber optics to run their smart grid
   applications, but they found they could provide fiber-based broadband
   to members at little additional cost [Cash].  In some of these cases,
   rural electric cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide
   Internet connection to their members [Carlson].
 
   [Carlson]  Carlson, S. and C. Mitchell, "RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for
              New Rural Internet Cooperative", ILSR, Institute for Local
              Self-Reliance, Next Century Cities https://ilsr.org/wp-
              content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/rs-fiber-report-
              2016.pdf, 2016.
 
   [Cash]     Cash, C., "CO-MO'S D.I.Y. model for building broadband",
              RE Magazine and ECT.coop, National Rural Electric
              Cooperative Association
              (NRECA) http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/, 2015.
 
 
Any comments or improvements will be welcome.
 
Jose 
 
De: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] 
Enviado el: martes, 26 de abril de 2016 3:08
Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
CC: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>; gaia <gaia@irtf.org>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Adding "ownership" as a new category?
 
This is a relatively new effort (a few years old), and I'm not aware of any publications, as they seem more interested in cherry pickers than conference publications. I will try to ask the person who was at the FCC working on that topic.
 
A non-peer-reviewed report is at
 
https://ilsr.org/report-mn-rural-fiber/
 
(In general, that organization has a lot of material on "alternative" networks, albeit with a positive bias rather than a neutral stance or unbiased evaluation.)
 
Also, your definition talks about users participating in design, deployment, operation and maintenance, but this is not how RECs work. They pay professionals to climb poles and string cable; the coop members are owners, but do not operate the network, just as they are not all volunteer electricians and linemen.
 
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es <mailto:jsaldana@unizar.es> > wrote:
Hi, Henning,
 
Rural electric cooperatives seem an interesting case, which could also be included in the classification.
 
I have found some other information:
http://remagazine.coop/broadband-the-new-greatest-thing/
http://remagazine.coop/co-mo-broadband/
 
They say that “While installing fiber optics to run its smart grid applications, the co-op found it could provide fiber-based broadband to members at very little additional cost.”
 
As you say, this model does not fit with any other in our classification. But I think it does fit with our current definition, as we are talking about small-scale networks, in rural zones, owned by the users (they are cooperatives).
 
1.2.  Alternative Networks
 
   The term "Alternative Network" proposed in this document refers to
   the networks that do not share the characteristics of "mainstream
   network deployments".  Therefore, they may share some of the next
   characteristics:
 
   o  Relatively small scale (i.e. not spanning entire regions).
 
   o  Administration may not follow a centralized approach.
 
   o  They may require a reduced investment in infrastructure, which may
      be shared by the users, commercial and non-commercial entities.
 
   o  Users in alternative networks may participate in the network
      design, deployment, operation and maintenance.
 
Do we have more information about them? Any research paper about this? I have found the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/about/).
 
Thanks a lot!
 
Jose