Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. The axes for the classification

["Song, Stephen" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ermanno Pietrosemoli <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
> regarding
> ========
>
> 4) Technologies employed (Javier’s list)
>
> * normal WiFi
>
> * WiLD
>
> * modified WiFi with TDMA MAC
>
> * 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands
>
> * white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions
>
> * satellite solutions
>
> * low-cost optical fiber systems
>
> ===========
>
> I have some comments:
>
> WiLD is a form  of modified WiFi with TDMA MAC, so I would group them
> both as "modified WiFi for long distance"
>
>
> regarding "white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions", I have not been
> able to find any White Space vendor that offers "802.22 compliant
> solutions", the standard is fine, but no vendor acrtually offers it. The
> White space vendors that I am familiar with all offer proprietary
> solutions, Adaptrum, Carlson, 6th harmonics, Doodle Labs.
>
>
> I read that the Japanese NICT did a deployment of "802.22 and 802.11af
> compliant equipment" but have not been able to obtain any technical
> details, so I suggest to just label this as "White Spaces Solutions"
>


Agree with Ermanno on all points although in the final one I would say
"Dynamic Spectrum Solutions" rather than "White Space Solutions"

Cheers.... Steve



> Best regards,
>
> Ermanno
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> You are right: the current version of the draft says something a bit
>> confusing:
>>
>>
>>
>>    Different criteria are used in order
>>
>>    to build a classification as e.g., the ownership of the equipment,
>>
>>    the way the network is organized, the participatory model, the
>>
>>    extensibility, if they are driven by a community, a company or a
>>
>>    local (public or private) stakeholder,
>>
>>
>>
>> Taking into account your proposals, I have tried to build a scheme with
>> five “axes” of the classification. They could perhaps be:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Commercial model / promoter
>>
>> * community
>>
>> * public stakeholder
>>
>> * company
>>
>> * crowdshared
>>
>> * shared infrastructure
>>
>> * research testbed
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Goals and motivation (Henning’s classification)
>>
>> * 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.)
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Typical scenarios
>>
>> * urban
>>
>> * rural
>>
>> * rural in developing countries
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) Technologies employed (Javier’s list)
>>
>> * normal WiFi
>>
>> * WiLD
>>
>> * modified WiFi with TDMA MAC
>>
>> * 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands
>>
>> * white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions
>>
>> * satellite solutions
>>
>> * low-cost optical fiber systems
>>
>>
>>
>> 5) Network management
>>
>> * Centralized
>>
>> * Distributed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do all of them make sense to you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are they “orthogonal” enough?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jose
>>
>>
>>
>> *De:* gaia [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *En
>> nombre de *Javier Simó
>> *Enviado el:* martes, 10 de febrero de 2015 16:30
>> *Para:* [e-mail]
>> *Asunto:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for
>> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> El 10/02/15 a las #4, Maria Uden escribió:
>>
>> Yes, and the technical details can be presented by themselves, in even
>> more detail, without referring to the socio-technical context?
>>
>> In my humble point of view,
>>     - yes, technical details can be presented by themselves without
>> referring to the context, provided that later in the document technology is
>> going to be crossed in the matrix with the different alternative networks
>> together with other vertical descriptors.
>>
>>     - however, i think that we should not go very deep into the details
>> in describing technologies. They are described either in standards or in
>> papers that can be referenced. Techniques that are well known and that are
>> explained in books or articles should also be cited. We should be able to
>> summarize those things, with appropriate references, instead of extending
>> the document with them unnecessarily. The accent of the document should not
>> be in the technologies, but in the definition of the alternative networks
>> with the discussion of all the relevant characteristics (socio-technical
>> context, technologies used, bussiness model, ...)
>>
>> Best
>> Javier
>>
>>
>> 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]
>> <[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]> 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]] *On Behalf Of *Jose Saldana
>> *Sent:* den 9 februari 2015 16:27
>> *To:* [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     |                  |                |
>> |           |
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> gaia mailing list
>>
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Subdirector de Ord. Docente
>>
>> ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
>>
>> D-204, Departamental III
>>
>> Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
>>
>> Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
>>
>> Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Professor Ermanno Pietrosemoli
> Telecommunications/ICT for Development Laboratory (T/ICT4D)
> Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, GGH, Via Beirut
> 7, Trieste 34151 Italy
> [e-mail]       http://wireless.ictp.it
> -------
> Presidente
> Fundación Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes (EsLaRed)
> www.EsLaRed.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>


-- 
Steve Song
[phone]
http://manypossibilities.net
http://villagetelco.org