Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Sun, 13 December 2015 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs10@columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA02B1B29D2 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 hebUmHwCliwU for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:55 -0800 (PST)
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 78F401B29D0 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:55 -0800 (PST)
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 tBDGB79M032152 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:15:54 -0500
Received: from hazelnut (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921CD85 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:15:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tarap.cc.columbia.edu (tarap.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.7]) by hazelnut (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C58881 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:15:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com (mail-qk0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by tarap.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id tBDGFqPj013925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:15:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by qkdp187 with SMTP id p187so104817977qkd.1 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:52 -0800 (PST)
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:content-type; bh=ytEA9E2THUKpn2tNKalLNsyT67ciAWrUGgzHCyKSn3Y=; b=ljVpYrLGImuay5iWeFVEeSKuqA2hyhxSzWbbN3yH2P1QmBFM2AtnQil0lJL2RF7F1L DIu5vBRWOEKtIVS9UBbWtYVgos1RjfCG8sqHRttj2PAOZoOba6jQn2ryu4X98mm09nA8 RC2JEUZKifQ6YdYFcuQbqtiWbNIBfxaD8r1Sy6Tw+CCzU8zQAZhhkIjdkDCNxldpXdmh jtZO3DjAo0HfMRAqKxxJA3AWVu3G+9q5xCIt4/Ol4WV2Pd8AxvIhbB+lZwPg5lMgzj2a I2/iB1P9EZvq+wvWfdESSeG2X1yTjTOaGRA0sTaZ5OVNj+4fqCYnx10WBF1Cd3kZ8rDd kXtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnEw8yW/iav+ihHX5bR3wLS6uFk2/u4p2zj+7alWsoPU0/FNu0cmts/MNXi0DeiB6JuoNxavyOSBeSGkmACS36HJ8N01+jXSrXOH6/OQFbnxQGB/Ks5i8mLn5+C1NDKIcZ8MDsPvRpjL4Yo+2tvKsCHe8Jcqg==
X-Received: by 10.129.27.8 with SMTP id b8mr16126550ywb.175.1450023352848; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.129.27.8 with SMTP id b8mr16126541ywb.175.1450023352659; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.210.215 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:15:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <70A37DB1-0B66-4AF6-98AB-01C8292E5882@isoc.org>
References: <7F910716-1B51-41A6-9DC8-170F30C37803@isoc.org> <CAPaG1Ak3JsTn4O2DyO1JzN9RdbKR0XVMZB2Hy5+t_dFH4gEdog@mail.gmail.com> <70A37DB1-0B66-4AF6-98AB-01C8292E5882@isoc.org>
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:15:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CACgrgBZgn+uBNywq1FiBpVE7wgZKJoBiRt-=9oFK9_JbhoxqNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jane Coffin <coffin@isoc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11428822da26d30526c9de66
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.7
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/Q3_l_UOZrKNNF2wOtCXb-Yt-l0o>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, Arjuna Sathiaseelan <arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Mat Ford <ford@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 13 Dec 2015 16:15:58 -0000

There is plenty of (US-centric) information on this general topic:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2015/11/04-four-paths-internet-bandwidth-levin

links to a few, such as

http://www.gig-u.org/cms/assets/uploads/2012/12/Val-NexGen_design_7.9_v2.pdf

or

http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bb-speed-light.pdf

(Indeed, https://ilsr.org/ has been tilling that field for a while.)

There's also the FCC Rural Broadband Experiment

https://www.fcc.gov/general/rural-broadband-experiments


There are many different management options, depending on who operates,
finances and builds what. This can range all the way from a truly
government-owned network to semi-governmental bodies (separate entity;
something like the Port Authority in NJ/NY for other infrastructure),
cooperatives (such as the rural electric cooperatives in the US that have
participated in the FCC effort above), to not-for-profits (NGOs) to
regulated private telecommunication carriers or entities that aren't. In
some cases, these entities build, operate and finance the network, in
others they contract building or operation to third parties. In some cases,
they operate only the layer-0 through layer-2, in others they offer
consumer services. In some cases, they serve mainly anchor institutions, in
others consumers. Etc.

Thus, this is not a binary proposition, although the term "community
network" is often used to encompass a subset of these models.

I would separate out the building, operations and financing, and maybe
governance.

Henning



On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jane Coffin <coffin@isoc.org> wrote:

> Food for thought.
>
> In some countries community networks survive better under regulatory
> parameters when they are called community networks.
> If you start to parse the name too much, some companies and regulators may
> decide that the entity falls under a certain regulatory umbrella.
> Some companies might see the newly named entity as a threat and ask the
> regulator to regulate them out of existence.
> Some regulators might not want to take the time (and I say this with all
> do respect) to manage it all.
> I would say that given the recent SDG discussions that some very good
> regulators and ministries and/or ministries of economy might want to focus
> on the positive aspect of providing solutions in rural
> areas/remote/underserved areas and might make exceptions and even help make
> it happen.  The simple fact that allowing competitive and innovative
> companies into some markets (and the economic impact of doing so) has not
> made it onto the top of the in-box means you have to make it very easy to
> do what you want to do (translation – make sure this is a win for the local
> municipal or village  entities so that they can argue your case).
>
> It follows that a key part of the  “environmental assessment” isn’t just
> the engineering and/or the “who is in the market”, but the
> “temperature” of government/reg/policy environment and what past
> experience has been for some smaller entities trying to provide innovative
> solutions.  Usually the latter entities needed some umbrella of protection.
>
>
> It would be really great to ask others what best practices they have seen
> as we are trying to scale our Wireless for Communities programme outside of
> APAC and would really love to have more data.
>
> Best,
> Jane
>
> From: gaia <gaia-bounces@irtf.org> on behalf of Arjuna Sathiaseelan <
> arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk>
> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:45 AM
> To: Mat Ford <ford@isoc.org>
> Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>
> Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
>
> 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 <ford@isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mat
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> gaia@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>