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

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

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]] 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]>
mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: den 10 februari 2015 15:30
To: Maria Uden
Cc: Jose Saldana;  <mailto:[e-mail]> [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 < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[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: <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: den 9 februari 2015 16:27
To:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [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
 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 <https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>
https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



-- 
 
---------------------------------------------------
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas  <mailto:[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