Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02 - High Altitude Platforms Internet Access

"Jose Saldana" <> Wed, 16 December 2015 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7091A1B00 for <>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:40:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bX-9bXdI-WlM for <>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B801A1B2D for <>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id tBGGdM6l003750; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:39:22 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <>
To: "'Souma B. Wanta'" <>, <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:39:27 +0100
Message-ID: <014301d13820$548f4740$fdadd5c0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0144_01D13828.B656E390"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHL48E9FufgIednwd4zQGLmgrm6DAJzINhSnsTfVuA=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02 - High Altitude Platforms Internet Access
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:40:01 -0000

Thanks for the information. In the “alternative networks” draft we are mainly talking about initiatives driven by the people and local companies. The idea is that people will maintain the control of the network they have created.
The initiatives you are reporting are mainly supported by big companies (Google, Facebook). Do you think there will be any chance for people to get involved?
De: Souma B. Wanta [] 
Enviado el: martes, 15 de diciembre de 2015 3:45
Para: Andrés Arcia-Moret <>om>; Javier Simó <>es>;;
Asunto: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02 - High Altitude Platforms Internet Access
Treading within this same topic of Alternative Access Network Solutions and Deployments, I can't help but notice and bring up the topic and area of High High Altitude Plartforms (HAPS) which is a "more or less" or somewhat novel technology solution and technique of providing wireless information (internet) access to underserved areas in a widely deployed fashion. In fact technology has been growing so fast to the point where it challenges us ( society and industry) to come up with new ways, techniques and methods to respond to the needs of markets and consumers. So briefly put, High Altitude Platform wireless access is a defined as the use of unmanned areal devices or machines ( balloons, drones, aircraft) to provide wireless coverage to a particular area by leveraging a high altitude sky wireless transmission medium and spectrum and also satellite capabilities. This concept has recently gained traction and made even more innovative through the increased implementation efforts of internet companies such as Google, Facebook. 
Although this concept is at its very initial and experimental stage, I believe it holds great potential in unlocking so many internet access oppoturnities for the underserved in terms of affordability and flexibility. Even though the development efforts are being led by commercial companies at this moment, it is more likely and promising to believe that once the technologies are commercialized, there will be new models that will emerge and allow different organized or independent communities and individuals to deploy and exploit these HAP technologies at a very low cost and in a very accessible way. With Google, putting a significant focus on Developing countries for this project (Project Loon), we could certainly imagine and expect that once the trials are over, it will be a possibility for them to approach underserved communities and countries and try to offer of subsidize the technology for low cost access and usage. As a result for example, communities and populations in turn could easily acquire the techniques and deploy these balloons for their own areas and fulfill their wireless connectivity and access needs. And the whole business rationale is to work more with populations than conventional operators in deploying this. So there is a good possibility for the concept to become cheaply transferred, affordable and easy to deploy by communities. 
Therefore I would to suggest these technologies as qualifying ones to be also considered to be Alternative Access deployment technlogies because they hold so much potential in unlocking so many opportunities especially in cellular wireless access (4G-LTE, 5G, IoT) for underserved, rural and remote areas. 
So we can definitely discuss it as being a strong and qualifying option for alternative access.
For more information you can peruse or go over these following links:
- <> &context=etd
Thank you,
Souma B-W
804.919.2787 <> <> 
On Monday, December 14, 2015 5:51 AM, Andrés Arcia-Moret < <> > wrote:
Dear all,
I second Javier, voting "alternative". I think we’ve all agreed on the name alternative networks because it (mainly) matches an independent willingness of communities to get connected.. 
On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó < <> > wrote:

I don't like the word "complementary" for two reasons:

1) Something is complementary when there is no competition. But, why not? I don't see why a community network cannot be deployed even if it is somehow in competition with a "traditional" existing network deployed by an operator.

2) The word "alternative" was used focusing on a number of criteria, not only on the non-existance of a traditional network.

I vote "alternative".

Best regards


El 12/12/15 a las 17:03, jsaldana escribió:
Hi, Arjuna and all,
In my opinion, in order to clarify if "Alternative network" = "Complementary network", we should answer two questions:
A) Are all "Alternative networks" also "Complementary networks"?
In the draft we are considering five kinds of networks:
1 Community Networks  
2 Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
3 Shared infrastructure model
4 Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders  
5 Testbeds for research purposes
In the case of 4, it is clear that they are a "complement," since they share the infrastructure and may reduce the CAPEX of the operator.
In the case of 1, they may become a "complement". Is this currently happening?
I don't think that WISPs (2) usually share their infrastructure with traditional operators. Am I right?
B) Are all "Complementary networks" also "Alternative networks"?
I think for example in the Wi-Fi network of an airport. This network can be considered as "complementary", because it may be used to offload data from the mobile network. But it is not "alternative" (it is not included in the draft), because it may be promoted by a traditional operator (not by the people), etc.
Any other ideas?
El 2015-12-12 13:45, Arjuna Sathiaseelan escribió:
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?
On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford < <> > wrote:

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.

gaia mailing list <>

Arjuna Sathiaseelan 
N4D Lab:
gaia mailing list <>

gaia mailing list <>
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas  <> <>
Subdirector de Ord. Docente
ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
D-204, Departamental III
Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Tel: 914888428, Fax: 914887500
Web personal:
gaia mailing list <>
gaia mailing list <>