Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification

[Henning G Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

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     |                  |                |
> |           |
>
>
>