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

[Nicolás Echániz <[e-mail]>]

one last thing...  another way of grouping networks is "for profit" and
"not for profit" (academic, community, testbeds, etc.); in my opinion,
those run by for profit organizations would fall in for profit category,
even if they are free of charge.



On 12/16/2015 03:21 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am Nicolás Echániz from AlterMundi in Argentina.
> 
> I'm coming late to this discussion but I'd like to point out that from
> the point of view of our community networks, I would not use the words
> "alternative" or "complementary". For some reason, Community Networks,
> which is the name that is established throughout the CN movement is
> usually avoided elsewhere. I believe this generates confusion.
> 
> Community Networks nowadays include networks with their own ASN, where
> deployment is hybrid wireless + fiber; in fact everything about
> community networks can be compared to other network models, except for
> the socio-economical aspect, which is what defines them as "community"
> and not just networks.
> 
> Avoiding this is what creates such confusion as believing that Facebook
> deploying drones around the world (which is clearly an Alternative), can
> be related to the work done in Community Networks.
> 
> Regarding the original list of "kinds of networks" being considered:
> 
> 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
> 
> These do not all fall into what José explained in a previous e-mail:
> 
> "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."
> 
> WISPs for example, can be big commercial entities with no community control.
> 
> Furthermore, calling Community Networks "alternative" or
> "complementary", puts them in a second level status in relation to
> "mainstream" networks which we are in fact trying to avoid. These are
> Networks, just like all others, but with communities behind them.
> 
> 
> To sum this up, I'd say that Community Networks be called just that and
> if necessary they can be put in their own group, while the rest can be
> called "alternative" if those involved agree.
> 
> 
> Well this is just an opinion from our previous experiences trying to
> name these initiatives.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> NicoEchániz
> AlterMundi.net
> 
> 
> On 12/15/2015 07:38 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I also prefer “alternative” for two reasons:
>>
>>  
>>
>> - I think the word fits better with the networks we had in mind while
>> writing the draft:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00984.html. And
>> IMHO, “alternative” is not the same as “complementary”.
>>
>>  
>>
>> - A more practical reason: today is the deadline established by Mat in
>> order to initiate IRSG review of the document. So if we rethink the
>> title (and probably the whole document), we may lose a lot of time. I
>> must confess this may sound too “practical”, but we already discussed a
>> lot about the name to be applied to these networks. See e.g. these threads:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00227.html
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00187.html
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jose
>>
>>  
>>
>> *De:*Andrés Arcia-Moret [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Enviado el:* lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2015 14:51
>> *Para:* Javier Simó <[e-mail]>
>> *CC:* jsaldana <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> *Asunto:* Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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.. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Andrés
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>     On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Hello
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     Javier
>>
>>     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?
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         Jose
>>
>>          
>>
>>         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?
>>
>>              
>>
>>             Regards
>>
>>              
>>
>>             On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford <[e-mail]
>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>                 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>>              
>>
>>             -- 
>>
>>             Arjuna Sathiaseelan
>>             Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
>>             <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/>
>>             N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
>>             <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/n4d>
>>
>>              
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>
>>             gaia mailing list
>>
>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>             https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>
>>         gaia mailing list
>>
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>      
>>
>>     ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>  
>>
>> -
>>
>> A/A/
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>