Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

The interactions are complex, as there are two scenarios:

(1) A network exists, but a fraction of the population cannot afford it.

(2) No (high-speed) network exists, and traditional commercial providers
are not building it.

(1) is more common in urban scenarios, but may also apply to the rural case
if you assume that satellite coverage is near-universal, but very expensive.

(2) is the low-density (rural) case.

This gets more complicated since you may well have an existing commercial
network, but at high cost or low performance. Thus, you have three options:

(1) Subsidize low-income consumers to use an existing (commercial) network.
See the new Lifeline service in the US that will provide a $9.25/month
subsidy for wired or wireless broadband. This is likely more effective in
cases where a high-performance network already exists, compared to building
a separate network.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/lifeline-support-affordable-communications

(2) Subsidize an existing provider to extend their network into no-coverage
areas, with the assumption that this is more cost-effective than building a
new low-density-only network. (This assumption isn't always true.)

(3) Create a new provider for low-coverage areas.

In general, there are two separable issues:

(1) Who builds/owns/operates (using what technology)?
(2) Who subsidizes whom? (Volunteer labor is a form of subsidy unless every
network user contributes equal volunteer labor.)

I think the draft could do a better job of separating the two issues.

Henning


On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Jim & Henning -
>
> I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question -
> how do we define rural?
>
> I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many
> multi billionaires live in rural areas -
> look at weybridge in the UK:
> http://www.hamptons.co.uk/forsaleoffice/weybridge/1599/
>
> :)
>
> should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like
> Weybridge as really rural -
>
> should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban areas
> affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to
>
> maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography but
> rather socio-economic status?
>
>