Subject: [gaia] Difference between FON and a "manyfolks Community Network"

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:15:24 +0200

Hi Everyone,

Just to briefly introduce myself, my most relevant experience to this group
is that I helped build a large portion of a long-range 5Ghz WiFi backbone
in Haiti with Inveneo; before that I was an active participant in the IETF
in the RAI space for many years; currently I work as a field logistician
for an international non-profit in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo.

To me the key difference between FON and what the authors call a community
network is the ability to actively enlarge the network. FON capitalizes on
an existing network. It does not extend that network, it merely allows
reciprocal access to that network by individual nodes. While this is
already a good and useful thing, I think what many of the authors of the
draft want to define is a user-extensible network. Below is my strawman
definition.

User-extensible network: A network in which any participant in the system
may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new network
segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity to
further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to the
network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the previous
extent of the network and the new extent of the network.

Note that this covers a large part of the Free Network Foundation's Freedom
1 as posted by Roger, but not all of it.

Practically I think this means that new segments of a user-extensible
network do not involve IP address translation at the boundary of the
network. This is important architecturally, so if someone has a good
counter-example, please respond.

For me it does not matter if the network is wired or wireless, licensed or
unlicensed spectrum, or what technologies are used. It does not matter if
the network has a fee structure or who administers the network. I agree
with Steve that commercial extensible networks should be included. In Haiti
and the parts of sub-Saharan Africa where I have lived (Benin, South Sudan,
DRC) a commercial entity has a better chance of getting off the ground.

Thanks,
-rohan

---

From: "Trossen, Dirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:54:24 -0400

Rohan, all,

I cannot help but notice that the discussion on definitions already
reveals core principles that this community sees at the heart of their
work - so good to see this discussion but necessary to capture these
various viewpoints more distinctively as 'principles'.

As for your definition, Rohan:

User-extensible network: A network in which any participant in the
system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new
network segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity
to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to
the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the
previous extent of the network and the new extent of the network. 

I wonder how my 'passive infrastructure' based DSL or cable network fits
in here. Let's start from scratch: a housing community (e.g., in the
middle of London) will add link segments to the network, often through a
commercial offering. If it is a new development, cables need to be
pulled and laid in the new development, again often through an (open?)
access provider. If it is an existing development, the existing cable
infrastructure is likely re-used, although at the network level you are
repeating the process of 'add link segments' by re-activating, e.g., the
DSL line to the apartment(s). So a standard BT OpenReach+Retail ISP way
of doing things seem to be fitting under that definition, doesn't it? 

Nevertheless, as pointed out in the beginning, your very definition
entails a set of principles for 'building networks' that is worthwhile
capturing as such.

Best,

Dirk

From: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rohan Mahy
Sent: 19 June 2014 07:15
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [gaia] Difference between FON and a "manyfolks Community
Network"

Hi Everyone,

Just to briefly introduce myself, my most relevant experience to this
group is that I helped build a large portion of a long-range 5Ghz WiFi
backbone in Haiti with Inveneo; before that I was an active participant
in the IETF in the RAI space for many years; currently I work as a field
logistician for an international non-profit in South Kivu, Democratic
Republic of Congo.

To me the key difference between FON and what the authors call a
community network is the ability to actively enlarge the network. FON
capitalizes on an existing network. It does not extend that network, it
merely allows reciprocal access to that network by individual nodes.
While this is already a good and useful thing, I think what many of the
authors of the draft want to define is a user-extensible network. Below
is my strawman definition.

User-extensible network: A network in which any participant in the
system may add link segments to the network in such a way that the new
network segments can support multiple nodes and adopt the same overall
characteristics as those of the joined network, including the capacity
to further extend the network. Once these link segments are joined to
the network, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between the
previous extent of the network and the new extent of the network. 

Note that this covers a large part of the Free Network Foundation's
Freedom 1 as posted by Roger, but not all of it.

For me it does not matter if the network is wired or wireless, licensed
or unlicensed spectrum, or what technologies are used. It does not
matter if the network has a fee structure or who administers the
network. I agree with Steve that commercial extensible networks should
be included. In Haiti and the parts of sub-Saharan Africa where I have
lived (Benin, South Sudan, DRC) a commercial entity has a better chance
of getting off the ground. 

Thanks,

-rohan

Dirk Trossen 
Principal Engineer
InterDigital UK, Inc.
Shoreditch Business Center
64 Great Eastern Street
London, EC2A 3QR
T: +44 20 7749 9178
[email-masked]
www.InterDigital.com

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.

---

From: Steve Song <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:36:14 -0300

Hi all,

I like the idea of user-extensibility as a principle.  I was coming at this
from the point of view of decentralised, locally owned and operated
networks.  I think it roughly amounts to the same thing.

Taking it down yet another level, the key motivation for me in encouraging
the decentralisation of network development is increasing "agency", in the
sense intended by Amartya Sen[1], for individuals and communities.  What
that translates to from a broadband perspective is the ability of
individuals and communities to act to change their own connectivity status.
 It also translates to the ability to consolidate demand to increase buying
power whether through collective, community initiatives or through local
entrepreneurship.

I would like to emphasise that there is arguably more policy and regulatory
work that needs to be done to enable this than technological innovation.
 This can be illustrated by the simple fact that point-to-point WiFi, which
most of us take for granted, is not free (as in beer) in most sub-Saharan
African countries.  License fees are often many times the cost of the
equipment.  Other things like network license exemption for non-profits or
cooperatives are other frontiers worth pursuing.

Looking at this from another angle, there is also the notion of increasing
overall network resilience (I actually mean antifragility here but that is
perhaps another discussion) through diversity of access and through
decentralisation.  While this is arguably a technological issue, it is also
fairly politically charged.  I raise this in the spirit of getting all my
"issues" out on the table.  :)

Cheers... Steve

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach#Agency

On 19 June 2014 05:54, Trossen, Dirk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> reveals core principles that this community sees at the heart of their work
> - so good to see this discussion but necessary to capture these various
> viewpoints more distinctively as 'principles'.
>
>
>
> in here. Let's start from scratch: a housing community (e.g., in the middle
> of London) will add link segments to the network, often through a
> commercial offering. If it is a new development, cables need to be pulled
> and laid in the new development, again often through an (open?) access
> provider. If it is an existing development, the existing cable
> DSL line to the apartment(s). So a standard BT OpenReach+Retail ISP way of
> doing things seem to be fitting under that definition, doesn't it?
>
>
>
> *From:* gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Rohan Mahy
> *Sent:* 19 June 2014 07:15
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [gaia] Difference between FON and a "manyfolks Community
> Network"
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
> backbone in Haiti with Inveneo; before that I was an active participant in
> the IETF in the RAI space for many years; currently I work as a field
>  www.InterDigital.com <http://www.interdigital.com/>
>
>
>   This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other
> than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute
> waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this
> communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify
> me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any
> attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this
> message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic
> signature.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>

---

From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 06:52:33 +0100

Hello Rohan, All,

  So talking about user-extensibility as a criteria for defining
community networks may have an issue -

I agree that FON may not be classified as a community network since
its an extension of an user's already paid service and its presence is
in areas where network operators have existing network coverage.

However, a system like PAWS (http://publicaccesswifi.org/) for e.g.
uses the same FON model - but it targets people with socio-economical
challenges to get broadband access and its run purely by the
involvement of the community, a local stakeholder who has a benefit of
getting people connected and they work with a network operator to do
so. So a PAWS type system has a social objective of helping connect
your neighbour/community who may not be able to afford to connect
otherwise. But it involves the three stakeholders: users, network
operators and the so called VNO.

Ofcourse the PAWS type model is extensible as well - I think Freifunk
does that. Other community wireless mesh networks does similar for
e.g. talking to the Sarantaporo.gr folks their entire network
connecting 18 villages is backhauled over two ADSL lines volunteered
by home broadband owners (surprisingly with the blessings of their
network operator - not sure about their business objectives)..

Regards
Arjuna

On 19 June 2014 07:15, Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> is that I helped build a large portion of a long-range 5Ghz WiFi backbone in
> Haiti with Inveneo; before that I was an active participant in the IETF in
> the RAI space for many years; currently I work as a field logistician for an
> international non-profit in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo.
>
> reciprocal access to that network by individual nodes. While this is already
> a good and useful thing, I think what many of the authors of the draft want
> to define is a user-extensible network. Below is my strawman definition.
>
> the network has a fee structure or who administers the network. I agree with
> Steve that commercial extensible networks should be included. In Haiti and
> the parts of sub-Saharan Africa where I have lived (Benin, South Sudan, DRC)
> a commercial entity has a better chance of getting off the ground.
>
> Thanks,
> -rohan
>
>

-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan | http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/

---

From: "Trossen, Dirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:14:16 -0400

...to me as a person entering the 'coverage' of a FON hotspot, I gain
connectivity where I don't have any otherwise. If I have FON enabled
myself, I don't even pay for access. It's an odd of separation. I think
we ought to tease out the technological approaches being used throughout
the various examples and separately tease out the operational/economic
models placed on top of it. Only then (if at all) would I start with
'name calling' (e.g., user extensible, community network, ...).

Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Arjuna
Sathiaseelan
Sent: 20 June 2014 06:53
To: Rohan Mahy
Cc: gaia
Subject: Re: [gaia] Difference between FON and a "manyfolks
CommunityNetwork"

Hello Rohan, All,

I agree that FON may not be classified as a community network since its
an extension of an user's already paid service and its presence is in
areas where network operators have existing network coverage.

However, a system like PAWS (http://publicaccesswifi.org/) for e.g.
uses the same FON model - but it targets people with socio-economical
challenges to get broadband access and its run purely by the involvement
of the community, a local stakeholder who has a benefit of getting
people connected and they work with a network operator to do so. So a
PAWS type system has a social objective of helping connect your
neighbour/community who may not be able to afford to connect otherwise.
But it involves the three stakeholders: users, network operators and the
so called VNO.

Ofcourse the PAWS type model is extensible as well - I think Freifunk
does that. Other community wireless mesh networks does similar for e.g.
talking to the Sarantaporo.gr folks their entire network connecting 18
villages is backhauled over two ADSL lines volunteered by home broadband
owners (surprisingly with the blessings of their network operator - not
sure about their business objectives)..

Regards
Arjuna

> backbone in Haiti with Inveneo; before that I was an active 
> participant in the IETF in the RAI space for many years; currently I 
> work as a field logistician for an international non-profit in South
Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo.
> capitalizes on an existing network. It does not extend that network, 
> it merely allows reciprocal access to that network by individual 
> nodes. While this is already a good and useful thing, I think what 
> many of the authors of the draft want to define is a user-extensible
network. Below is my strawman definition.

> For me it does not matter if the network is wired or wireless, 
> licensed or unlicensed spectrum, or what technologies are used. It 
> does not matter if the network has a fee structure or who administers 
> the network. I agree with Steve that commercial extensible networks 
> should be included. In Haiti and the parts of sub-Saharan Africa where

> I have lived (Benin, South Sudan, DRC) a commercial entity has a
better chance of getting off the ground.

 

Dirk Trossen 
Principal Engineer
InterDigital UK, Inc.

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:55:46 +0200

Hi Dirk,
I don’t think Openreach+Retail ISP meets my straw man definition of
user-extensibility. At a casual glance I do not see how a customer of an
ordinary retail ISP in the UK will be able to add network segments such
that the new segments take on the same characteristics (ex: IP addressing,
routing) and the new users can in turn add additional segments and so
forth. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That said, there is more to GAIA than community networks.
Thanks,
-rohan

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Trossen, Dirk <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> – so good to see this discussion but necessary to capture these various
> viewpoints more distinctively as ‘principles’.
>
>
>
> I wonder how my ‘passive infrastructure’ based DSL or cable network fits
> in here. Let’s start from scratch: a housing community (e.g., in the middle
> repeating the process of ‘add link segments’ by re-activating, e.g., the
> doing things seem to be fitting under that definition, doesn’t it?
>
>
>
> entails a set of principles for ‘building networks’ that is worthwhile
> capturing as such.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Dirk
>
>
>