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

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:14:12 +0200

Hi,
 
> Section 4.5, typical scenarios:
> 
> I do not see usefulness of this categorization, because almost any network
I know of
> outgrow and changed through time inside all these categories. Community
networks
> maybe start somewhere (like urban or rural area), but then they grow and
spread
> over the whole country, then start connecting with other countries.

In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for rural
areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the future a lot
of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural deployments exist,
so for me the classification makes sense.

Thanks!

Jose

---

From: "Eric A. BREWER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:09:01 -0700

I agree that there are rural only networks.  The use some backhaul that
might go to an urban area (if not satellite), but are really separate
things.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Jose Saldana <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:59:20 -0700

Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored
to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different
whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or
villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think
Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes
along rural streets in West Virginia.)

One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end
points.

Henning

---

From: Jim Forster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:37:07 +0200

(Perhaps covered already in the draft…)

Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of the drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas.

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West Virginia.)
> 
> One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end points.
>

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:27:07 -0700

Hi!

OK, for me it was just confusing categorization. Maybe because other
categorizations list one option per dot, here we list separate
dimensions for each dot (urban/rural, south/north). Type checking does
not match with other categories. :-) And then we use most of the time
"urban and rural" anyway. :-)

BTW, WISPs can be both urban and rural. In San Francisco we have a popular WISP:

https://monkeybrains.net/wireless.html

Pretty urban use. There is nothing really in WISPs to make them rural only.

Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

---

From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:24:46 -0400

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?

regards

On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies
> a poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in
> the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads,
> water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of the
> drivers for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better
> infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas.
>
>

-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d

---

From: "Rute C. Sofia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:36:27 +0100

Hello Arjuna, Henning, Jim,

The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA, 
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:

  * Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
  * Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

“Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included 
within an urban area.

In Europe 
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf)
Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area)
      •    More than 50 % of the population living in rural
grid cells.

So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, 
defining "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be 
sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of 
density/capilarity should be treated as a specific type of "smart" 
communities...

BR
Rute

On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les
> 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 -
> 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?
>
> regards
>
> On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely
>     implies a poorer economic situation (average income per capita)
>     than metro areas in the same country, and frequently reduced
>     general infrastructure (roads, water systems, grid power) than the
>     metro areas.  I think one of the drivers for migration to cities
>     in developing counties is somewhat better infrastructure in cities
>     than in the rural areas.
>
>
>>     On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
>>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is
>>     rumored to have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective,
>>     it's very different whether you connect isolated rural dwellings,
>>     separated by miles, or villages, with clusters of a few hundred
>>     residences. (In the US, think Vermont small town vs. individual
>>     farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along rural streets in West
>>     Virginia.)
>>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/>
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/n4d>
>
>

-- 
Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Rute Sofia
............................
COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and People-centric Computing
Senior Researcher/Director
http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt

http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~rsofia
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/rute-sofia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:22:00 +0200

Well, a possible solution is to define “urban” first (there are some
definitions), and say that “rural” is the opposite (according to what Rute
says).
 
What about this?
 
   o  Urban zone.  The definition of "urban" does vary between
      countries, as shown in [UNStats].  For example, in the United
      States they are defined as "Agglomerations of 2 500 or more
      inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000
      persons per square mile or more."  In China the term "city" is
      proper of those designated by the State Council.  In Liberia they
      are "Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants."  In France they are
      "communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 000
      inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not more than 200
      metres between houses."  In Guam, they are "agglomerations of 2
      500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of
      1 000 persons per square mile or more, referred to as "urban
      clusters"".
 
   o  Rural zone.  The document will use this term as oposed to "urban".
      A definition of "rural " was proposed by G.  P.  Wibberley in 1972
      [Wibberley]: "The word describes those parts of a country which
      show unmistakable signs of being dominated by extensive uses of
      land, either at the present time or in the immediate past.  It is
      important to emphasise that these extensive uses might have had a
      domination over an area which has now gone because this allows us
      to look at settlements which to the eye still appear to be rural
      but which, in practice, are merely an extension of the city
      resulting from the development of the commuter train and the
      private motor car" [Clot].
 
Jose
PS: I think this would be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of “rural”
in his mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition of that
term in an IRTF document ;-) 
 
De: Rute C. Sofia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 14:36
Para: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>; Jim Forster
<[email-masked]>
CC: gaia <[email-masked]>; Eric A. BREWER <[email-masked]>; Mitar
<[email-masked]>; Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>; Henning Schulzrinne
<[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar
review, question #3. Typical scenarios

(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban
.pdf)

So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining
"thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be sustainable,
the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should be
treated as a specific type of "smart" communities...

BR
Rute
 
I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - how
do we define rural?

:)

 
 
regards
 
On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:
(Perhaps covered already in the draft…)
 
Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a
poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in
the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads,
water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of the drivers
for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better
infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas. 

On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:
 
Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to
have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different
whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or
villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think
Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along
rural streets in West Virginia.) 

 

COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and
People-centric Computing

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:57:12 +0200

Hi,

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Mitar [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 13:27
> Para: Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>
> CC: gaia <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review,
> question #3. Typical scenarios
> 
> Hi!
> 
> categorizations list one option per dot, here we list separate dimensions for each dot
> (urban/rural, south/north). Type checking does not match with other categories. :-)
> And then we use most of the time "urban and rural" anyway. :-)
> 

This is the current version
5.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers, WISPs

   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Commercial     | company                                          |
   | model/promoter |                                                  |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Goals and      | to serve underserved areas; to reduce capital    |
   | motivation     | expenditures in Internet access; to provide      |
   |                | additional sources of capital                    |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Administration | centralized                                      |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies   | wireless e.g. [IEEE.802-11-2012],                |
   |                | [IEEE.802-16.2008], unlicensed frequencies       |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Typical        | rural (urban deployments also exist)             |
   | scenarios      |                                                  |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+

                  Table 2: WISPs' characteristics summary

Thanks,

Jose

> > In my understanding, there are some networks especially targeted for
> > rural areas. So I think the division does make sense. Perhaps in the
> > future a lot of them will be interconnected, but nowadays some rural
> > deployments exist, so for me the classification makes sense.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:42:52 -0700

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

---

From: "Eric A. BREWER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:10:28 -0700

I like the definition of urban, but the rural one is not helpful.

The important point really is the population density more than anything
else.

I might not fit, but I think the rural definition is actually very
important for another reason --- we need a good one for policy makers.  In
particular, we want policies that help rural networks, but the US
definition at least has hurt things.  In particular, FCC has options for
secondary licenses for under-served areas, but the areas are census blocks,
which are bad proxy for rural. The consequence is that carriers cover tiny
part of a mostly rural block, and then the whole block counts as covered.

We want to encourage the idea that blocks with low population density are
the important policy-relevant idea of "rural" and those boundaries should
mostly avoid mixing urban and rural areas.  Having smaller blocks might be
enough, but even so, the reasoning should be explicit.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Jose Saldana <[email-masked]> wrote:

> PS: I think this would be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of
> “rural” in his mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition
> of that term in an IRTF document ;-)
>
>
>
> *De:* Rute C. Sofia [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 14:36
> *Para:* Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>; Jim
> Forster <[email-masked]>
> *CC:* gaia <[email-masked]>; Eric A. BREWER <[email-masked]>; Mitar <
> [email-masked]>; Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>; Henning Schulzrinne
> <[email-masked]>
> *Asunto:* Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments.
> Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios
>
>
>
>    - Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
>    - Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
>
> In Europe (
> http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf
> )

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:37:47 -0700

Hi!

> The important point really is the population density more than anything

+1

Yes. Because in low density areas there is less commercial interest
and alternative networks can then step in.

> I might not fit, but I think the rural definition is actually very important
> for another reason --- we need a good one for policy makers.  In particular,
> we want policies that help rural networks, but the US definition at least
> has hurt things.  In particular, FCC has options for secondary licenses for
> under-served areas, but the areas are census blocks, which are bad proxy for
> rural. The consequence is that carriers cover tiny part of a mostly rural
> block, and then the whole block counts as covered.
>

+1

Mitar

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:17:21 -0400

All of these quoted definitions need citations. Also, as noted, there is no
single definition of urban or rural in the United States (and, I suspect,
in other countries), but the text implies that there is.

For networking purposes, I think density of network endpoints (households,
businesses and anchor institutions like schools and hospitals) seems like
the most relevant characteristic as that directly determines the economics
of building fiber networks, reduces the typical DSL speed and may imply the
absence of any wired infrastructure in emerging economies.

Lower-than-average income  exacerbates the problem - you might be able to
recover the higher capital costs from rich dude farms in Wyoming or ski
chalets in Aspen (or use satellite), but not in rural West Virginia.

Here's text:

There is no single definition of "rural" or "urban", as each country and
various international organizations define these terms differently. For
networking purposes, the primary distinction is likely the average distance
between customers, typically measured by population density, as well as the
distance to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to
be covered by "middle mile" or back haul connectivity.  Some regions with
low average population density may cluster almost all inhabitants into a
small number of relatively-dense small towns, for example, while residents
may be dispersed more evenly in others.

Henning

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:19:34 -0400

You also get a higher density of commercial entities that can make
infrastructure deployment feasible, e.g., fiber to office buildings or
factories.

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:10:28 +0200

Hi, Henning and all,
 
Thank you for the text.
 
We could substitute the two definitions of “urban zone” and “rural zone” by this (I have added a reference to report the different definitions of “urban”):
 
   o  "Urban" and "rural" zones: There is no single definition of
      "rural" or "urban", as each country and various international
      organizations define these terms differently, mainly based on
      number of inhabitants, population density and distance between
      houses [UNStats].  For networking purposes, the primary
      distinction is likely the average distance between customers,
      typically measured by population density, as well as the distance
      to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to
      be covered by "middle mile" or back haul connectivity.  Some
      regions with low average population density may cluster almost all
      inhabitants into a small number of relatively-dense small towns,
      for example, while residents may be dispersed more evenly in
      others.
 
   [UNStats]  United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), Department of
              Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), , "Urban and total
              population by sex: 1996-2005", Demographic Yearbook,
              Table 6, notes
              http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
              dyb2005/notestab06.pdf, accessed Mar 2016, 2005.

What do you think?
 
Thanks again,
 
Jose
 
De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Henning Schulzrinne
Enviado el: domingo, 17 de abril de 2016 5:17
Para: Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>
CC: Mitar <[email-masked]>; gaia <[email-masked]>; rute.sofia <[email-masked]>; Jim Forster <[email-masked]>; Eric A. BREWER <[email-masked]>; Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios
 
All of these quoted definitions need citations. Also, as noted, there is no single definition of urban or rural in the United States (and, I suspect, in other countries), but the text implies that there is.
 
For networking purposes, I think density of network endpoints (households, businesses and anchor institutions like schools and hospitals) seems like the most relevant characteristic as that directly determines the economics of building fiber networks, reduces the typical DSL speed and may imply the absence of any wired infrastructure in emerging economies.
 
Lower-than-average income  exacerbates the problem - you might be able to recover the higher capital costs from rich dude farms in Wyoming or ski chalets in Aspen (or use satellite), but not in rural West Virginia.
 
Here's text:
 
There is no single definition of "rural" or "urban", as each country and various international organizations define these terms differently. For networking purposes, the primary distinction is likely the average distance between customers, typically measured by population density, as well as the distance to the nearest Internet point-of-presence, i.e., the distance to be covered by "middle mile" or back haul connectivity.  Some regions with low average population density may cluster almost all inhabitants into a small number of relatively-dense small towns, for example, while residents may be dispersed more evenly in others.
 
Henning
 
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Jose Saldana <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:
Well, a possible solution is to define “urban” first (there are some definitions), and say that “rural” is the opposite (according to what Rute says).
 
What about this?

 
Jose
PS: I think this would be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of “rural” in his mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition of that term in an IRTF document ;-) 
 
De: Rute C. Sofia [mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 14:36
Para: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >; Jim Forster <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
CC: gaia <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >; Eric A. BREWER <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >; Mitar <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >; Jose Saldana <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >; Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios

The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: 
*	Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
*	Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
“Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
In Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban.pdf)
Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area)
     •    More than 50 % of the population living in rural
grid cells.

So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining "thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be sustainable, the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should be treated as a specific type of "smart" communities...

BR
Rute
 
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?
 
regards
 
On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:
(Perhaps covered already in the draft…)

On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

 
-- 
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>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:53:15 -0400

Works for me.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Jose Saldana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi, Henning and all,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the text.
>
>
>
> We could substitute the two definitions of “urban zone” and “rural zone” by
> this (I have added a reference to report the different definitions of
> “urban”):
>
>
>