Post on 21-Dec-2015
1
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Csaba A. SzaboBudapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
and CREATE-NET Research Center, Trento, Italyszabo@hit.bme.hu, cszabo@create-net.org
Homepage: www.hit.bme.hu/~szabo
Business models and technologies for wireless community networks
2
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
About the presenter
Professor, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
Leading the Laboratory of Multimedia Networks a range of technical areas related to networked multimedia computer networks, media technologies, media communications, mobile
multimedia, applications incl. telemedicine and e-learning Also with CREATE-NET, an international research center based
in Trento, Italy Working with a team of researchers at CREATE-NET which
participates in the EU project OPAALS Current research interests include design methodology for
wireless community networks, technology, applications and business models for deployment and sustainability
3
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Foreword
Community Networks is a proven approach to provide ubiquitous access, broadband connectivity, a range of important society related and business applications to citizens, institutions and companies in a given geographic area.
Digital Ecosystems is an emerging field with a few pilot projects only at the moment; and the presence of an ubiquitous infrastructure is assumed as granted.
CNs can help introducing DE services and DE services can contribute to CNs sustainability
… so that’s why this topic is important within the context of Digital Ecosystems Wireless and mobile technologies play an increasingly important role in building
Community Networks and, consequently, communication infrastructures for digital ecosystems
… so that’s why we will focus on wireless CNs There are two important and inter-related aspects of planning CNs:
how to create a suitable infrastructure – technology planning how to make it sustainable – choosing appropriate business models
… so that’s why this tutorial intends to cover both the technologies and business models
4
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Objective of this tutorial
Give an overview of requirements, services, technologies and business models for Community Networks
Analyze several characteristic examplesFrom this lecture the participants:
will have a reasonably good understanding of the state-of-the art technologies and the most important business models
will learn from experiences of some case studieswill be provided with guidelines as a starting point for the
planning of wireless CNs
5
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Outline
Introduction What is a Community Network?Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructuresApplications and requirementsWireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAXDesign guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNsOverview of possibilities of public interventionMain models and examples
Summary
6
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Introduction:Community Networks
Infrastructure and services created with high level of involvement by a community belonging to a specific geographic area
Grassroot origins: “free nets”, “civic nets” no infrastructure was created Newer examples of community initiatives: “municipal fiber”, “condominium fiber”
Government initiative and governance infrastructure is created
most of community networks today are driven by (local) government initiatives, thus a definition for CN can be: Network infrastructure (mostly wireless), created by some form of public participation
plus the underlying business model plus the applications and services provided to communities
related terms: Digital cities, digital communities (Intel), wireless cities, municipal wireless
7
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
CNs provide ubiquitous access
NSF on cyber-infrastructures: “Historical infrastructures – the automobile/gasoline/roadway system, electrical grids, railways, telephony, and most recently the Internet – become ubiquitous, accessible, reliable and transparent as they mature.”
True for some historical infrastructures such as electricity networks, road systems, but ubiquitous access and reliability certainly cannot be taken for granted in the case of telecommunication networks and the Internet.
Telecom and internet companies operate according to their business models, the consequence is often the “digital divide”.
In a regional environment, however, it is possible to create network infrastructures which, if properly designed, can provide ubiquitous coverage and accessibility as well as the required degree of reliability plus several more advantages in particular by using wireless technologies
8
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Wireless community networks: current status (only USA)
www.muniwireless.com
City Initiatives Directory ~200 networks in “deployed” or “running” status~180 in “in progress”, “negotiating” or “feasibility study”
status Europe: lagging but ambitious objectivesAsia-Pacific: many similar initiatives
9
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Outline
Introduction What is a Community Network?Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructuresApplications and requirementsWireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAXDesign guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNsOverview of possibilities of public interventionMain models and examples
Summary
10
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
CN Applications
A) Access to public information and servicesPublic Internet kiosks for access to public information, tourism, portals for e-government services and for tourists
B) Public safetyEnhancing public safety by remote surveillance of public areasImproving the communication with police, civilian police, fire department and the like
C) Traffic control and transportationCoping with traffic congestion by vehicle monitoring and intelligent traffic light controlVehicle management for public transportation (buses)Intelligent parking systems with flexible paymentMonitoring of road conditions, in particular in winter
D) Health careImproving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health care services by broadband and wireless communications among and within health care providers (incl. telemedicine services)
Home health care and assisted livingE) Business services
Business partners/providers/clients searchingB2B and B2C transactionsAdvertise product and services
F) EducationalInternet access, e-learning, administrational portal on the campus and extending educational network to the home
G) Utility companies (electricity, water, gas, etc.)Collecting measurement data and billing information
11
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Wireless cities and their primary applications
Chaska, MN – Digital divide for schools, businesses and residents; Cheyenne, WY – Traffic signal management; Corpus Christi, TX – Automated meter reading for utility companies; Lewis&Clark County, MT – leased line replacement; access to remote county
buildings; Medford, OR – public safety; Ocean City, MD – Integrated digital, voice and video for city buildings; Piraí, Brazil – Municipal field-force productivity; Portsmouth, UK – Bus passenger information dissemination; San Mateo, CA – Police field-force productivity improvement; Shanghai, China – Police field-force productivity improvement; Spokane, WA – Municipal applications and e-Government initiatives; Westminster, UK – Video surveillance and enhanced security.
12
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Requirement analysis
Community network technology projects should not be technology driven!
Requirements should be derived from applications and services current planned applications and services requirements by anchor customers, if exist plan for potential future services
Examples of requirements that influence the technology design bandwidth-intensive applications applications that require quality of service (real-time transmission, delay and
loss requirements,…) portability/mobility needs interconnection with service providers’ networks is needed
13
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Basic requirements for network and IT infrastructures of CNs
full coverage of the respective territory and ubiquitous access access from a multiplicity of user devices and platforms support of mobility
the applications are not supposed to know where the user is seamless handover even if the user moves through different technologies (a.k.a. vertical
handover) geospatial capabilities
technology is GPS or more recently, WPS (Wi-Fi based positioning service) quality of service
a certain set of technical parameters based on these parameters, we can tell what kind of information delivery could be
expected from the network examples are delay, delay variation and loss of information units classic internet does not provide QoS
service delivery platforms
14
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Available wireless technologies for CNs
Wi-Fi mesh the well known Wi-Fi (standard-based wireless LAN) combined
with the mesh network principle
WiMAXa relatively new standard-based wireless technology to cover
significantly larger area than a LAN – wireless MAN (metro area network), both fixed and mobile
(Cellular mobile)
15
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Wi-Fi mesh networks
They can remain access pointsfor users but it is better to separate the two functions intwo types of nodes/devices
Instead of the classical infrastructure-based operation,Wi-Fi access pointscan play the role of nodesfor the mesh network
internetWired
802.3
AP AP
16
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Mesh nodes for infrastructure and client connectivity
internet
Service Provider wired network
Mesh node
Client connectivity
Mesh Infrastructureconnectivity
17
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Wi-Fi mesh
Wireless mesh network are peer-to-peer multi-hop
networks, where the nodes cooperate with each other to route information packets through the network
An alternative to “infrastructure based” network where there is a backbone that interconnects all nodes to which the end users are connected
Mesh networks are “organic”, nodes may be added and deleted freely fault tolerant, nodes may fail and packets will still be routed manageable in a distributed way of high overall capacity
There are also challenges: if there are too many nodes if too few nodes with security with interoperability
18
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Operation in license-free bands
• In mesh architecture, we still use the same license free bands as the plain Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz ISM band, or 5 GHz UNII)• It’s a big advantage, but we should be aware of the consequences
Industrial Scientific and Medical Band
(IMS)
2.4 2.483
5.15 5.25 5.35 5.725 5.825
Unlicenged National
Information Infrastructure
(UNII)
New Allocation
Frequency,GHz
19
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
The throughput issue in a mesh
• In the simplest case, every nodeacts as an access point and as a forwarding node• The more hops are involved the higher percentage of traffic is dedicated to forwarding• Situation can be improved by using dual radios (one for forwarding and one for client access)• However it is still not a perfect system as the backbone radios also work in contention environment
6.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
1/N
(1/2)^N
20
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
What is WiMAX?
From technological point of view:worldwide accepted standard (developed in IEEE, adopted by
ETSI), promoted by WiMAX Forum for Broadband Wireless Access
From users’ point of view:WiMAX vs Wi-Fi?WiMAX: also wireless access, like the ubiquitous Wi-Fias opposed to Wi-Fi’s limited coverage, WiMAX covers larger
areasbut WiMAX is not just an upgrade of Wi-Fi!
21
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
WiMAX features and advantages
Flexible architecture p-p, p-mp, ubiquitous
Wide area coverage up to tens of km in LOS environment
NLOS operation High capacity and data rates
up to 100 Mbps High security
AES and 3DES encryption standards Quality of service
supports real-time data streams Mobility
the new Mobile WiMAX standard Easy, quick and inexpensive deployment Flexibility in spectrum allocation
licensed and license-free frequency bands
22
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Area coverage and data rate?WiMAX vs cellular mobile and WiFi
0.1
1
10
30
0.01 0.1 1 10
Typ
ical
ran
ge (
Km
)
Typical user data rate (Mbps)
2G
(GSM)2.5G
(GPRS)
3G
(UMTS)
802.16WiMAX
802.11b 802.11a
23
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
LOS and NLOS operation?
Propagation in urban environment
red line: direct “visibility,blue lines: reflected wavesWiMAX: specific techniques to make use of the reflected waves even if the direct one is missing (no LOS)
Propagation in rural environment
24
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Mobility?“Fixed” and “mobile” WiMAX
Application Customer devices Speed Handoff Fixed WiMAX
Mobile WiMAX
Fixed access Outdoor and indoor CPEs
Stationary No Yes Yes
Nomadic access
Indoor CPEs, PCMCIA cards
Stationary No Yes Yes
Portable access
Laptop PCMCIA cards
Walking speed Hard handoff
No Yes
Mobile access Laptops, PDAs, smart phones
Low to high vehicular speed
Hard or soft handoff
No Yes
“Fixed WiMAX”: based on IEEE 802.16-2004 standard (approved end of 2004)Commercially available and certified equipment since end of 2005
“Mobile WiMAX”: based on IEEE 802.16e standard (approved end of 2005)First devices in the market in 2008
25
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
WiMAX-based services
Telcos carried out many pilot projects worldwide, but have been reluctant to launch commercial services so far
First commercial operator offering mobile WiMAX-based internet-access: SprintSprint’s XOhm service was launched just a week ago (Sep. 29,
2008) in Baltimore, USA, planning to extend it to other cities
WorldMax, The Netherlands currently nomadic access based on fixed WiMAX starting from 2H2008, more likely from 2009: mobile WiMAX-
based service
26
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
WiMAX as a viable solution for developing countries and underserved areas
The new wireless MAN technology is a “professional” one but suitable not only for service providers!
Communities can deploy, too, using either licensed or unlicensed frequency bands
As opposed to fiber or copper based infrastructures, WiMAX requires significantly less investment, offers high flexibility in installation
Many non-profit, government subsidized pilot projects: Iberbanda (Spain), India, Vietnam
Intel co-subsidized projects: Parintins (Amazonia), Brazil Ghana New Zealand
27
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Technology selection
Application requirements We should analyze the requirements of the applications and services selected in the
first step. This analysis should contain coverage, bandwidth and QoS (delay, jitter).
Timeframe Wi-Fi mesh is available now. No interoperability between different vendors’ mesh
products, standard-based products are yet to come. Fixed WiMAX is on the market, but prices will go down. Mobile WiMAX is only coming (as of Fall 2008).
Frequency issue In many countries or regions, mainly in Europe, it is difficult to obtain licenses
required for WiMAX. Using unlicensed ISM band can result in weak QoS and low bandwidth because of disturbance of other devices and providers.
Costs A careful calculation is needed for each individual project. Equipment price together
with the required density of Wi-Fi mesh nodes should be considered vs. number of WiMAX base stations.
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Design example to get a feeling of the cost side: a Hungarian „Digital City”
30
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Network topology
31
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Installation costs for 3 scenarios
Qty Price Total
WiMAX Base Station Set 1 9,200 9,200
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set 3 5,040 15,120
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set 10 2,300 23,000
Planning and installation 6,000
Total 53,200
WiMAX Base Station Set 2 9200 18,400
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set 10 5040 50,400
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set 40 2300 92,000
Planning and installation 12,000
Total 172,800
WiMAX Base Station Set 3 9200 27,600
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set 12 5040 60,480
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set 55 2300 126,500
Planning and installation 18,000
Total 232,580
1) Pilot
2)“Hot places”
3) “Everywhere”
32
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Outline
Introduction What is a Community Network?Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructuresApplications and requirementsWireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAXDesign guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNsOverview of possibilities of public interventionMain models and examples
Summary
33
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
On business models: level of participation of the public entity
C o n te n t, S e rvice s, A p plic a tio n s, C u sto m e r ca re
B ro a d b a n d ne tw o rk s
D u c ts , M a sts , P o le s , C o lo c atio n site s, D a rk F ib e r, P a ssive
e lem e n ts
le v e l o f in te rv en tio n
L ow est level o f in v’m ent: aggrega tion o f dem an ds
p a ssiv e in fra struc tu re
m o d e l
“ carr ier s’ carr ier” (ac tive
in fra struc tu re m o d e l)
co m m u n ity o p era ted
serv ices m o de l
34
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Some basic public/private models (1)
1 Publicly owned and operated
2 Privately owned and operated
3 Non-profit owned and operated
4 Publicly owned, privately operated
5 Owned and operated by a public utility
6 Privately owned and operated jointly with the municipality
The choice of the appropriate model is influenced by regulatory issues
35
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Some basic public/private models (2)
2 Private/private
high
high
6 Private/public
3 Non profit 1 Public/public
5 Utility
4 Public/private
Level of public investment and costs
Complexity of management
and administration by the public entity
Level of public investment and costs
36
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Some statistical data on municipalities’ involvement in building and operating
wireless CNs
Municipal Wireless Business Models Report, 2007
37
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Why municipalities build/operate their own network?
38
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Why municipalities do not build/operate their own network?
39
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Main models and examples
1) The “Wireless Philadelphia” model (“private corporate franchise” model)Wireless PhiladephiaSeveral other wireless city projects in the USANewer attempts (NSW, Australia; Fresno, CA, USA)
2) “Anchor tenant” modelCorpus Christi, TX, USATrentino, Italy
3) “Communitarian” (grassroot) modelsFONSparkNet, Finland
40
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Model 1“Wireless Philadelphia”
The Wireless Philadelphia initiative started with a pilot, covering the central districts and was expanded to cover the entire metropolitan area with a total 20 million USD investment.
The project was financed and implemented by Earthlink. The business model was based on providing Internet access in the city, as the level of broadband penetration was very low (below 25%) being mainly dial-up access.
Earthlink was also planning to sell bandwidth both to retail and wholesale customers.
The city was planning to subsidize Internet access for low-income residents. The model failed and after a long period of uncertainty about the future of Wireless
Philadelphia Earthlink withdrew. Why many Type 1 models failed or are in trouble in the USA?
lack of commitment by the city to the service provider false assumptions, e.g. that free internet access can be financed by advertisements internet access is not enough, business applications are needed
41
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Model 2Corpus Christi, TX, USA
The largest coastal city in Texas, with about 300,000 inhabitants and a very large territory of suburban character
Key application: Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system for water and gas customers.
The city built a pilot network covering 17 sq. miles and organized a brainstorming with stakeholders which resulted in 20+ application ideas building inspection (implemented) health care: electronic health records made available on site video surveillance city portal (implemented)
The city extended the network to cover a territory of 147 sq. miles Access point density is 60-70 per sq. miles in the center and as low as one AP per sq.
mile in suburbs. The city then sold the network to Earthlink Business model: city pays 500k/yr to Earthlink and saves 300k from AMR only.
Earthlink provides advanced internet service to citizens and hosts applications; pays 5% from its profit to city
42
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Model 3Communitarian (grassroot) models
Based on sharing internet connections among the members of the community FON: “the largest Wi-Fi community in the world”
FON router (La Fonera), Foneros, non-Fonero users Cooperation with service providers (e.g. British Telecom) FON communities are growing in: Geneva, Oslo, Munich, Tokyo, New York, San
Francisco Why FON-type models are of interest?
failure of Type1 models in many cities in the USA lack of public money and/or lack of interest from commercial operators to build CN
infrastructures Can FON-type networks serve as CN infrastructures? Yes and no.
for plain internet access and for applications that do not demand high bandwidth and QoS: yes, but: availability issue
for QoS-demanding applications and services: no to cover “islands”, “neighborhoods” of a city: yes, provided that internet connection
points are available
43
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
And here in Finland…
44
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
and here in Tampere…
45
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Outline
Introduction What is a Community Network?Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructuresApplications and requirementsWireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAXDesign guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNsOverview of possibilities of public interventionMain models and examples
Summary
46
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Summary:Technology and business models
CNs should not be technology driven Identifying key applications and anchor customers is criticalThe specific form of public-private cooperation/partnership
depends onwillingness and capabilities of local governments to invest and
manage the investmentwillingness of market players to become partners finding business models that satisfies both sides’ interests
Technology planning includes selection of the most suitable wireless technologyplanning methodology for coverage and quality of service is
needed
47
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Summary:General conclusions
Ubiquitous network infrastructure created by local government-lead CN projects may facilitate the adaptation of DE services within a specific territory
Community participation may help the adoption of DEsDEs can add advanced services to CNs thus helping to
make the latter sustainableThe many CNs in operation today can be a real playground
for implementing DE servicesCNs and DEs can be considered as different aspects of
regional development strategy and synergy is expected
48
BME
DEST 2007Tutorial at OPAALS2008 Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Some references
C. Szabó, I. Chlamtac and E. Bedő, "Design Considerations of Broadband Community Networks," Proceedings of 37th Annual Hawaii Int’l Conf. on System Sciences (CD/ROM), January 5-8, 2004, Computer Society Press, 2004. Ten pages.
Chlamtac I., Gumaste A., Szabo C. A., Broadband Services: Business Models and Technologies for Broadband Community Networks, Wiley, 2005.
Szabó C. A., Horváth Z. and Farkas K., “Wireless Community Networks: Motivations, Design and Business Models”. Proc. WICON07, Oct 22-24, 2007, Austin, TX, USA. Also in: Mobile Networks and Applications, Springer, 2008.
Proc. 2nd Annual European Congress on Wireless & Digital Cities, Cannes, 26 Sep 2007.
F. Botto, S. Danzi, E. Salvadori, C. A. Szabo, A. Passani, “Digital Ecosystems and the Trentino Community Network,” OPAALS (EU NoE project) report D7.2, January 2008.
K. Farkas, C. Szabo, Z. Horvath, „Planning of Wireless Community Networks”, in: Handbook of Research on Telecommunications Planning and Management for Business, Editor: In Lee, Publisher: Information Science Reference, 2008, to appear.