11th ISfTeH conf pres

1

Business models and technologies for wireless
community networks
Csaba A. Szabo Budapest University of Technology
and Economics, Hungary and CREATE-NET Research
Center, Trento, Italy szabo_at_hit.bme.hu,
cszabo_at_create-net.org Homepage
www.hit.bme.hu/szabo
2
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
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 thats 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 thats 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 thats why this tutorial intends to cover
  both the technologies and business models

4
Objective of this tutorial

• Give an overview of requirements, services,
  technologies and business models for Community
  Networks
• Analyze several characteristic examples
• From 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 studies
• will be provided with guidelines as a starting
  point for the planning of wireless CNs

5
Outline

• Introduction
• What is a Community Network?
• Ubiquitous access and CNs
• Wireless CN infrastructures
• Applications and requirements
• Wireless network technologies Wi-Fi mesh and
  WiMAX
• Design guidelines for wireless CNs
• Business models for wireless CNs
• Overview of possibilities of public intervention
• Main models and examples
• Summary

6
IntroductionCommunity 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
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
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 objectives
• Asia-Pacific many similar initiatives

9
Outline

• Introduction
• What is a Community Network?
• Ubiquitous access and CNs
• Wireless CN infrastructures
• Applications and requirements
• Wireless network technologies Wi-Fi mesh and
  WiMAX
• Design guidelines for wireless CNs
• Business models for wireless CNs
• Overview of possibilities of public intervention
• Main models and examples
• Summary

10
CN Applications

• A) Access to public information and services
• Public Internet kiosks for access to public
  information, tourism, portals for e-government
  services and for tourists
• B) Public safety
• Enhancing public safety by remote surveillance of
  public areas
• Improving the communication with police, civilian
  police, fire department and the like
• C) Traffic control and transportation
• Coping with traffic congestion by vehicle
  monitoring and intelligent traffic light control
• Vehicle management for public transportation
  (buses)
• Intelligent parking systems with flexible payment
• Monitoring of road conditions, in particular in
  winter
• D) Health care
• Improving 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 living
• E) Business services
• Business partners/providers/clients searching
• B2B and B2C transactions
• Advertise product and services
• F) Educational
• Internet access, e-learning, administrational
  portal on the campus and extending educational
  network to the home

11
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
• LewisClark 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
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
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
Available wireless technologies for CNs

• Wi-Fi mesh
• the well known Wi-Fi (standard-based wireless
  LAN) combined with the mesh network principle
• WiMAX
• a 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
Wi-Fi mesh networks
Wired 802.3
internet

AP
AP
They can remain access points for users but it
is better to separate the two functions in two
types of nodes/devices
Instead of the classical infrastructure-based
operation, Wi-Fi access points can play the role
of nodes for the mesh network
16
Mesh nodes for infrastructure and client
connectivity
internet
Service Provider wired network
Mesh node
Mesh Infrastructure connectivity
Client connectivity
17
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
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)
• Its a big advantage, but we should be aware of
  the consequences

Industrial Scientific and Medical Band (IMS)
Frequency,GHz
2.483
2.4
Unlicenged National Information
Infrastructure (UNII)
New Allocation
5.825
5.725
5.25
5.35
5.15
19
The throughput issue in a mesh

• In the simplest case, every node
• acts 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
1/N (1/2)N
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 2 3 4
5
20
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-Fi
• as opposed to Wi-Fis limited coverage, WiMAX
  covers larger areas
• but WiMAX is not just an upgrade of Wi-Fi!

21
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
Area coverage and data rate? WiMAX vs cellular
mobile and WiFi
Typical range (Km)
2G (GSM)
2.5G (GPRS)

802.16 WiMAX

3G (UMTS)

802.11b
802.11a
Typical user data rate (Mbps)
23
LOS and NLOS operation?
Propagation in urban environment red line direct
visibility, blue lines reflected waves WiMAX
specific techniques to make use of the reflected
waves even if the direct one is missing (no LOS)
Propagation in rural environment
24
Mobility?Fixed and mobile WiMAX
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
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
25
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 Sprint
• Sprints 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
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
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.

28
Design example to get a feeling of the cost side
a Hungarian Digital City
29
Area to cover
30
Network topology
31
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
Outline

• Introduction
• What is a Community Network?
• Ubiquitous access and CNs
• Wireless CN infrastructures
• Applications and requirements
• Wireless network technologies Wi-Fi mesh and
  WiMAX
• Design guidelines for wireless CNs
• Business models for wireless CNs
• Overview of possibilities of public intervention
• Main models and examples
• Summary

33
On business models level of participation of the
public entity
34
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
Some basic public/private models (2)

high

1 Public/public

3 Non profit

Complexity of

management


5 Utility

6 Private/public

and administration
by the public entity

4 Public/private


2 Private/private

high

Level of public investment and costs

Level of public investment and costs

36
Some statistical data on municipalities
involvement in building and operating wireless CNs
Municipal Wireless Business Models Report, 2007
37
Why municipalities build/operate their own
network?
38
Why municipalities do not build/operate their own
network?
39
Main models and examples

• 1) The Wireless Philadelphia model (private
  corporate franchise model)
• Wireless Philadephia
• Several other wireless city projects in the USA
• Newer attempts (NSW, Australia Fresno, CA, USA)
• 2) Anchor tenant model
• Corpus Christi, TX, USA
• Trentino, Italy
• 3) Communitarian (grassroot) models
• FON
• SparkNet, Finland

40
Model 1Wireless 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
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
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
And here in Finland
44
and here in Tampere
45
Outline

• Introduction
• What is a Community Network?
• Ubiquitous access and CNs
• Wireless CN infrastructures
• Applications and requirements
• Wireless network technologies Wi-Fi mesh and
  WiMAX
• Design guidelines for wireless CNs
• Business models for wireless CNs
• Overview of possibilities of public intervention
• Main models and examples
• Summary

46
SummaryTechnology and business models

• CNs should not be technology driven
• Identifying key applications and anchor customers
  is critical
• The specific form of public-private
  cooperation/partnership depends on
• willingness and capabilities of local governments
  to invest and manage the investment
• willingness of market players to become partners
• finding business models that satisfies both
  sides interests
• Technology planning includes
• selection of the most suitable wireless
  technology
• planning methodology for coverage and quality of
  service is needed

47
SummaryGeneral 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
  DEs
• DEs can add advanced services to CNs thus helping
  to make the latter sustainable
• The many CNs in operation today can be a real
  playground for implementing DE services
• CNs and DEs can be considered as different
  aspects of regional development strategy and
  synergy is expected

48
Some references

• C. Szabó, I. Chlamtac and E. Bedo, "Design
  Considerations of Broadband Community Networks,"
  Proceedings of 37th Annual Hawaii Intl 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.

49
Thank you for your attention!

• Questions?