bme dest 2007 tutorial at opaals2008 conference, tampere, finland october 7, 2008 1 csaba a. szabo...

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, [email protected], [email protected]

Homepage: www.hit.bme.hu/~szabo

Business models and technologies for wireless community networks

2

BME


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


October 7, 2008

Outline




Summary

10

BME


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


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


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


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


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


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


October 7, 2008

Mesh nodes for infrastructure and client connectivity

internet

Service Provider wired network

Mesh node

Client connectivity

Mesh Infrastructureconnectivity

17

BME


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


October 7, 2008

Design example to get a feeling of the cost side: a Hungarian „Digital City”

29

BME


October 7, 2008

Area to cover

30

BME


October 7, 2008

Network topology

31

BME


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


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


Total 232,580

1) Pilot

2)“Hot places”

3) “Everywhere”

32

BME


October 7, 2008

Outline




Summary

33

BME


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


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


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


October 7, 2008

Some statistical data on municipalities’ involvement in building and operating

wireless CNs

Municipal Wireless Business Models Report, 2007

37

BME


October 7, 2008

Why municipalities build/operate their own network?

38

BME


October 7, 2008

Why municipalities do not build/operate their own network?

39

BME


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


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


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


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


October 7, 2008

And here in Finland…

44

BME


October 7, 2008

and here in Tampere…

45

BME


October 7, 2008

Outline




Summary

46

BME


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


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


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.

BME


October 7, 2008

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?

bme dest 2007 tutorial at opaals2008 conference, tampere, finland october 7, 2008 1 csaba a. szabo...

Documents

wireless cns business

wireless community networks

important business models

planning of wireless

business applications

appropriate business

bme dest

opaals2008 conference