[wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?

Sun Jul 9 15:41:15 UTC 2006

fak uuu kak you ok


>From: "Fred Pook" <fredpook at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>To: "Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure"<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:37:37 +0200
>
>Hi Ramon, Aaron and all,
>
>The points you 2 are hitting on in this exchange and the experiences
>you have from your real-life community network are so valuable for the
>fledgling startups in India that we should not let this go up in
>smoke.
>I suggest that we work on all this in face to face workshops in the
>coming months. 2 great opportunities to meet are in Germany soon.
>
>- First there is the wireless community camp
>  5-13 August 2006 in Jersbek near Hamburg.
>  https://snr.freifunk.net/trac/wcc
>
>- Second is Wizards of OS 4 in Berlin.
>14-16 September 2006
>  http://www.wizards-of-os.org/index.php?id=36&L=3
>
>Lets set up camp there if possible and do workshops on "Spontaneous
>Networking Platform" development. (thanks for the word,Spontaneous,
>Ramon :-)
>Other suggestion on the caption text of these workshops are welcome...
>
>Thanks, Fred
>
>
>On 7/9/06, Ramon Roca <ramon.roca at guifi.net> wrote:
>>
>>You are hitting good points Aaron, comments in line.
>>
>>En/na Aaron Kaplan ha escrit:
>> > (...)
>> >
>> >> Some of our conclusions were:
>> >> -A local community that just relies with the ability and availability 
>>of
>> >> a few networks admins can run a network of just about a few dozens of
>> >> routers
>> >> -By having some utilities, such as a database, wiki ant network 
>>console
>> >> (cacti, nagios....), it can be up to a hundred interconnected nodes?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, the current systems that I know of basically lack a scalable 
>>layer
>> > 2 (WLAN). So IMHO this goes first when it comes to scalability.
>> >
>>Yes, the "L" of wLan means "Local". They are designed just for a few
>>clients. Does not scale to something larger by his own nature.
>>But here I was not referring to wLan scalability, instead, I was talking
>>on tools for having lots of wLans, and linked together in a single
>>larger network by PtP links, etc.
>>If that's has to be done manually by expert net admins, those admins
>>will become the bottleneck and jeopardize the goal of easily allow
>>acquiring new connections from new users, and building links with the
>>communities of everyones  neighborhood.
>> >
>> >> -By building a database automatic IP provisioning system, maps, 
>>forums,
>> >> built-in online network monitoring, configuration tools etc... that
>> >> could bring us up to thousands?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Maybe this helps:
>> >
>> > We released our funkfeuer wireless mesh ISP software as GPL.
>> >
>> >    http://redeemer.sf.net
>> >
>> >
>> > It includes: node registration, user admin, VOIP integration (users can
>> > self administer), a nice google map, smokeping, nagios integration, 
>>etc.
>> > the idea is basically that we explain to people what to do, how to do 
>>it
>> > and then give them an account on our ISP software. There they can
>> > register IPs, register VOIP extensions etc themselves.
>> > The best feature about it: you can easily write small drivers that will
>> > feed your other systems from the node/user Db. (coding credits go to
>> > Wolfgang Nagele)
>> >
>>Cool. Yes. That's the point.
>>Quite similar in many areas with the apps we are using at guifi.net
>>The next point here has to be to forget about "easy drivers". Coding is
>>only "easy" to coders. Network users/promoters don't know how to build
>>drivers, in rare cases are programmers and just use what's available,
>>therefore the best will be simply be able to agree with an open XML
>>format, with "drivers" already built.
>>Something like this:
>>http://guifi.net/ca/guifi/nodexchange/2444/nodes
>>So, let's work on it ;)
>>
>> > I know many of the people in the free networking and meshing community
>> > don't feel happy about a centralized approach as described above.
>> >
>>BIG COMMENT HERE: I know about that feeling, but very often that's a big
>>fatal error and common misunderstanding. Being able to interchange
>>networks descriptions in XML, if someone wants to built in a innovative
>>way, will always have a chance to implement it.
>>But if simply builds the network in some way that only himself can
>>manage/know, in the real world that's not an open network because is
>>unable to easily inter operate with other networks, in other words,
>>that's closed to himself or his community. I mean, can be based on open
>>source, but could result a proprietary network. What's more
>>"centralized" than admins taking decisions of what/how/when and without
>>publishing their networks?
>>As an example, is like when someone says that is producing Open
>>Software, and certainly is willing for, but has only a working copy in
>>his well firewalled server at home and no CVS/SVN/tarball.
>>In the meantime, local wireless communities are still de-centralized by
>>his own nature, you know, wLan (L=local) works only in a local
>>environment, therefore, why the people have to be afraid? afraid of what?
>>The real challenge to scale is the ability to connect those still local
>>networks or consolidate them in something larger, and the turnkeys, the
>>methods and tools that allow this. In the real world, without those
>>"enablers",... just sexy local wLans, never more. We can talk a lot,
>>have tons of code, but do nothing.
>>
>> > So...
>> > There is a very nice second project "AcDc" (which I am proud to be
>> > mentoring at the Google SoC)
>> >
>> > http://www.reseaucitoyen.be/wiki/index.php/AcdcProposal_en
>> >
>> > It is a decentralized p2p DNS & captive portal system with XML beneath
>> > it for describing the configuration.
>> >
>>Interesting. I'm not very familiar en ad hoc networks for the very last
>>mile in urban areas. I do realize that distinct scenarios might have
>>different solutions. That shows that different solutions to different
>>scenarios have to be complementary.
>>To give you an example, an approach of "no node can be more important
>>than another" can be true in a region-scale network like this:
>>http://guifi.net/ca/node/2444/view/map
>>(> than 500 km2, combining small to medium urban areas and rural areas,
>>  > 800 radio devices, some of them having dedicated p2p links (we call
>>them "supernodes"), other simply regular users or repeaters...)
>>
>>BTW, can you provide the real world communities/sample servers to see
>>the apps. you mentioned live?
>>
>> >
>> >> Wireless community is not just about socializing, wifi 
>>state-of-the-art
>> >> technology is a huge challenge and it isn't at the hand of a few
>> >> volunteers. There are never excedent on volunteers.
>> >>
>> >> Major problem I do envision now here is uniformity. Local communities
>> >> are plural and self-centered (they should be, that is the basis). No 
>>way
>> >> to share anything if there are no common practices. So what we can 
>>share?
>> >>
>> >> There have to be a motivation for sharing not only experiences, also
>> >> resources. How many of us are really sharing resources across
>> >> communities? But might be different approaches for solving technology
>> >> problems (i.e. routing, hardware...) so.... what?
>> >>
>> >> What about at least having the ability to syndicate community networks
>> >> by describing them in XML? So regardless of how you do run a given
>> >> network, you still are able to see others, if someone finds out a good
>> >> hardware configuration tool solution, by providing your network
>> >> information to it you are just able to take advantage of it without
>> >> disrupting other features that maybe you have and love...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ramon.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> En/na Ken DiPietro ha escrit:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Vickram (et al)
>> >>>
>> >>> I find this thread fascinating from a couple of different 
>>standpoints.
>> >>> First and foremost is the dynamic we are discussing between,
>> >>> government, private business and local communities. I applaud you
>> >>> being able to clearly and concisely explain some of the reasons each
>> >>> component of this structure is not capable of managing this work on
>> >>> it's own.
>> >>>
>> >>> If that is the case, I would suggest that each one of these segments
>> >>> must take responsibility for a piece of the job and this is how I
>> >>> would suggest one possible solution could be implemented.
>> >>>
>> >>> Government -  The national government in partnership with local
>> >>> governments create a training facility to educate a staff of young,
>> >>> resilient workers capable of deploying this equipment even under the
>> >>> most adverse local conditions. Additionally, government either
>> >>> mandates the manufacture of this equipment at a subsidized price or
>> >>> provides tax incentives to make the manufacturers of this equipment
>> >>> eager to produce it. From what I can tell, the government will also
>> >>> have to remove the mountains of red tape that it seems to thrive on 
>>to
>> >>> make this project go forward as well as removing any tariffs that
>> >>> might also add to the cost of this equipment.
>> >>>
>> >>> Business - Private sector must be motivated to build this equipment. 
>>I
>> >>> would suggest that this could be done by using a combination of tax
>> >>> incentives weighed against the threat of allowing the importation of
>> >>> goods should the local businesses not meet the demand in a reasonable
>> >>> time period. Specifications for interoperability as well as
>> >>> environmental hardening need to be mandated. Another possibility 
>>would
>> >>> be for the government to subsidize the training of qualified 
>>employees
>> >>> to manufacture this equipment.
>> >>>
>> >>> Local communities - This is where the demand is generated. One of the
>> >>> ways these communities can pay for this connectivity is to supply
>> >>> labor to the manufacturers as well as to the installation staff. 
>>These
>> >>> trained people could return to their communities to keep the network
>> >>> operational after a set period of time and it would be up to the
>> >>> community as well as government to pay for the workers (or a portion
>> >>> of their salary/expenses) during this time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please note - many of these communities will be able to work together
>> >>> as this connectivity will be supplied by passing through one 
>>community
>> >>> on the way to delivering to another community further down the line.
>> >>> It will be critical that these groups can work together or the 
>>segment
>> >>> of the network will eventually collapse.
>> >>>
>> >>> I realize this outline is full of holes and is not intended to be a
>> >>> boilerplate for how this project should be rolled out but rather a
>> >>> staring point for discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>> Respectfully,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ken DiPietro
>> >>>
>> >>> New-ISP.net/NextGenCommunications.net
>> >>> Wireless solutions - not concessions.
>> >>> http://www.nextgencommunications.net
>> >>> 1044 National Highway LaVale MD 21502
>> >>> Tel# (301)789-2968 Cell (301)268-1154
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> vvcrishna at radiophony.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Quoting Balaji G <balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> What should these mechanisms be ? I have my doubts on the scaling 
>>of
>> >>>>> community based approaches, but one must develop the area further,
>> >>>>> as well
>> >>>>> as explore other mechanisms.  Hope is in strenghtening the energies 
>>of
>> >>>>> communities as against burdening them with another development 
>>task,
>> >>>>> which
>> >>>>> is easier done by Government and moneyed industry.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Community based approaches, on the contrary, are probably the most
>> >>>> powerful in
>> >>>> terms of scaling. Half the reason that mobile networks in rural 
>>areas
>> >>>> are so
>> >>>> pathetic as that no urban executive wants to go spend months in the
>> >>>> boondocks
>> >>>> wrangling with ticklish local issues of electricity, workers, 
>>spares,
>> >>>> drinking
>> >>>> water, food etc.
>> >>>> That critical problem is erased when the work is community-driven. 
>>But
>> >>>> unfortunately, decades (centuries) of autocratic rule has damped 
>>down
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> desire of most rural Indian groups to do things for themselves, 
>>which
>> >>>> is why
>> >>>> the most genuinely successful ICT projects are in places where a
>> >>>> significant
>> >>>> amount of preparatory work has been done, sometimes for years.
>> >>>> Depressing, perhaps, but no reason to lose hope or abandon this
>> >>>> country's fate
>> >>>> solely to 'big' governments and (essentially greedy) private
>> >>>> businesses to come
>> >>>> to the rescue.
>> >>>> Vickram
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> >>>> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> >>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> >> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no Vis hvem du er og hva du vil