[wsfii-discuss] SF Bay Area project Status / Stanford GROW-Net project

Mon Dec 3 22:53:17 UTC 2007

When I'm referring to "open" or "neutral" applied to networks, I'm 
talking about a network open to P2P agreements, i.e. something like our 
wireless commons.
http://guifi.net/WCL_EN
I've seen other P2P models which are quite similar.
For sure have to be managed, everyone is administers their own or 
delegate to others, and just have to be published to allow others to 
know about, join or improve. Every participant is paying their network 
segment.
A neutral network have to be agnostic regarding technologies. I'm *NOT* 
referring to some specific technology (hardware, authentication methods, 
transportation, application, content...) although in such environment, 
other open models are often preferred.
If you think on the original concept of the internet, you'll see that is 
about the same. To become or not a heaven for spamming or cracking, like 
any security thing, is a separate issue.
In a summary, open and neutral network happens when the subject of the 
openness/neutrality is the network, and it can be an objective by itself.

In cases where you are looking for public oriented or funded networks, 
get universal broadband access, outdoor usage of the unlicensed 
spectrum, etc...  such model has a lot of sense. Furthermore, I would 
say is about common sense.

I.e., on the opposite, those cases where private owners force 
unilaterally their rules for connecting or do simply hide the network or 
its information to avoid connections/others to join.

Hope is clear,

Ramon.

En/na wlan at mac.com ha escrit:
> Hello,
>
>   
>> When I refered to 'open network model' it was in terms of both economy
>> (who is paying for the infrastructure) and management (who is
>> managing/controlling the infrastructure) - further more, I'm not  
>> sure if
>> it is possible to attach something like an 'independent mesh-cloud' to
>> the Google funded network in Mountain View (or use a system like
>> Coova.org) ...
>> But good question - I still think Guifi.net is a close with their
>> definition of 'neutral network' (and I'm personnaly not convinced that
>> the SF. net innitiative is "neutral" in this sense) ...?
>>     
>
> For it to be 'open', then, who is then paying for it and managing it?  
> I suppose my notion of 'open' is simply not being closed to certain  
> devices, software, Internet protocols, or authentication providers  
> (users). Yet, it should have some security, accountability, and fair  
> use. Otherwise, how does it not become a haven for spamming and  
> cracking?
>
> I think there are different issues with regard to a independent mesh  
> working with Google MV or Coova. Are you thinking a mesh can't work  
> with any AAA system or something more specific, like their business  
> model?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>
>
>   