[wsfii-discuss] fon/meraki/community meshes differentiated ..(was: Re: Fwd:

Fri Oct 12 10:53:14 UTC 2007

Julian -- Thanks for the re-statement of freenetwork first principles.

Beyond the q of wireless and first-mile network issues, there's the whole 
political level.  Freenetters are best advised to do what they know best-- 
innovate with technology and social solutions.

I'll add some comment, for the record.

Locating issues of wireless-infrastructure-bandwidth within the wider 
telecoms-regulatory-policy landscape.

I was active on the UK telecoms-citizen-consumer scene in the period Julian 
describes, when broadband access commanded a political agenda and "wireless" 
came from left-field to offer a "first mile" broadband solution.

Specific to the UK, this case study has more universal application regarding 
the ever-adaptability of capital/telcos and the "creative destruction" 
(Schumpeter) of markets and technology (r)evolution.

Around 2000-2004 I conceived and led the ABC Access to Broadband Campaign 
project [ see eg 
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39117019,00.htm ].
- with significant early evangelical support from BT's former Chief 
Technologist Peter Cochrane [ see eg. video "Seamless freedom: The wireless 
revolution"].
- plus a significant practical efforts and intervention into government and 
BT telecoms circles by leading US no-licence wireless activist Dave Hughes [ 
see eg. video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8374245943271680201 
which actually pre-dates the mass  emergence of wi-fi].

At the high political level, a cross-party political consensus was 
established for the "Broadband Britain" agenda. Significantly the opposition 
party did its job and took a lead in parliamentary debate, when Sir George 
Young convened a debate on rural broadband with significant reference to 
wireless. Less known is the fact that Sir George was a former BT employee.

BT's activities over the period 2000 - 2004, and beyond to the present, 
highlight some salutatory lessons:
- as Julian documents, BT's adaptations to the emergence of wi-fi ...
- consider: lock-in strategy and delay to market with early wireless players 
such as Radiant Networks; opportunistic use of early wireless players such 
as Gaia in North Wales as a spoiler for community-based projects; then the 
the hot-spots model tied to telco providers business model and marketing 
strategy; then the pre-emptive formation of telco-municipal consortia - BT's 
"Wireless Cities" initiative - as a spoiler to independent muni- and 
regional- telco emergence; all the while at the higher political-regulatory 
level, BT along with other global players playing a top-down lobbying game 
and regulatory stalemate- eg the use of State Aid Rules as a delay mechanism 
at EU European level via the telco operators body ETNO http://www.etno.be/ 
-- this latter tactic probably fended off the nascent regional government 
/devolved administrations moves towards public sector intervention in the 
UK, buying a 2-3 year window, in which time an agressive ADSL roll-out 
strategy was formulated and very successfully implemented
- never take your eyes off the incumbent; adaptability and strategy- 
"embrace, extend, extinguish" [ see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish ]
- regulatory capture? the gordian knot of telecoms market-regulation-policy; 
and the ultimate resolution of the new converged regulator OFCOM (modelled 
on the FCC)
- I've posted some retrospective reflections here 
http://johnrichardwilson.googlepages.com/abc.reflections

In brief, the political game-play, as only the well resourced telcos know 
how. The latest cause celebre being the Net Neutrality fiasco in the US 
(with a telco lobbying $ war chest thats beyond belief).

There are those that dismiss the whole net neutrality debate as a 
smokescreen. There's also debate about BT as a global leader in "telco2.0" 
transformation.

Meanwhile, we do not have a network infrastructure that meets next 
generation requirements. You can bet that the incumbent telco have been 
lobbying on that one, too.

Meanwhile, beyond all the rhetoric and claims... the reality of telecoms 
infrastructure persists. Beyond the conjurer's trick of ADSL, the 
government-telco agenda reverts back to the NGN Next Generation Networks 
agenda.

Its on the new Minister's agenda: 
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=315384&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True

So that the NGN issue sets the framework for "Broadband Britain2.0" - and 
the q of public sector intervention is back on the agenda.

And so... a road map of the decade's twists and turns... reinforces the 
return to first principles...

and so as history has a tendency to repeat, one may perhaps endure the 
repetition of past practice...

John

>From: Julian Priest <julian at informal.org.uk>
>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] fon/meraki/community meshes differentiated 
>..(was: Re: Fwd: wireless connectivity.. Is802.11n the end ofethernet?)
>Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:19:45 +0100
>
>many thanks to all on this thread.
>
>Here's an addition. 'scuse the length of the post it's been a
>while since I wrote on telco subjects and revisits many old themes.
>
>On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:27:49PM +0100, vortex at free2air.net wrote:
> >
> > FON is a well funded company offering a pyramid scheme of bandwidth and 
>access
> > control services utilising an AP model for maximum connectivity to 
>potential
> > income streams. Some FON firmware versions have been cracked (thanks to
> > sven-ola and others) to allow freifunk mesh networks to openly pass thru 
>and
> > ride invisibily along side an otherwise operable FON AP [1]. They also 
>claim
> > to be the "world's largest wifi "community" [2] (we'll come to that "c" 
>word
> > in a moment).
>
>* Tying the knot
>
>As if on queue, this announcement from Fon and British Telecom.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/05/internet
>
>"BT has teamed up with Spanish technology company Fon, backed by
>Google, to try to persuade its more than 3 million British internet
>users to open up part of their home wireless broadband networks so
>that other people can use them."
>
>http://blog.fon.com/en/archive/general/btfon041007.html
>
>"From the very beginning, all of you, Foneros, believed in the concept
>of sharing and in peoples ability to build something important that would
>benefit everyone. BT is one of the most important telcos and ISPs in
>the world, so with BT FON those beliefs have proved to be
>well-founded!"
>
>doh! at the risk of falling for this obvious troll :)
>
>The publicity presents FON as a freenetwork. Indeed the rhetoric,
>wireless hardware, and even software distribution (openwrt) are the
>same.
>
>* Free != Free
>
>As outlined on this thread main differences between FON and a
>freenetwork are:
>
>1. Topology - FON is an extension of the DSL network and doesn't
>    provide alternative routes apart from through the backhaul
>    provider. (This in contrast to an open local network like guifi
>    or a mesh like freifunk)
>
>2. Ownership - who owns the box, both legally and in the sense of
>    having root access.
>
>3. Billing - these two create the possibility of a billing
>    infrastructure at the node - the star topology makes the node a
>    control point for it's clients, and the BT/FON owned captive portal
>    uses this control as the basis of a billing infrastructure.
>
>In the case of la fonera;
>
>	free!=free
>
>or more clearly;
>
>	gratis!=libre
>
>The 'consumer' gets the box for no payment but it runs someone elses
>software, and 'consumers' are legally discouraged from changing it by the
>T&C's even if it is reflashable.
>
>Your freedom to config is limited *by* the gift of the device - the
>capital cost of the device is recouped later through monetisation of
>the portal that it creates.
>
>In that sense it's a bit like a free web service - you can use the
>service (built on free software platforms even) for no payment, but
>you can't tinker with the algorithms and the economic benefit accrues
>to the service.
>
>* History
>
>This announcement has some history. Going back to the UK in 2000,
>wireless groups such as free2air.org and consume.net proposed wireless
>networks as a way of building a self provided network infrastructure
>whose ownership was in the hands of it's users.
>
>Partly this was in response to BT's foot dragging over the
>introduction of DSL based broadband. Partly it was an attempt to move
>away from the monolithic vertically integrated near monopoly that
>characterised network ownership then.
>
>We figured that the Internet was too valuable a resource to be owned
>by a small number of entities whoever they were(and still do). Rather
>than following a competitive model between a few large providers (as
>operates in mobile telephony), we proposed a distributed ownership
>model based on collaboration or federation between many small or very
>small networks. This ownership model reflects the decentralised models
>made possible by the Internet protocols.
>
>BT - wedded to a service provider model and trickle-feed bandwith
>selling - perceived wireless as a threat and made several intervetions
>into the space to challenge attempts to embed new network models over
>the years.
>
>Normally BT have eventually adapted to the perceived threat to embrace
>part of it as a business opportunity.
>
>In 2002 BT lobbied against self provision, then switched to
>lobby for commercial access to license exempt spectrum, then rolled
>out a hotspot service (open zone).
>
>As wireless developed, clusters of users would use wireless to
>connection share. This was originally seen as a threat by BT however
>they soon recognised it as a way of informally agregating users to
>reach price points below those which BT could afford to market
>to. (sub 5 GBP per month)
>
>At the outset of the UK municipal wireless movement around the Access
>to Broadband Campaign which cristicised lack of rural broadband, BT
>responded by magically DSL enabling previously 'un-economic' exchanges
>just as rural wireless was beginning to get some traction and
>political backing in the UK. Then went on to bid for municipal
>wireless projects themselves.
>
>In 2004 we saw the acknowledgement of the 'default freenetwork' formed
>by people leaving the default 'open' settings on their access points
>providing essentially gratis hotspots. This was initially seen by BT
>as a threat and was countered by a wireless security camapign but is
>now being re-examined.
>
>It looks like the rationale for this FON tie up is to give away
>devices with controlled default settings and limited free access thus
>turnning what they saw as a profitless network segment into an
>opportunity for their hotspot business to grow. Now that BT have no
>mobile arm, it is also a way of extending their Fusion home wifi/gsm
>phone service and reducing reliance on third party GSM.
>
>* Beyond Telecom
>
>In a weird development in 2005 BT approached me to propose a research
>project through BT research to look into ways of engaging the
>community in operation of the local loop. (I declined)
>
>It has long been recognised that British Telecom had a problem with
>it's DSL technology based on a copper local loop. In the 80's to avoid
>the goverment asking them to open their metropolitan ducting to
>competing fibre networks, BT apparently completely filled the ducts
>with copper thus physically preventing others from using the ducts.
>
>Now having bet heavily on DSL, BT are tied to an ageing copper local
>loop which requires an expensive work force of about 9000 just to
>permanently maintain it - and maintenance is not really hitting their
>targets.
>
>"Unfortunately, the underlying failure rate for mainstream repair
>performance (i.e. SMPF/MPF/WLR) continues at an unacceptably high
>level (15-25%) & remains substantially short of agreed targets."
>						Sept 2007
>
>http://www.offta.org.uk/updates/otaupdate20071005.htm
>
>At the same time broadband access has become a commodity market so the
>margins are slim - too slim apparently to maintain the existing copper
>properly or to roll out the more reliable fiber to the home.
>
>The profit centres in the telecoms business have moved away from
>consumer network provision, to wholesale backhaul, services at the
>edge of the network (like google) and value added services.
>
>BT are trying to make the move and increasingly focus on high value
>services like Network Security and Software Development eg. the recent
>NHS software contract.
>
>At the time of their research proposal to me it seemed to me that BT
>were looking for ways to dump the responsibility of the local loop and
>their universal service obligation onto the community via wireless at
>the point at which it had become an unprofitable burden to them.
>
>I was left wondereing if BT would follow BP and rebrand Beyond Telecom
>for financial reasons!
>
>* Opposites Attract
>
>It's ironic to see BT finally countering the perceived 'threat' of
>freenetworks by absorbing the freenetwork movement's rhetoric and tools
>(if not the substance of network ownership and topology) via the FON
>tie up.
>
>The press touts the FON/BT tie up as a triumph for open networks - and
>perhaps it will extend access somewhat. However it is perhaps
>better characterised as an attempt to increase the reach of BT's
>vertically integrated network to compete with GSM in the mobile/voip
>space via their Fusion product and to regain the outer edge of the
>network as a billing infrastructure.
>
>That said wireless freenets and BT/FON have become very close in
>message and implementation. I'm not sure that if I was BT/FON I'd be
>relying on the inviolability of an already compromised platform
>created mainly by freenetwork developers to carry the weight of my
>billing infrastructure!
>
>On the other hand if BT/FON do manage to roll out as planned, up to 3
>million devices will be well placed to implement an open wireless
>mesh local loop network and only a few entries in /etc and a couple of
>daemons away from doing so.
>
>If history repeats itself BT/FON will be seeing that as a threat about
>now, before adopting it as a key strategy before too long.
>
>* C for Collaboration
>
>For community networkers though, focusing on the other great, proven
>network models like guifi and freifunk is going to be much more
>productive in the long run than fiddling with foneras.
>
>With the low cost of devices, open platforms like openwrt and the new
>open hardware in development, there are plenty of options for adding
>to rapidly growing community networks and adding to the common pool of
>network, knowledge and tools at the same time.
>
>Networks are all about co-existence and collaboration - succesful
>infrastructures bind us together in subtle ways irrespective of
>culture and economic goals.
>
>For me the most interesting developments at present are in open local
>access networks like guifi.net. Guifi have an impressive region wide
>peer produced network, which features impressive volunteer
>action, and even small businesses that aid people in maintaining the
>network. It has bandwidth donated to it for social inclusion reasons
>by local municipalities, companies and indivdiduals.
>
>Ten years on it's great to see the model propossed as theory by
>early freenetworks, borne out in practice in catalunya - 4700 nodes
>growing by 50-100 a week.
>
>Intriguingly at Guifi there is also the beginnings of telco uptake of
>the freenetwork. With a free local access network companies are able
>to offer chargeable services across it such as internet access,
>guarenteed backhaul, voip or vpn. An open local network creates a
>space for many players, both social and businesses, to offer services in
>a way that a vertically integrated market like BT/FON never can.
>
>* Loopback
>
>Over the years there has been an ongoing unspoken dialogue between
>freenetworks and BT in the UK with innovation in freenetworks followed
>by adaptation and adoption by BT.
>
>BT/FON has now shown itself to be just another the extension of the
>old provider model. How much stronger the position would be for all
>parties, if it was the *substance* of freenetworking that was being
>absorbed rather than just the rhetoric appropriated once more as
>marketing.
>
>If history repeats itself it may not be long before BT sees FON as a
>way out of their copper quagmire. If they see open local access
>networks as an opportunity and not a threat it could be that they
>themselves make those changes in /etc and install mesh daemons on
>foneras!
>
>Until telcos have the courage to see open access network models as an
>oppotunity rather than as a threat, communites are better off
>understanding and higlighting the differences and finding their own
>way towards sustainable network solutions.
>
>cheers
>
>/julian
>
>[*] this post may include non-binding opinion, hearsay, forward
>     looking statements, backward looking statements, delusional
>     optimism, hopeless misrepresentation etc. your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss