Just to know if this information is relevant :
Cisco already told in VNI that 63% of mobile communication will pass through wifi until 2021. The offload services will rise stronger. In another way we have the paradigm of smartgrid, that the energy Cos will need to use telecom infrastructure to control the grid. Here in Brazil at least the power to regulate the use of soil are from the mayors. Assignment of space use is a fight between the companies and public power that needs to implement theirs infrastructures. I think that we need to improve the organic laws in the cities to organize how the digital policies can happen in dynamic way, using the “public” infrastructures and resources ordered as common goods.
Public-private partnership with city hall and companies of basic public services may happen, building a common infrastructure and providing benefits to the parts evolved.
This is a beginning to talk about digital cities.
Maybe a movement of neighborhoods around the world to make pressure in mayors will be great J.
br
Marcelo
De: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de dc3@bob.ma
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de março de 2017 12:53
Para: 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity'
Assunto: Re: [DC3] Collaborating with local power companies
It’s a process. This is why I’m trying to take an approach of setting and citing examples. In the US I’m trying to work with residential property owners to provide local connectivity. Building on examples that are commercial viable and sustainable are the most powerful means. Overall though I try my best to explain the concepts.
I realize the challenge because even when there are good examples like Altermundi people just see it through the lens of the telecom narrative. I also understand the need to work on intermediate approaches to deliver social benefits. I just want to make sure we understand the difference between the short term efforts and a longer term direction.
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Michael Oghia
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:34
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] Collaborating with local power companies
I absolutely agree Bob, but then the question becomes how to facilitate that transition of ownership?
-Michael
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:29 PM, <dc3@bob.ma> wrote:
Yes, think about simply mounting things like WiFi repeaters.
A simple way to think about it is to ignore the accidental properties of the copper wires except as one optional radio medium. What the companies really have is ownership of the poles as real estate. Like railroads have become real estate companies and Sprint (SP as in Southern Pacific) was a company that start by taking advantage of the railroads right of way. It becomes even more absurd when we treat radio frequencies as property. One reason why copper is interesting is the original reason why Ethernet was on coax -- it was ALOHAnet on a contained radio medium that avoided others' regulations.
If we step back, especially in the US, we have to wonder why the poles are still owned by power companies and phone companies as a legacy of bad metaphors. When work has to be done on poles there are complex regulations and rental schemes. It's time to move on to more rational models with communities owning those rights of way so we don’t have legacy rent-seekers limiting our ability to communicate.
That won't happen on its own but that's the normative model to look forward to once there are examples to point to.
-----Original Message-----
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 09:43
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] Collaborating with local power companies
A major problem is signal interference -- both from the power lines themselves onto the modulated signal and radio interference by the propagation of relatively low frequency waves along unshielded lines with no harmonics suppression. Also, modulated signals are unable to "jump" transformers, which require adaptations on these points.
Power line wifi repeaters may work nicely in internal premises though.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 24/02/2017 11:49, Bob Frankston wrote:
> First, I need to preference this is that I’m answering this in terms
> of the US and the issues are different elsewhere.
>
>
>
> I’ve followed this issue over the years and there is a lot of mythology.
> The problem is the US is primarily political and economic. If the
> communities own their wires they could easily light up the copper to
> many megabits or gigabits per second. Unlike cities it is far easier
> to add wired and wireless capacity. The real costs are actually very low.
>
>
>
> What is expensive is taking a 1950’s type approach to use the facilities.
>
>
>
> The other twist in the US is the cockamamie idea that the distribution
> system has to be a profit center like railroad tracks rather than
> infrastructure like roads.
>
>
>
> The other twist is that the 20 years of interesting using power lines
> goes back to the power companies thinking there is money in “Internet”
> so they want to use their wires which just happen to be copper – the
> same mineral that is used Ethernet thus they can make big bucks
> selling Internet alongside electricity. But if you read their whole
> pitch it becomes obvious that they are institutionally the worst
> choice. They make the phone and cable companies look agile.
>
>
>
> So we get back to the simple idea of communities owning their
> facilities. If they have access to the poles and existing copper and
> the ability to invest in their own gear and take Internet native
> (http://rmf.vc/InternetNativePolicies) instead of use telecom pricing
> and policies the limitations would disappear rather quickly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net
> [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Oghia
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
> *To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3) <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
> *Subject:* [DC3] Collaborating with local power companies
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I just read this Interesting article:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-rural-americ
> a-broadband-look-to-the-early-1900s.html
>
>
>
> I know the idea of providing Internet via power lines is more or less
> a defunct idea (not due to technological constraints, but the lack of
> political will to invest in it to protect existing revenues). However,
> has anyone on this list ever thought about working with electricity
> companies, especially local power companies?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC3 mailing list
> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
>
--
Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3