Thanks for this Marcello, and you raise good points. On the public-private partnership idea, it made me think of AT&T's Project AirGig.

ISOC also produced a briefing paper on this back in 2003: Addressing the Digital Divide with IPv6-enabled Broadband Power Line Communications.

I also want to share an insight that was shared by a colleague who took DiploFoundation's Intro to Internet Governance course with me last year, who is from the Cayman Islands.

After one person wrote:

"I always wanted to see power line communication (PLC)/BPL as a solution for almost ubiquitous Internet access using an existing infrastructure. It is an interesting concept, and would seem to offer an amazing option for improving access. Here is an excerpt from an interesting article on the matter: "The failure to properly define clear international standards for BPL technology also probably played its part in its demise. Because they used unlicensed frequencies and voltages which varied from one country to another, early standardization initiatives were fragmented, and it was generally up to individual power companies to decide how they implemented their transmission facilities, leaving the possibility of problematic interconnection."

The PLC/BPL technology was approved in the USA in 2003, but the last company offering the service closed in 2012, and asked its users to find alternate sources. Hacking the power lines, weather, interruptions in service locally, and interference are often cited as reasons it has not worked well."

My colleague from the Caymans said:

"Sometimes there a valid case for duplication or in the case of Cayman triplication of the infrastructure network. In addition to a private PLC used by the sole power company to service their smart meters, we have a standard copper telecoms infrastructure owned by one of the telecom providers and 4G mobile coverage island wide (it’s only 76 sq. mi). We are now also duplicating the copper network with a fiber to the home network island wide. Although its roll out has not been as fast as hoped and is definitely running on island time, it has been installed throughout the majority of the capital and tourist strip. We have we done this and what could warrant such a massive investment in our telecoms infrastructure? Hurricanes. The power grid runs above ground and the copper telecom network underground and the mobile coverage is provided by 8 towers (split between the 2 providers). In 2004 we were hit by Hurricane Ivan which devastated the island. The Category 5 winds completely destroyed the power grid which had to be rebuilt from scratch starting at the power station out (hence the PLC) and the storm surge took out the backup generators at the majority of the mobile phone towers since Cayman is only 510 feet above sea level. Yet even after all the destruction the underground copper network remained completely functional. In fact, at our house on the opposite side of the island from the power station, we got our broadband back months before electricity was restored. Home backup generators are a wonderful thing. By sheer coincidence we as also duplicating the fiber network that is being rolled out. The company that owns the copper network is rolling out service through their underground tunnels and a competitor is running their network above ground along the electricity poles in the same areas island wide. This same redundancy also applies to our connection to the outside world. We have copper undersea cables to the US and Jamaica and between the islands, fiber optic undersea cables between the islands and Jamaica (Cayman-Jamaica Fibre System) in addition to being connected to the Maya1 fiber to the US and Latin America. We also have a satellite earth station used by Intelsat as an additional backup. Not being connected is just not an option when you're the top offshore financial service center in the world. (On a side note: The power company actually applied to start providing broadband service to customers and a number of homes were used as test cases but their application was turned down because the government of the time though that being the sole energy provider on island was a good enough deal for them and government also precluded them from doing so in the future when they renewed their contract for 25 years (see: http://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/landingpoint/halfmoonbaycaymanislands)).

The only redundancy that is shared between the providers is the access off island and even then competitors must pay FLOW (formerly Cable and Wireless) for bandwidth allocation on the fibre systems. Its for this reason that there are more cell phones than people in Cayman. Everyone has at least one phone from each provider (a main contract with one and a pay as you go with the other) to ensure that should one provider's network go down they have access to the other's network. The reason the power lines are run above ground is mainly because Cayman is literally a solid limestone rock which makes trenching a very labour intensive and time consuming process. When the original power lines were installed in the 60s and 70s wooden poles were used and 30+ years of weathering combined with their relatively low height compared to the tree line meant that when the trees came down they took the power lines with them. The wooden poles were replaced with concrete poles more that twice their height so the power lines now run above the tree line making them far less prone to damage from falling trees."

***

Best,

-Michael

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Instituto Bem Estar Brasil <instituto@bemestarbrasil.org.br> wrote:

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