24 Feb
2017
24 Feb
'17
12:07 p.m.
Hi everyone,
I just read this Interesting article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/technology/how-to-give-rural-america-bro…
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
24 Feb
24 Feb
2:49 p.m.
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(a)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(a)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-america-bro…
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
2:55 p.m.
Thanks so much for getting back to me, Bob. I really appreciate it!
The US is a relatively unique environment for this, and I don't know how it
works elsewhere (in Latin America or India, for example). And also how
often there even are local power/energy companies (as opposed to an energy
monopoly or government-owned infrastructure).
-Michael
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Bob Frankston <
Bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com> 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(a)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(a)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-america-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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
2 Mar
2 Mar
2:42 p.m.
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(a)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-america-bro…
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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
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
3:27 p.m.
Thank you for the insight Carlos!
Best,
-Michael
__________________
Michael J. Oghia
iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor
Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca(a)cafonso.ca> wrote:
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(a)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-america-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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
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(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3:29 p.m.
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 dont 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(a)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(a)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:
--
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> https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - <http://cgi.br> http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - <https://isoc.org.br> https://isoc.org.br
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
First, I need to preference this is that Im answering
this in terms
of the US and the issues are different elsewhere.
Ive 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 1950s 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>
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>
mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3) <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)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>
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
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3:34 p.m.
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(a)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(a)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(a)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:
--
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(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
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
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3)
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject:* [DC3] Collaborating with local power
companies
Hi everyone,
I just read this Interesting article:
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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
3:53 p.m.
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(a)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(a)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(a)bob.ma <mailto: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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
[mailto: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(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto: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:
> *From:*dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net
--
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> https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - <http://cgi.br> http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - <https://isoc.org.br> https://isoc.org.br
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
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>
http://rmf.vc/InternetNativePolicies) instead of use telecom pricing
and policies the limitations would disappear rather
quickly.
[ <mailto: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) <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)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>
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
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3 Mar
3 Mar
11:13 a.m.
New subject: RES: Collaborating with local power companies
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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome
de dc3(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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:
--
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> https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - <http://cgi.br> http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - <https://isoc.org.br> https://isoc.org.br
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
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>
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>
mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3) <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)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>
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
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
11:38 a.m.
New subject: RES: Collaborating with local power companies
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
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/20/atts-project-airgig-is-the-insane-future-of-ultra-fast-mobile-and-fixed-networks/>
.
ISOC also produced a briefing paper on this back in 2003: Addressing the
Digital Divide with IPv6-enabled Broadband Power Line Communications
<https://www.isoc.org/briefings/013/briefing13.pdf>.
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
<https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2013/10/whatever-happened-to-broadband-over-power-line/>
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
<http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technology/security/energy-grid-hack/> 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/halfmoonbaycaymanislan…
<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(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.alt
ermundi.net] *Em nome de *dc3(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.alt
ermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:34
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
dc3(a)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(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.alt
ermundi.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 09:43
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)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
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3)
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject:* [DC3] Collaborating with local power
companies
Hi everyone,
I just read this Interesting article:
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
11:39 a.m.
New subject: RES: Collaborating with local power companies
One detail in Saldanha's message ("digital cities") reminds me of the
relevance of replacing the concept with "digital municipalities", moving
up from a strategy for just the main urban cluster to the entire area
under the jurisdiction of the local government -- the sum of these areas
covers the totality of rural communities in a country.
So, my suggestion is to always try and think of digital municipalities
in our strategies to support local communities.
frt rgds
--c.a.
On 03/03/2017 08:13, Instituto Bem Estar Brasil 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(a)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>
[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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto: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(a)bob.ma <mailto: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(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
[mailto: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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto: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:
--
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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
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
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>
[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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>>
*Subject:* [DC3] Collaborating with local power
companies
Hi everyone,
I just read this Interesting article:
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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
12:57 p.m.
New subject: RES: RES: Collaborating with local power companies
Great Michael and CA, in the case of another tech with wired infra, it seems to be great
the application of GFast, married with hybrid networks (wifi and fttc/cat5). I think that
GVT here in Brazil works with similar tech to take advantage of the copper cables in the
households. The truth is that we need to create a basic text to make a movement in our
cities approaching more the theme of digital cities and CNs as part of common good of the
public policy of communication to smart citizens/cities.
Synergies we have a lot, I think that the first step is to organize the information, make
a good presentation, based in those relevant information and make the movement happen from
botton-up-in-between.
Again I think that is more easy to make a conversation with the mayors than the president.
It is more easy to make pressure locally than gloabaly and we can add our strength
helping each other in this collective construction and helping in make the conversation
too, and pressuring together the stakeholders when necessary.
I already share the documents of the Unesco and gig-u here ? About digital cities and
smart cities ?
Lets keep walking.
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome
de Michael Oghia
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de março de 2017 08:39
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Collaborating with local power companies
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
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/20/atts-project-airgig-is-the-insane-future-of-ultra-fast-mobile-and-fixed-networks/>
.
ISOC also produced a briefing paper on this back in 2003: Addressing the Digital Divide
with IPv6-enabled Broadband Power Line Communications
<https://www.isoc.org/briefings/013/briefing13.pdf> .
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
<https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2013/10/whatever-happened-to-broadband-over-power-line/>
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
<http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technology/security/energy-grid-hack/> 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/halfmoonbaycaymanislan….
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(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome
de dc3(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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>
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>
mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3) <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)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>
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
1 p.m.
New subject: RES: RES: Collaborating with local power companies
*"Again I think that is more easy to make a conversation with the mayors
than the president. It is more easy to make pressure locally than globally
and we can add our strength helping each other in this collective
construction and helping in make the conversation too, and pressuring
together the stakeholders when necessary."*
I couldn't agree more Marcelo!
-Michael
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Instituto Bem Estar Brasil <
instituto(a)bemestarbrasil.org.br> wrote:
Great Michael and CA, in the case of another tech with
wired infra, it
seems to be great the application of GFast, married with hybrid networks
(wifi and fttc/cat5). I think that GVT here in Brazil works with similar
tech to take advantage of the copper cables in the households. The truth
is that we need to create a basic text to make a movement in our cities
approaching more the theme of digital cities and CNs as part of common good
of the public policy of communication to smart citizens/cities.
Synergies we have a lot, I think that the first step is to organize the
information, make a good presentation, based in those relevant information
and make the movement happen from botton-up-in-between.
Again I think that is more easy to make a conversation with the mayors
than the president. It is more easy to make pressure locally than gloabaly
and we can add our strength helping each other in this collective
construction and helping in make the conversation too, and pressuring
together the stakeholders when necessary.
I already share the documents of the Unesco and gig-u here ? About digital
cities and smart cities ?
Lets keep walking.
*De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
altermundi.net] *Em nome de *Michael Oghia
*Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 3 de março de 2017 08:39
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
*Assunto:* Re: [DC3] RES: Collaborating with local power companies
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
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/20/atts-project-airgig-is-the-insane-future-of-ultra-fast-mobile-and-fixed-networks/>
.
ISOC also produced a briefing paper on this back in 2003: Addressing the
Digital Divide with IPv6-enabled Broadband Power Line Communications
<https://www.isoc.org/briefings/013/briefing13.pdf>.
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
<https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2013/10/whatever-happened-to-broadband-over-power-line/>
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
<http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technology/security/energy-grid-hack/> 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/halfmoonbaycaymanislan…
<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(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
altermundi.net] *Em nome de *dc3(a)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(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
altermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:34
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
dc3(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Oghia
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 07:08
*To:* DC on Community Connectivity (DC3)
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject:* [DC3] Collaborating with local power
companies
Hi everyone,
I just read this Interesting article:
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
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
2610
days inactive
2617
days old
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bob Frankston -
Carlos Afonso -
dc3＠bob.ma -
Instituto Bem Estar Brasil -
Michael Oghia