From stu at spacehopper.org Mon Oct 1 19:55:06 2001 From: stu at spacehopper.org (stu@spacehopper.org) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> Message-ID: <3BB8ADFA.4000806@spacehopper.org> > > >How can a website get an allocation from RIPE let alone go into >transit or peering agreements with anybody (they will generally >require some legal contract). > It can't get RIPE or transit, although some people would peer without a contract. -Stu From stu at spacehopper.org Mon Oct 1 20:37:16 2001 From: stu at spacehopper.org (stu@spacehopper.org) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> Message-ID: <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> > > >"...the exemption does not apply to relevant apparatus providing any >radio link under which a telecommunication service is provided by way of >a business to another person (regulation 3(b))" > Interesting, I think I should dig up some newer information :) I suspect my RA leaflets about ETS 300 328 and Hiperlan I might be a bit of a collector's item by now :-) >The interpretation applied to the phrase "by way of a business" is, >however, somewhat broad and even applies if you want to give away the >service on the basis (I understand) that you are trying to make some >other service more attractive. > Interesting too. It seems a bit uncertain as to whether it's okay to operate a free of charge OpenNAP on 2.4GHz providing internet bandwidth (I've heard conflicting stories on this). And I wonder what anyone would think of people paying an .org.uk their share of internet bandwidth and infrastructure costs ... >The direct result of this ruling is that >it makes the UK 'provincial' - to put it kindly - compared to every >other country I know of when it comes to broadband wireless >connectivity. > I wonder if it'll happen after the 3.4GHz auctions...(I suspect an open 2.4 would make it a lot more difficult to sell 3.4). From malcolm at kyzo.com Mon Oct 1 23:37:57 2001 From: malcolm at kyzo.com (Malcolm Cartledge) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> Message-ID: <3BB8E235.583DAEAE@kyzo.com> > > > > >"...the exemption does not apply to relevant apparatus providing any > >radio link under which a telecommunication service is provided by way of > >a business to another person (regulation 3(b))" > > > Interesting, I think I should dig up some newer information :) I suspect > my RA leaflets about ETS 300 328 and Hiperlan I might be a bit of a > collector's item by now :-) These are technical specs and are seperate from the telecommunications act as such. Both specs should still be current although no-one ever built any Hiperlan equipment (which could be regarded as an oportunity seeing as there is a band reserved for it). All major European interest is now being directed at Hiperlan-2, or more correctly BRAN (Broadband Radio Access Networks - see http://portal.etsi.org/portal_common/home.asp?tbkey1=BRAN). > >The interpretation applied to the phrase "by way of a business" is, > >however, somewhat broad and even applies if you want to give away the > >service on the basis (I understand) that you are trying to make some > >other service more attractive. > > > Interesting too. It seems a bit uncertain as to whether it's okay to > operate a free of charge OpenNAP on 2.4GHz providing internet bandwidth > (I've heard conflicting stories on this). And I wonder what anyone would > think of people paying an .org.uk their share of internet bandwidth and > infrastructure costs ... It depends on exactly what you are proposing, only the RA can answer specific proposals. However, the "we're only changing for the bandwidth/infrastructure/whatever costs not the wireless" has been tried by many and strongly rejected. > >The direct result of this ruling is that > >it makes the UK 'provincial' - to put it kindly - compared to every > >other country I know of when it comes to broadband wireless > >connectivity. > > > I wonder if it'll happen after the 3.4GHz auctions...(I suspect an open > 2.4 would make it a lot more difficult to sell 3.4). I don't actually thing so. A commercial provider wanting to offer a decent quality of service for a Fixed Wireless ACcess service would want to 'own' their own block of controlled spectrum. Posessing such a license would also be a great advantage when looking to get venture capital or float the company. From stu at spacehopper.org Tue Oct 2 02:58:41 2001 From: stu at spacehopper.org (stu@spacehopper.org) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> <3BB8E235.583DAEAE@kyzo.com> Message-ID: <3BB91141.3080600@spacehopper.org> >>Interesting, I think I should dig up some newer information :) I suspect >>my RA leaflets about ETS 300 328 and Hiperlan I might be a bit of a >>collector's item by now :-) >These are technical specs and are seperate from the telecommunications >act as such. Yes. The leaflets I had were about bands which you could use and what type of equipment was permitted on them, though istr it was a little light on what you were allowed to do with them. I think this was from around the time Wi-fi was starting to get together to provide some compatibility between vendors. >Both specs should still be current although no-one ever >built any Hiperlan equipment (which could be regarded as an oportunity >seeing as there is a band reserved for it). Hiperlan looks to have some nice features for 'underground' networks, auto-discovery of routing in particular. I remember seeing some development firmware on a (French?) website that would run the protocol on Lucent cards (possibly rather slowly though!). I think it has disappeared now.. Very interesting, it's ad-hoc but provides similar facilities to infrastructure-based networks by putting more intelligence in the nodes. > All major European interest >is now being directed at Hiperlan-2, or more correctly BRAN (Broadband >Radio Access Networks - see >http://portal.etsi.org/portal_common/home.asp?tbkey1=BRAN). Wow, ETSI's web site has changed a lot since I last looked! I didn't realise Hiperlan-2 had an ad-hoc mode, all I had heard of before was infrastructure-based. I'll have to have a good look around. >>>The interpretation applied to the phrase "by way of a business" is, >>>however, somewhat broad and even applies if you want to give away the >>>service on the basis (I understand) that you are trying to make some >>>other service more attractive. >>Interesting too. It seems a bit uncertain as to whether it's okay to >>operate a free of charge OpenNAP on 2.4GHz providing internet bandwidth >>(I've heard conflicting stories on this). And I wonder what anyone would >>think of people paying an .org.uk their share of internet bandwidth and >>infrastructure costs ... >It depends on exactly what you are proposing, only the RA can answer >specific proposals. Been kicking a few ideas around, it seems like it's always going to be difficult to call because it's all in shades of grey. For example, I'd be very surprised if a group of people clubbing together to buy an access point to play multiplayer games against each other would be a problem. Certainly it wouldn't seem fair to deny that whilst allowing a business to bridge a couple of buildings. And I don't see how this made-up multiplayer gaming example could be regarded as being all that different if they also decided to add in some kind of leased line to join to another group of people the other side of town. And it's not much of a step to go from there to putting a machine at an ISP so they can also play with more people over the internet... >However, the "we're only changing for the >bandwidth/infrastructure/whatever costs not the wireless" has been tried >by many and strongly rejected. Do you mean by people who would be making money on the bandwidth? If so, the difference in my example is that, as a non-profit, it would be costs only. Are there any friendly RA people around who can give unofficial interpretations? (I guess a list other than -routing would be a better place for this...) >>>The direct result of this ruling is that >>>it makes the UK 'provincial' - to put it kindly - compared to every >>>other country I know of when it comes to broadband wireless >>>connectivity. >>I wonder if it'll happen after the 3.4GHz auctions...(I suspect an open >>2.4 would make it a lot more difficult to sell 3.4). >I don't actually thing so. A commercial provider wanting to offer a >decent quality of service for a Fixed Wireless ACcess service would want >to 'own' their own block of controlled spectrum. Posessing such a >license would also be a great advantage when looking to get venture >capital or float the company. I agree that larger commercial providers would prefer controlled spectrum, but I think that 3.4 poses too many problems. The bandwidth is not all that great. I think customers will be looking for at least 1-2Mbps, maybe at 20:1 contention or so at first, though when it's proven reliable, a greater number of people will look for clear-channel. And providers will be looking for areas with a high enough concentration of customers to make it worthwhile building a node. To service both those requirements is going to take a lot more than 2 x 17MHz. So I think it may be difficult for anyone to compete with BFWA licensees whilst paying fairly high costs for equipment (there don't seem to be as many large manufacturers at 3.4 than 28) and paying for a license. And a lot of the BFWA kit is cable modems connected to a radio instead of to a cable (for example: cisco, ogier, pipinghotnetworks) which is easier for a traditional ISP to manage than, for example, wi-lan hoppers.. Over at bawug there I've recently seen a few messages with thoughts about how using circular-polarised antennae for a commercial service over unlicensed spectrum would make it a lot less susceptible to interference from other users, which I think may make 2.4GHz somewhat more viable for a commercial service, obviously it doesn't give the same guarantees as licensed spectrum would but it makes unintentional interference unlikely and intentional interference more difficult. Since less bandwidth is available at 3.4GHz I suspect the type of people who might use it for internet access would be people who would want to pay less money than BFWA operators would charge, and might be prepared to make a few trades to achieve that (connection speed being one, and maybe reliability also). In those cases allowing resale over 2.4 would cut into the market. I might well be making too many assumptions here (probably starting with assuming that the people most interested would those wanting to use it for internet access :) From malcolm at kyzo.com Tue Oct 2 11:35:02 2001 From: malcolm at kyzo.com (Malcolm Cartledge) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> <3BB8E235.583DAEAE@kyzo.com> <3BB91141.3080600@spacehopper.org> Message-ID: <3BB98A46.9B737797@kyzo.com> [snip] > >>>The interpretation applied to the phrase "by way of a business" is, > >>>however, somewhat broad and even applies if you want to give away the > >>>service on the basis (I understand) that you are trying to make some > >>>other service more attractive. > > >>Interesting too. It seems a bit uncertain as to whether it's okay to > >>operate a free of charge OpenNAP on 2.4GHz providing internet bandwidth > >>(I've heard conflicting stories on this). And I wonder what anyone would > >>think of people paying an .org.uk their share of internet bandwidth and > >>infrastructure costs ... > > >It depends on exactly what you are proposing, only the RA can answer > >specific proposals. > > Been kicking a few ideas around, it seems like it's always going to be > difficult to call because it's all in shades of grey. For example, I'd > be very surprised if a group of people clubbing together to buy an > access point to play multiplayer games against each other would be a > problem. Certainly it wouldn't seem fair to deny that whilst allowing a > business to bridge a couple of buildings. And I don't see how this > made-up multiplayer gaming example could be regarded as being all that > different if they also decided to add in some kind of leased line to > join to another group of people the other side of town. And it's not > much of a step to go from there to putting a machine at an ISP so they > can also play with more people over the internet... A club using wireless is fine, there is no "business" element at all, and if you can also use someone's leased line to get wider access, that doesn't constitute a business arrangement either unless you start asking for a contribution (ignoring whether you are allowed to do so under your T&C's). For several years I also had access to my then ISP (Rednet) using a wireless link BUT using MY equipment and paying the same for the service as anyone else. The wireless link did not constitute any part of the contract - Rednet's service ended at our router. This was pre-802.11 using 2Mbps WaveLAN-I cards at 2.4GHz. There is a world of difference, in contractual terms, between this and the ISP providing the wireless link as part of the service they are offering and selling "by way of a business". Even if they charge the same for access as if it were a leased line, they can be seen to be a) charging the same as the provider of the leased line, and b) doing it to attract more business (presumably). You can remove the first element by charging appropriately less, but the second element is more problematic. The real question is not whether this is the ruling, but whether it is right. > >However, the "we're only changing for the > >bandwidth/infrastructure/whatever costs not the wireless" has been tried > >by many and strongly rejected. > > Do you mean by people who would be making money on the bandwidth? If so, > the difference in my example is that, as a non-profit, it would be costs > only. Are there any friendly RA people around who can give unofficial > interpretations? (I guess a list other than -routing would be a better > place for this...) I mean offering wireless would constitute a means of attracting customers and so is part of a business strategy to make money, it's not just a matter of directly attributable costs. At least that is how, I believe, the RA interpret it. Annette, who works for the RA, used to subscribe to this list, but unfortunately was much flamed by those who thought bad language might help change the rules. If she is still reading this maybe she would like to comment? > >>>The direct result of this ruling is that > >>>it makes the UK 'provincial' - to put it kindly - compared to every > >>>other country I know of when it comes to broadband wireless > >>>connectivity. > > >>I wonder if it'll happen after the 3.4GHz auctions...(I suspect an open > >>2.4 would make it a lot more difficult to sell 3.4). > > >I don't actually thing so. A commercial provider wanting to offer a > >decent quality of service for a Fixed Wireless ACcess service would want > >to 'own' their own block of controlled spectrum. Posessing such a > >license would also be a great advantage when looking to get venture > >capital or float the company. > > I agree that larger commercial providers would prefer controlled > spectrum, but I think that 3.4 poses too many problems. The bandwidth is > not all that great. I think customers will be looking for at least > 1-2Mbps, maybe at 20:1 contention or so at first, though when it's > proven reliable, a greater number of people will look for clear-channel. > And providers will be looking for areas with a high enough concentration > of customers to make it worthwhile building a node. To service both > those requirements is going to take a lot more than 2 x 17MHz. So I > think it may be difficult for anyone to compete with BFWA licensees > whilst paying fairly high costs for equipment (there don't seem to be as > many large manufacturers at 3.4 than 28) and paying for a license. And a > lot of the BFWA kit is cable modems connected to a radio instead of to a > cable (for example: cisco, ogier, pipinghotnetworks) which is easier for > a traditional ISP to manage than, for example, wi-lan hoppers.. Current 802.11 technology achieves about 0.5bits/Hz density (11Mbps in a 22MHz channel), but more advanced encoding can achieve up to 4bits/Hz. With a 17MHz channel this could yield as much as 68Mbps which, with reasonably carefully controlled cells and antennas, could offer a very reasonable service. Effectively you could divide this into 34 sub-channels of 2Mbps and at 20:1 contention would place up to 20x34 = 680 subscribers on each channel of each base station - even before sectoring! However, I don't actually know what rules are applied to the spectral density at 3.4GHz although I think they are very similar to ETS 300 328. > Over at bawug there I've recently seen a few messages with thoughts > about how using circular-polarised antennae for a commercial service > over unlicensed spectrum would make it a lot less susceptible to > interference from other users, which I think may make 2.4GHz somewhat > more viable for a commercial service, obviously it doesn't give the same > guarantees as licensed spectrum would but it makes unintentional > interference unlikely and intentional interference more difficult. Not really sure. Most of the commercial antennas we have used are circularly polarized, but as far as I am aware that was more a consequence of their design, not a requirement. I can see how they might be regarded as helping, but surely this would only be by up to 3dB. > Since less bandwidth is available at 3.4GHz I suspect the type of people > who might use it for internet access would be people who would want to > pay less money than BFWA operators would charge, and might be prepared > to make a few trades to achieve that (connection speed being one, and > maybe reliability also). In those cases allowing resale over 2.4 would > cut into the market. I might well be making too many assumptions here > (probably starting with assuming that the people most interested would > those wanting to use it for internet access :) You could be right, on the other hand market forces acting on quality of service, reliability, cost and product features may determine who used what service. this isn't an either one or the other situation after all. Malcolm C From ben at algroup.co.uk Tue Oct 2 12:24:36 2001 From: ben at algroup.co.uk (Ben Laurie) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> <3BB8E235.583DAEAE@kyzo.com> <3BB91141.3080600@spacehopper.org> <3BB98A46.9B737797@kyzo.com> Message-ID: <3BB995E4.E6CEEE1F@algroup.co.uk> Malcolm Cartledge wrote: > Current 802.11 technology achieves about 0.5bits/Hz density (11Mbps in a > 22MHz channel), but more advanced encoding can achieve up to 4bits/Hz. I presume even more than that is possible given (alleged) modem speeds... Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From malcolm at kyzo.com Tue Oct 2 13:07:06 2001 From: malcolm at kyzo.com (Malcolm Cartledge) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:24:08 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Current routing issues References: <20010930035026.A11400@eeyore.37.helan.org> <20010930131212.E13164@ns.gbnet.net> <3BB71BFF.EECD4498@kyzo.com> <3BB8B7DC.3030407@spacehopper.org> <3BB8E235.583DAEAE@kyzo.com> <3BB91141.3080600@spacehopper.org> <3BB98A46.9B737797@kyzo.com> <3BB995E4.E6CEEE1F@algroup.co.uk> Message-ID: <3BB99FDA.BD71C9DB@kyzo.com> Ben Laurie wrote: > > Malcolm Cartledge wrote: > > Current 802.11 technology achieves about 0.5bits/Hz density (11Mbps in a > > 22MHz channel), but more advanced encoding can achieve up to 4bits/Hz. > > I presume even more than that is possible given (alleged) modem > speeds... Don't know: what is the bandwidth of an analogue (not V.90) modem signal? Do you know what the symbol rate is? Also does the fact that an operating modem has a continuous carrier not help, which allows the the two ends to remain trained to each other? This is not possible for a wireless link which is inherently half duplex, and occupying two channels even less attractive. Such a scheme would also dramatically reduce the energy efficiency of the transmission (bits/Watt). Malcolm C