Community Wireless Networks, Participatory Media, and Neighborhood Empowerment

1
Community Wireless Networks, Participatory Media,
and Neighborhood Empowerment

• Sascha D. Meinrath
• Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network
  (CUWiN)
• Institute of Communications Research, University
  of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Correspondence Sascha Meinrath
  sascha_at_cuwireless.net [phone]
• 115 West Main Street, Second Floor
• Urbana, IL 61801
• U.S.A.
• Presented as a part of the UICC Conference in
  Urbana, IL. March 18, 2005.
• Available Online http//www.saschameinrath.com/p
  ubs

2
Hub Spoke Networks

• Centralized
• Relatively expensive
• Bandwidth-intensive
• High-power
• Single point-of-failure
• Slower than P2P/Mesh
• BUT, allow one to charge for all traffic

Graphic Credit Darrin Drda
3
Community Wireless Networks

• Small locally-based.
• Often non-profit, unincorporated, municipally
  supported, hybrid partnerships.
• Usually utilize off-the-shelf hardware.
• Mission to support both social economic
  development.

4
CUWiNs 4-Part Mission

• Connectivity
• Provide Internet connectivity to network users.
• Development
• Research and program software and build prototype
  hardware for use by other wireless projects
  throughout the US and around the globe.
• Dissemination
• Distribute open-source software and hardware
  specs to interested people and organizations.
• Implementation
• Build and support sustainable, not-for-profit
  communications networks in communities throughout
  the world.

5
Pringles Can Antenna

• Cheap
• Labor-Intensive
• Decidedly not weatherproof

Photo Credit Hope Hall
6
Recycled Computer Node
Photo Credit Hope Hall
7
Ammo-Can Router
Photo Credit Hope Hall
8
Metrix Node
Photo Credit Hope Hall
9
Ready-to-Install Wireless Nodes

• Standardized
• Quick-to-Install
• Weather-Proof
• Small

Photo Credit Hope Hall
10
Rooftop Installation

• Quick Easy
• Non-invasive
• Sometimes Scary

Photo Credit Hope Hall
11
Software Proving Ground
Photo Credit Hope Hall
12
Chambana.net Infrastructure
Photo Credit Hope Hall
13
Mesh Networks

• Decentralized
• By-passes obstacles
• Relatively cheap
• Low-power
• Very fast

Graphic Credit Darrin Drda
14
Hub Spoke Networks

• Centralized
• Relatively expensive
• Bandwidth-intensive
• High-power
• Single point-of-failure
• Slower than P2P/Mesh
• BUT, allow one to charge for all traffic

Graphic Credit Darrin Drda
15
Social Benefits

• The general public has the opportunity to be
  media producers broadcasting Internet radio,
  self-publishing journalism, displaying art
  projects, etc.
• Universities, colleges, and K-12 classrooms can
  cheaply establish wireless networks creating
  tremendous infrastructure and maintenance savings
  versus wired networks.
• Health-care providers can transfer information to
  patients with limited mobility as well as
  exchange patient information among doctors,
  clinics, pharmacies, and hospitals.
• Wireless networks facilitate e-government
  initiatives such as online voter registration,
  directions to polling stations, bill payment,
  access to tax advice, and public service
  announcements.
• Wireless infrastructures offer job creation
  opportunities as businesses take advantage of
  lower barriers to market entry and the advantages
  of high-speed, low-cost communications.

16
CUWiN Network (Sept. 2004)
Graphic Credit Paul King
17
Downtown Urbana Wireless Plan
18
How Illinois Almost Got Screwed

• Illinois State Senate Bill 0499
• 19 (c) No political subdivision of this State
  shall provide or
• 20 offer for sale, either to the public or to a
  telecommunications
• 21 provider, a telecommunications service or
  telecommunications
• 22 facility used to provide a telecommunications
  service for which
• 23 a Certificate of Service Authority is required
  pursuant to this
• 24 Section.

19
Across the United States
Arkansas (Ark. Code 23-17-409), Florida
(Fla. Stat. Ch. XXI, 166.047), Iowa (Iowa
Statue 388.10), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. Ann
237.19), Missouri (Revised Statutes of Missouri
392.410-7), Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat 86-2304),
Nevada (Nevada Statutes 268.086), Pennsylvania
(House Bill 30), South Carolina (S.C. Code
58-9-2600), Tennessee (Tenn. Stat. Ann.
7-52-601), Texas (Texas Pub. Util. Code 54.202
et seq), Utah (Utah Code 10-18), Virginia (Va.
Code 15.2-2160Va. Code 56-265.44),
Washington State (Revised Code of Washington
54.16.330), Wisconsin (Act 278)
20
How We Are About to be Screwed

• State Senate Bill 1700 Illinois Telecom
  Rewrite
• Written by SBC Staff.
• Guts public service provisions.
• Guts protections against price gouging.
• Strikes out all language stating that charges or
  service to the public shall be just and
  reasonable.
• Defines Broadband Service to be 200 kilobits
  per second (in one direction).
• Prevents regulation/oversight of advanced
  services broadband services any service
  not commercially available on the effective date
  of this amendatory Act information services
  Internet protocol enabled services and,
  customer premises equipment.

21
7 National (Spectrum) Reforms

• Shared spectrum usage (e.g., interference
  temperature).
• Spectrum for non-profit, municipal, educational
  use.
• More unlicensed spectrum (e.g., reallocation of
  old TV broadcast spectrum).
• Lower transmit power limits in urban areas.
• Variable power control on consumer-level devices.
• Smart-antenna and cognitive radio innovation.
• ISP information database for consumers.

22
7 Radical Alternatives

• Share your bandwidth.
• Distributed information storage.
• Community web-servers hosting.
• Mobile uploading universal access.
• Anonymous usage and downloading.
• Immediate broadcasting from the streets.
• Open Source, Open Architecture, Open Spectrum
  Solutions.

23
4 Take-Home Messages

• Implement more community wireless networks the
  movement is already growing rapidly.
• Strengthen the coalition of community wireless
  network implementers, developers, and spectrum
  policy allies.
• Repeal anti-competitive laws that limit consumer
  choices.
• Pass new regulations to support technological
  innovation and increase public access to the
  public airwaves.

24
3 Conclusions

• CWNs offer more (and faster) services to end
  users at cheaper prices.
• CWNs are a viable, accessible technological
  alternative.
• Like the Internet itself, CWNs create new media
  production and information dissemination
  opportunities limited only by our own
  imaginations.

25
For More Information

• Sascha D. Meinrath
• sascha_at_cuwireless.net CUWiN
  www.cuwireless.net
• [phone] Free Press www.freepress.net/com
  munityinternet
• Presentation available online at
  http//www.saschameinrath.com/pubs