User Empowerment - BYON
From FIpedia
User-empowerment relates to any form of communication in which the user is more than just a consumer. Examples of user-empowerment are already a reality in relation to content, for instance, in which the user is also a provider and a rendezvous point. This user-empowerment perspective leaded to the Web2.0 (r)evolution with a new way of viewing the Internet with applications in the field of social networking, from YouTube to Facebook.
What we would like to discuss is the next potential step in user-empowerment: given users an active role in how information is transferred in the Internet, leading to a *user-centric networking* (r)evolution of the Internet. Within the context of user-centric networking we would like to generate some discussion around two potential disagreements: i) Flexible path selection; ii) Build Your Own Network
This wiki page is focus on the “Build Your Own Network” issue of user-empowerment. To express your opinion about the issue of “Flexible Path Selection” visit the following wiki page: Flexible Path Selection: Does it matter?
More extended view about the Internet (R)evolution can be found in: [1]
The Disagreement: Build Your Own Network
The concept of Build Your Own Network (BYON) relates to any scenario where users cooperate by sharing network services and resources. An example is the creation of the role of micro-operator (by single users or communities).
Background: What is the Role of a Micro-Operator?
Does it mean:
i) sharing subscribed broadband Internet access or to create self-contained local loop networks
ii) provide other network functionality besides connectivity such as:
- local mobility management
- persistent storage
- forwarding services
The must common usage of a BYON is to share Internet connectivity. Depending on the collected support, BYON can result from a grassroot movement (Freifunk), from a community effort (CUWIN ), from the operation of an ISP (OpenSpark), or from the user willingness to share their Internet access(FON and wifi.com). The case of FON may be classified as hybrid since it started by relying on the users willing to share their Internet access, and is ending up based on the willingness of access operators to use the FON model as a tool to increase coverage and number of clients.
Examples of user-provided local loop networks include the Berkeley work at Aravind Eyecare Hospital or the the Digital Gangetic Plains Project.
Building networks provided by the users depends on several aspects such as (not listed by order of importance):
i) Incentives for users to share their access point, including the on-the-fly creation of user communities ii) Security issues (malicious clients and malicious access points) iii) User friendly sharing and access (auto configuration) iv) Management of these spontaneous uncoordinated networks, including the prediction of availability ans access, cooperation among APs v) Legal and regulation aspects vi) Being access technology agnostic.
Other challenges of BYON were categorize by R. Sofia and P. Mendes in terms of their impact and scope.
The purpose of a BYON is ...more
Viewpoint 1: BYON does not really matter!
In what concerns legal issues, BYON will lead to situations where it is difficult to enforce existent laws and it is necessary to produce new laws (e.g. user accountability and identification of users performing illegal activities).
Moreover, networks provided by users may require some changes in the user as a tax payer: for instance if the connection sharing starts being profitable, the user need to start paying taxes, which may require a change in its tax situation.
In addition, there may be laws (different from country to country) that may shape the way BYONs are deployed. From instance some countries may require the record of traffic and identification of users that connect to the Internet (most common in Europe). Who will be responsible to fulfil this requirement?
From a deployment point of view, BYON started to be based on the users' willingness to share their Internet access. However, there are practical examples that this is not a strong assumption. Look at FON, that after starting by relaying on users willingness to share connectivity, is not making agreements with access operators. Moreover as mentioned by Soumya Sen et al, the success of new network technologies depends on technological superiority, the size of the incumbent’s installed base, users’ adoption behaviors, and various other factors. Hence it is necessary to understand competition between network technologies and the adoption rate that new technology may have among the final user. Namely it is not clear at the moment when, why, and how BYON really help.
Viewpoint 2: The BYON aspect of networking is important!
BYON will provide communities with truly decentralized, independent, and self-sufficient networking. For the micro-operator, BYON is rewarding due to several factors such as the possibility of users to have real broadband ubiquitous access and the possibility of make profit by sharing resources.
From a business model perspective, BYON constitute a next step concerning the notion of virtual operator, integrating the notion of microprovider: the network is “spread” by means of the end-user willingness to share his/her subscribed Internet access and management is de-centralized, or there is a central coordinator (virtual operator) in charge of management.
The importance of BYON may depend on several factors such as potential improvements on:
i) Internet resilience ii) Internet coverage in a more decentralized manner than for instance based on femto cells iii) (new) business models (e.g. micro-operators as happens in the energy sector)? iv) cooperation with the access operator(s), reducing their deployment and operational costs.
Moderator
Paulo Mendes
Leave a Comment
Rsofia said ...
Rsofia said ...
Some additional positive aspects:
For the user: - low-cost local-loop (coverage in dark areas) - broader roaming - community-based services (better entanglement with ICT)
For the access provider: - low-cost coverage in remote areas - possibility to reduce access/aggregation region traffic (by keeping traffic local) - new business models, differentiating factor; new markets - increase number of subscribed users
--Rsofia 18:59, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
Rui L. Aguiar said ...
There are a large set of arguments in favour of BYON developed under EC project WIP (www.ist-wip.org), which finished in 2008.
--Rui L. Aguiar 02:19, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Borka said ...
If we analyse the BYON paradigm we may come to an agreement that this is a sort of "fake" network, not in the context of the network services provided but in regard to the organisation and business model. The moment someone (a customer to some ISP with a contract for access) set up additional network and allows other users to use the facilities this customer becomes a sort of "a service provider" with different characteristics compared to a classical one. The users using this BYON do not have any other relationship with the "network provider customer" except the use of the service enabled by the network access he/she owns. So, the new network (sometimes called "user provided networks") is a sort of new "virtual" or "hosted" network in a business sense similar to the mobile operators without own network infrastructure.
In that context we need to make difference between Internet "users" and the networks customers. Sometimes these terms are mixed up maybe due to the old tradition in Internet community where everybody that uses the Internet was named as a user without any reflection to his/her role of a network provider customer (most of the Internet "users" are).
The need for development of BYON technology (manily management part) seems to be obvious, however there is a need the buisness model to be developed. Otherwise we may assume that the operators will react soon with new regulation in case of the fast growth of the dimensions of such networks.
--Borka 07:05, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Dirktrossen said ...
I agree on the business model issue that Borka highlights. BYON is not about the technology piece but more about the business impact this might have (on technology, possibly). Hence, the question on 'does it matter or not' becomes one on 'if so, where does it matter'? And some of these 'where' are legal frameworks, construction of SLAs, and route selection mechanisms.
--Dirktrossen 03:03, 16 November 2009 (EST)
Nsastry said ...
CNET reports that a pub in UK was fined because a customer downloaded copyrighted material using its open Wi-Fi Access Point. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10405824-83.html?tag=nl.e757
A key aspect to whether BYONs are adopted depends on how clear the laws are in protecting the access provider, and implicating the true culprits. Apparently, over in the US, the DMCA is quite clear in the protection it offers, according to TechDirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091128/1454517098.shtml
--Nsastry 06:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)
Wearing the devil's hat, the question is not really does it or does it not matter. UPNs are a new fashion and are disruptive in the sense that they go against (or at least do not follow) the path that was established so far in the Internet.
The question or the viewpoint that is relevant to raise is why would Internet established stakeholders (network access providers and service providers) to consider that UPNs/BYON are something relevant and more interesting that just a social fashion.
Some arguments that are heard over and over in regards to BYONs/UPNs by well-established stakeholder are:
1. this is fashion and nobody makes money out of it, so why should we care;
2. this is dangerous, users hanging from others cannot be traced, and EU policies will soon request packet source traceability;
3. there is no way that a network without control from me will operate autonomously and in a robust way
4. I cannot rely on a local-loop that is based on the user.
5. there are legal implications, there is a thin-line between sharing and selling. And selling rrequires an ISP role
6. there is no way users will cooperate to do this.
--Rsofia 18:53, 3 October 2009 (EDT)