BME
Business models and technologies for
wireless community networks
Csaba A. Szabo
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
and CREATE-NET Research Center, Trento, Italy
szabo@hit.bme.hu, cszabo@create-net.org
Homepage: www.hit.bme.hu/~szabo
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
1
About the presenter
BME
 Professor, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Hungary
 Leading the Laboratory of Multimedia Networks
 a range of technical areas related to networked multimedia
 computer networks, media technologies, media communications, mobile
multimedia, applications incl. telemedicine and e-learning
 Also with CREATE-NET, an international research center based
in Trento, Italy
 Working with a team of researchers at CREATE-NET which
participates in the EU project OPAALS
 Current research interests include design methodology for
wireless community networks, technology, applications and
business models for deployment and sustainability
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
2
Foreword
BME
 Community Networks is a proven approach to provide ubiquitous access, broadband
connectivity, a range of important society related and business applications to
citizens, institutions and companies in a given geographic area.
 Digital Ecosystems is an emerging field with a few pilot projects only at the
moment; and the presence of an ubiquitous infrastructure is assumed as granted.
 CNs can help introducing DE services and DE services can contribute to CNs
sustainability
… so that’s why this topic is important within the context of Digital Ecosystems
 Wireless and mobile technologies play an increasingly important role in building
Community Networks and, consequently, communication infrastructures for digital
ecosystems
… so that’s why we will focus on wireless CNs
 There are two important and inter-related aspects of planning CNs:
 how to create a suitable infrastructure – technology planning
 how to make it sustainable – choosing appropriate business models
… so that’s why this tutorial intends to cover both the technologies and business
models
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
3
Objective of this tutorial
BME
Give an overview of requirements, services, technologies
and business models for Community Networks
Analyze several characteristic examples
From this lecture the participants:
 will have a reasonably good understanding of the state-of-the art
technologies and the most important business models
 will learn from experiences of some case studies
 will be provided with guidelines as a starting point for the
planning of wireless CNs
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
4
Outline
BME
Introduction
 What is a Community Network?
 Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructures
 Applications and requirements
 Wireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAX
 Design guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNs
 Overview of possibilities of public intervention
 Main models and examples
Summary
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
5
Introduction:
Community Networks
BME
 Infrastructure and services created with high level of involvement by a community
belonging to a specific geographic area
 Grassroot origins: “free nets”, “civic nets”
 no infrastructure was created
 Newer examples of community initiatives: “municipal fiber”, “condominium fiber”
 Government initiative and governance
 infrastructure is created
 most of community networks today are driven by (local) government initiatives, thus
a definition for CN can be:
 Network infrastructure (mostly wireless), created by some form of public participation
plus
 the underlying business model plus
 the applications and services provided to communities
 related terms:
 Digital cities, digital communities (Intel), wireless cities, municipal wireless
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
6
CNs provide ubiquitous access
BME
 NSF on cyber-infrastructures: “Historical infrastructures – the
automobile/gasoline/roadway system, electrical grids, railways,
telephony, and most recently the Internet – become ubiquitous,
accessible, reliable and transparent as they mature.”
 True for some historical infrastructures such as electricity networks,
road systems, but ubiquitous access and reliability certainly cannot be
taken for granted in the case of telecommunication networks and the
Internet.
 Telecom and internet companies operate according to their business
models, the consequence is often the “digital divide”.
 In a regional environment, however, it is possible to create network
infrastructures which, if properly designed, can provide ubiquitous
coverage and accessibility as well as the required degree of reliability
plus several more advantages
 in particular by using wireless technologies
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
7
Wireless community networks:
current status (only USA)
BME
www.muniwireless.com
City Initiatives Directory
~200 networks in “deployed” or “running” status
~180 in “in progress”, “negotiating” or “feasibility study”
status
Europe: lagging but ambitious objectives
Asia-Pacific: many similar initiatives
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
8
Outline
BME
Introduction
 What is a Community Network?
 Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructures
 Applications and requirements
 Wireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAX
 Design guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNs
 Overview of possibilities of public intervention
 Main models and examples
Summary
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
9
CN Applications
BME
A) Access to public information and services
Public Internet kiosks for access to public information, tourism, portals for e-government services and for tourists
B) Public safety
Enhancing public safety by remote surveillance of public areas
Improving the communication with police, civilian police, fire department and the like
C) Traffic control and transportation
Coping with traffic congestion by vehicle monitoring and intelligent traffic light control
Vehicle management for public transportation (buses)
Intelligent parking systems with flexible payment
Monitoring of road conditions, in particular in winter
D) Health care
Improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health care services by broadband and wireless communications
among and within health care providers (incl. telemedicine services)
Home health care and assisted living
E) Business services
Business partners/providers/clients searching
B2B and B2C transactions
Advertise product and services
F) Educational
Internet access, e-learning, administrational portal on the campus and extending educational network to the home
G) Utility companies (electricity, water, gas, etc.)
Collecting measurement data and billing information
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
10
Wireless cities and their primary
applications












BME
Chaska, MN – Digital divide for schools, businesses and residents;
Cheyenne, WY – Traffic signal management;
Corpus Christi, TX – Automated meter reading for utility companies;
Lewis&Clark County, MT – leased line replacement; access to remote county
buildings;
Medford, OR – public safety;
Ocean City, MD – Integrated digital, voice and video for city buildings;
Piraí, Brazil – Municipal field-force productivity;
Portsmouth, UK – Bus passenger information dissemination;
San Mateo, CA – Police field-force productivity improvement;
Shanghai, China – Police field-force productivity improvement;
Spokane, WA – Municipal applications and e-Government initiatives;
Westminster, UK – Video surveillance and enhanced security.
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
11
Requirement analysis
BME
 Community network technology projects should not be technology
driven!
 Requirements should be derived from applications and services
 current planned applications and services
 requirements by anchor customers, if exist
 plan for potential future services
 Examples of requirements that influence the technology design
 bandwidth-intensive applications
 applications that require quality of service (real-time transmission, delay and
loss requirements,…)
 portability/mobility needs
 interconnection with service providers’ networks is needed
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
12
Basic requirements for network and
IT infrastructures of CNs
BME
 full coverage of the respective territory and ubiquitous access
 access from a multiplicity of user devices and platforms
 support of mobility
 the applications are not supposed to know where the user is
 seamless handover even if the user moves through different technologies (a.k.a. vertical
handover)
 geospatial capabilities
 technology is GPS or more recently, WPS (Wi-Fi based positioning service)
 quality of service
 a certain set of technical parameters
 based on these parameters, we can tell what kind of information delivery could be
expected from the network
 examples are delay, delay variation and loss of information units
 classic internet does not provide QoS
 service delivery platforms
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
13
Available wireless technologies
for CNs
BME
Wi-Fi mesh
 the well known Wi-Fi (standard-based wireless LAN) combined
with the mesh network principle
WiMAX
 a relatively new standard-based wireless technology to cover
significantly larger area than a LAN – wireless MAN (metro area
network), both fixed and mobile
(Cellular mobile)
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
14
Wi-Fi mesh networks
BME
Wired
internet
802.3
AP
AP
Instead of the classical
infrastructure-based operation,
Wi-Fi access points
can play the role of nodes
for the mesh network
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
They can remain access points
for users but it is better to
separate the two functions in
two types of nodes/devices
October 7, 2008
15
Mesh nodes for infrastructure
and client connectivity
BME
internet
Service Provider
wired network
Mesh node
Mesh Infrastructure
connectivity
Client connectivity
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
16
Wi-Fi mesh
BME
 Wireless mesh network are
 peer-to-peer
 multi-hop
networks, where the nodes cooperate with each other to route information packets
through the network
 An alternative to “infrastructure based” network where there is a backbone that
interconnects all nodes to which the end users are connected
 Mesh networks are




“organic”, nodes may be added and deleted freely
fault tolerant, nodes may fail and packets will still be routed
manageable in a distributed way
of high overall capacity
 There are also challenges:




if there are too many nodes
if too few nodes
with security
with interoperability
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
17
Operation in license-free bands
BME
• In mesh architecture, we still use the same license free bands as the plain
Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz ISM band, or 5 GHz UNII)
• It’s a big advantage, but we should be aware of the consequences
Industrial Scientific and
Medical Band
(IMS)
Frequency,GHz
Unlicenged National
2.4
2.483
New Allocation
Information Infrastructure
(UNII)
5.15
5.25
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
5.725
5.35
5.825
October 7, 2008
18
The throughput issue in a mesh
BME
• In the simplest case, every node
acts as an access point and as a
forwarding node
• The more hops are involved the
higher percentage of traffic is
dedicated to forwarding
• Situation can be improved by
using dual radios (one for
forwarding and one for client
access)
• However it is still not a perfect
system as the backbone radios
also work in contention
environment
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
6.00
1/N
5.00
(1/2)^N
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
October 7, 2008
19
What is WiMAX?
BME
From technological point of view:
 worldwide accepted standard (developed in IEEE, adopted by
ETSI), promoted by WiMAX Forum for Broadband Wireless Access
From users’ point of view:
 WiMAX vs Wi-Fi?
 WiMAX: also wireless access, like the ubiquitous Wi-Fi
 as opposed to Wi-Fi’s limited coverage, WiMAX covers larger
areas
 but WiMAX is not just an upgrade of Wi-Fi!
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
20
 Flexible architecture
WiMAX features and
advantages
BME
 p-p, p-mp, ubiquitous
 Wide area coverage
 up to tens of km in LOS environment
 NLOS operation
 High capacity and data rates
 up to 100 Mbps
 High security
 AES and 3DES encryption standards
 Quality of service
 supports real-time data streams
 Mobility
 the new Mobile WiMAX standard
 Easy, quick and inexpensive deployment
 Flexibility in spectrum allocation
 licensed and license-free frequency bands
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
21
Area coverage and data rate?
Typical range (Km)
WiMAX vs cellular mobile and WiFi
BME
30
10
2G
(GSM)
2.5G
(GPRS)
1
3G
(UMTS)
0.1
802.11b
0.01
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
0.1
802.11a
1
10
Typical user data rate
(Mbps)
October 7, 2008
22
LOS and NLOS operation?
BME
Propagation in urban
environment
red line: direct “visibility,
blue lines: reflected waves
WiMAX: specific techniques to make use
of the reflected waves even if the direct
one is missing (no LOS)
Propagation in rural environment
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
23
Mobility?
“Fixed” and “mobile” WiMAX
BME
“Fixed WiMAX”: based on IEEE 802.16-2004 standard (approved end of 2004)
Commercially available and certified equipment since end of 2005
“Mobile WiMAX”: based on IEEE 802.16e standard (approved end of 2005)
First devices in the market in 2008
Application
Customer devices
Speed
Handoff
Fixed
WiMAX
Mobile
WiMAX
Fixed access
Outdoor and indoor
CPEs
Stationary
No
Yes
Yes
Nomadic
access
Indoor CPEs,
PCMCIA cards
Stationary
No
Yes
Yes
Portable
access
Laptop PCMCIA
cards
Walking speed
Hard
handoff
No
Yes
Mobile
access
Laptops, PDAs,
smart phones
Low to high
vehicular speed
Hard or
soft
handoff
No
Yes
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
24
WiMAX-based services
BME
Telcos carried out many pilot projects worldwide, but have
been reluctant to launch commercial services so far
First commercial operator offering mobile WiMAX-based
internet-access: Sprint
 Sprint’s XOhm service was launched just a week ago (Sep. 29,
2008) in Baltimore, USA, planning to extend it to other cities
WorldMax, The Netherlands
 currently nomadic access based on fixed WiMAX
 starting from 2H2008, more likely from 2009: mobile WiMAXbased service
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
25
WiMAX as a viable solution for developing
countries and underserved areas
BME
 The new wireless MAN technology is a “professional” one but
suitable not only for service providers!
 Communities can deploy, too, using either licensed or unlicensed
frequency bands
 As opposed to fiber or copper based infrastructures, WiMAX requires
significantly less investment, offers high flexibility in installation
 Many non-profit, government subsidized pilot projects: Iberbanda
(Spain), India, Vietnam
 Intel co-subsidized projects:
 Parintins (Amazonia), Brazil
 Ghana
 New Zealand
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
26
Technology selection
BME
 Application requirements

We should analyze the requirements of the applications and services selected in the first
step. This analysis should contain coverage, bandwidth and QoS (delay, jitter).
 Timeframe

Wi-Fi mesh is available now. No interoperability between different vendors’ mesh
products, standard-based products are yet to come. Fixed WiMAX is on the market, but
prices will go down. Mobile WiMAX is only coming (as of Fall 2008).
 Frequency issue

In many countries or regions, mainly in Europe, it is difficult to obtain licenses required
for WiMAX. Using unlicensed ISM band can result in weak QoS and low bandwidth
because of disturbance of other devices and providers.
 Costs

A careful calculation is needed for each individual project. Equipment price together
with the required density of Wi-Fi mesh nodes should be considered vs. number of
WiMAX base stations.
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
27
BME
Design example to get a feeling of the cost side:
a Hungarian „Digital City”
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
Area to cover
BME
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
29
Network topology
BME
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
30
Installation costs for 3 scenarios
BME
1)
Pilot
2)
“Hot places”
3)
“Everywhere”
Qty
Price
Total
WiMAX Base Station Set
1
9,200
9,200
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set
3
5,040
15,120
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set
10
2,300
23,000
Planning and installation
6,000
Total
53,200
WiMAX Base Station Set
2
9200
18,400
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set
10
5040
50,400
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set
40
2300
92,000
Planning and installation
12,000
Total
172,800
WiMAX Base Station Set
3
9200
27,600
WiMAX-Wi-Fi Dual Node Set
12
5040
60,480
Wi-Fi Mesh Node Set
55
2300
126,500
Planning and installation
18,000
Total
232,580
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
31
Outline
BME
Introduction
 What is a Community Network?
 Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructures
 Applications and requirements
 Wireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAX
 Design guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNs
 Overview of possibilities of public intervention
 Main models and examples
Summary
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
32
On business models: level of
participation of the public entity
Content, Services, Applications,
Customer care
Broadband networks
level of
intervention
Ducts, Masts, Poles, Colocation
sites, Dark Fiber, Passive
elements
BME
community
operated
services model
“carriers’ carrier”
(active
infrastructure
model)
passive
infrastructure
model
Lowest level of inv’ment:
aggregation of demands
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
33
Some basic public/private
models (1)
BME
1 Publicly owned and operated
2 Privately owned and operated
3 Non-profit owned and operated
4 Publicly owned, privately operated
5 Owned and operated by a public utility
6 Privately owned and operated jointly with the municipality
The choice of the appropriate model is influenced by
regulatory issues
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
34
Some basic public/private
models (2)
BME
high
Complexity of
management
and administration
by the public entity
3 Non profit
6 Private/public
1 Public/public
5 Utility
4 Public/private
2 Private/private
high
Level Level
of public
of public
investment
investment
and costs
and costs
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
35
Some statistical data on municipalities’
involvement in building and operating
wireless CNs
BME
Municipal Wireless Business Models Report, 2007
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
36
Why municipalities build/operate
their own network?
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
BME
October 7, 2008
37
Why municipalities do not
build/operate their own network?
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
BME
October 7, 2008
38
Main models and examples
BME
1) The “Wireless Philadelphia” model (“private corporate
franchise” model)
 Wireless Philadephia
 Several other wireless city projects in the USA
 Newer attempts (NSW, Australia; Fresno, CA, USA)
2) “Anchor tenant” model
 Corpus Christi, TX, USA
 Trentino, Italy
3) “Communitarian” (grassroot) models
 FON
 SparkNet, Finland
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
39
Model 1
“Wireless Philadelphia”
BME
 The Wireless Philadelphia initiative started with a pilot, covering the central districts
and was expanded to cover the entire metropolitan area with a total 20 million USD
investment.
 The project was financed and implemented by Earthlink. The business model was
based on providing Internet access in the city, as the level of broadband penetration
was very low (below 25%) being mainly dial-up access.
 Earthlink was also planning to sell bandwidth both to retail and wholesale
customers.
 The city was planning to subsidize Internet access for low-income residents.
 The model failed and after a long period of uncertainty about the future of Wireless
Philadelphia Earthlink withdrew.
 Why many Type 1 models failed or are in trouble in the USA?
 lack of commitment by the city to the service provider
 false assumptions, e.g. that free internet access can be financed by advertisements
 internet access is not enough, business applications are needed
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
40
Model 2
Corpus Christi, TX, USA
BME
 The largest coastal city in Texas, with about 300,000 inhabitants and a very large
territory of suburban character
 Key application: Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system for water and gas
customers.
 The city built a pilot network covering 17 sq. miles and organized a brainstorming
with stakeholders which resulted in 20+ application ideas




building inspection (implemented)
health care: electronic health records made available on site
video surveillance
city portal (implemented)
 The city extended the network to cover a territory of 147 sq. miles
 Access point density is 60-70 per sq. miles in the center and as low as one AP per sq.
mile in suburbs.
 The city then sold the network to Earthlink
 Business model: city pays 500k/yr to Earthlink and saves 300k from AMR only.
Earthlink provides advanced internet service to citizens and hosts applications; pays
5% from its profit to city
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
41
Model 3
Communitarian (grassroot) models
BME
 Based on sharing internet connections among the members of the community
 FON: “the largest Wi-Fi community in the world”
 FON router (La Fonera), Foneros, non-Fonero users
 Cooperation with service providers (e.g. British Telecom)
 FON communities are growing in: Geneva, Oslo, Munich, Tokyo, New York, San
Francisco
 Why FON-type models are of interest?
 failure of Type1 models in many cities in the USA
 lack of public money and/or lack of interest from commercial operators to build CN
infrastructures
 Can FON-type networks serve as CN infrastructures? Yes and no.
 for plain internet access and for applications that do not demand high bandwidth and
QoS: yes, but: availability issue
 for QoS-demanding applications and services: no
 to cover “islands”, “neighborhoods” of a city: yes, provided that internet connection
points are available
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
42
And here in Finland…
BME
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
43
and here in Tampere…
BME
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
44
Outline
BME
Introduction
 What is a Community Network?
 Ubiquitous access and CNs
Wireless CN infrastructures
 Applications and requirements
 Wireless network technologies: Wi-Fi mesh and WiMAX
 Design guidelines for wireless CNs
Business models for wireless CNs
 Overview of possibilities of public intervention
 Main models and examples
Summary
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
45
Summary:
Technology and business models
BME
CNs should not be technology driven
Identifying key applications and anchor customers is critical
The specific form of public-private cooperation/partnership
depends on
 willingness and capabilities of local governments to invest and
manage the investment
 willingness of market players to become partners
 finding business models that satisfies both sides’ interests
Technology planning includes
 selection of the most suitable wireless technology
 planning methodology for coverage and quality of service is
needed
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
46
Summary:
General conclusions
BME
Ubiquitous network infrastructure created by local
government-lead CN projects may facilitate the adaptation
of DE services within a specific territory
Community participation may help the adoption of DEs
DEs can add advanced services to CNs thus helping to
make the latter sustainable
The many CNs in operation today can be a real playground
for implementing DE services
CNs and DEs can be considered as different aspects of
regional development strategy and synergy is expected
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
47
Some references
BME
 C. Szabó, I. Chlamtac and E. Bedő, "Design Considerations of Broadband
Community Networks," Proceedings of 37th Annual Hawaii Int’l Conf. on System
Sciences (CD/ROM), January 5-8, 2004, Computer Society Press, 2004. Ten pages.
 Chlamtac I., Gumaste A., Szabo C. A., Broadband Services: Business Models and
Technologies for Broadband Community Networks, Wiley, 2005.
 Szabó C. A., Horváth Z. and Farkas K., “Wireless Community Networks:
Motivations, Design and Business Models”. Proc. WICON07, Oct 22-24, 2007,
Austin, TX, USA. Also in: Mobile Networks and Applications, Springer, 2008.
 Proc. 2nd Annual European Congress on Wireless & Digital Cities, Cannes, 26 Sep
2007.
 F. Botto, S. Danzi, E. Salvadori, C. A. Szabo, A. Passani, “Digital Ecosystems and
the Trentino Community Network,” OPAALS (EU NoE project) report D7.2,
January 2008.
 K. Farkas, C. Szabo, Z. Horvath, „Planning of Wireless Community Networks”, in:
Handbook of Research on Telecommunications Planning and Management for
Business, Editor: In Lee, Publisher: Information Science Reference, 2008, to appear.
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008
48
BME
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
2007
Tutorial DEST
at OPAALS2008
Conference, Tampere, Finland
October 7, 2008