Comparison of Different WLAN Network Models

Matti Juutilainen Jouni Ikonen Jari Porras

Matti.Juutilainen@lut.fi Jouni.Ikonen@lut.fi Jari.Porras@lut.fi
Lappeenranta University of Technology
Laboratory of Communications Engineering
P.O. Box 20, FIN-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
Tel. +358-5-621 2861, Fax. +358-5-621 2899

Abstract
The introduction of IEEE’s 802.11b WLAN standard in
1997 made the rapid development of local wireless small-
scale networks possible. These local networks are built by
ISPs, organizations and private people. All of them may
have different aspects and goals, but they all usually have
one thing in common: they want to provide a connection to
other people and at the same time somehow profit from
sharing the connection. ISP networks are commercial and
closed, whereas community networks built by private
people are public and non-commercial. A new trend is in
public multi-ISP networks that combine the properties of
ISP networks and community networks and allow the
commercial usage of public networks. This paper describes
these different network models and compares their
structure, goals and usage possibilities.
Figure 1. Examples of WLAN network models
Keywords As every commercial ISP has been building private
access networks for connecting its customers, there is an
Public multi-ISP network, community network, Wireless overwhelming competition over phone and TV cables used
Lappeenranta, WLpr.net for the connection. All of the ISPs need the same cables for
the connections, but the cables cannot relay everyone’s
1. Introduction traffic at the same time. The situation is beneficial neither
to the customers nor the ISPs. The customers have to pay
What if individuals could connect to a network and use
the high network building costs as each of the ISPs has to
it anywhere in the world, anytime, and with affordable
build a separate network. Often the ISP that has built the
cost? The local network around could be used without a
network first to a certain area will reach a monopolistic
charge and an Internet connection would be always
position as there is commercially no sense building several
available through several Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
overlapping networks to the same area. The monopoly will
Could this be possible?
keep the connection charges high and limit the available
Traditionally, ISPs have been building closed networks
services as there is no competition.
for connecting their own customers. The networks have
The inflexible usage of access networks limits the
been closed for any other users. However, the modern
opportunities of network users. Usually the network users
trend in wireless LAN networks is towards public
cannot choose or change the ISP as there simply are no
networks that can offer new connectivity and services for
alternatives. This results in high connection charges, poor
the network users. Individuals have started to build
network functionality and lack of available services.
community networks for offering free local connectivity
What if every ISP could use the same access network
and bypassing the ISPs in the local access network. There
for reaching the customers instead of building separate
are also new networking projects in the world trying to
access networks? At the same time the customers could
extend this approach further and combine the viewpoints
easily change the ISP and choose the one that provides the
of the ISPs and end users. These projects are developing
best services for the customer’s needs. Publicity is the key
public multi-ISP networks, which allow offering an
word here. Public access networks try to change the
affordable network connection for large masses.
current situation toward more open and flexible access
As stated, modern WLAN networks can be roughly
network usage.
divided into three categories: commercial, community and
public multi-ISP networks (see Figure 1).
Publicity of Access Networks
Publicity of access networks is in a key role when
striving for a larger number of network users, lower
connection costs and better network services. A public
WLAN service provider is a company or an organization
providing a public access through a local access network to
another network. Typically that external network is
Internet, but also company intranets and regional networks
can be used. Service providers have to take care of the
access network’s physical infrastructure and offer the
required services, such as DHCP and user authentication.
In addition, service providers manage and expand the
access network and charge the network users. [1]
A public network, which is affordable and easy to join,
will surely attract larger number of users than the
traditional closed single-ISP networks. Easy and free
joining makes the network easy to try. Traditionally every
ISP has an own network open only for the ISP’s own
customers. Therefore, the users have no option but to
choose the ISP that has covered their neighborhood. In a
public access network everyone can use the whole
coverage area of the access network and choose the ISP
from the ones connected to the system. The coverage area
of a public access network is usually larger than traditional
separately built ISP networks’, as every ISP can utilize the
same access network. A shared access network results also
in higher utilization factor, lower building costs, more
competition between the ISPs and lower network usage
costs for end users.
Public multi-ISP networks generally consist of wired or
wireless access network connecting the ISPs and end users
to each other. Wireless local area network (WLAN) is a
popular technology for building access networks as it
offers an easy and affordable option for covering the last
mile from service providers to the subscribers. On the
other hand, implementing comprehensive WLAN networks
can be quite tricky as the signals tend to attenuate heavily
on obstacles. Current WLAN technology also suffers from
security problems. However, the technology is under
development and the problems are to be solved.
The main goal of public multi-ISP networks is to give
everyone an equal chance to get a network connection
anywhere. The goal is achieved by opening the network’s
last mile for public use and allowing the usage of network
medium without a cost. Having multiple ISPs in the same
network allows each individual to easily connect to the
network medium and, if needed, choose the service
provider to connect to the Internet.
Public networks can be roughly divided into two
categories: community networks and centrally managed
public networks. The main difference between these two
types is in the network administration. The community
networks are usually decentralized and non-commercial
whereas the centrally managed networks have also the
commercial prospect.
2. Community Networks
Community networks take an effort to solve the last
mile problem that exists in the ISP networks and restricts
the provision of fast network connections to ordinary
people. In other words, the community networks aim to
provide an inexpensive alternative to traditional ISP
networks.
Freenetworks.org (see [2]) is an affiliation between
community wireless networking projects around the world.
Freenetworks.org defines a free network as a network in
which anyone with the proper equipment can transfer data
within the network without paying any transit fees. A free
network can also be connected to other networks (such as
Internet), which may charge for transit. As the name
describes, a free network is freely available to anyone. The
concept of free network also represents freedom, as groups
and communities can build self owned and operated
infrastructure in hopes of it providing relief from the
existing options for network communications. Being able
to build large networks without the bureaucracy of
telecommunications companies is one of the main driving
forces of free community networks. [2] One basic rule in
any community network is that when you use the
community network, you should also share your own
connections to the other network users.
There has been a study of existing public WLAN
community networks and their features (see [3]). The
networks included in the survey had to meet the following
requirements: the network had to be operated by some
organization, the network had to be actively in use, and the
network had to have at least one operative access point.
Total of 68 community networks fulfilling the
requirements were found.
The survey shows that wireless community networks
can be divided into three groups depending on the main
purpose of use and geographical area:
1. Mainly for providing a wireless Internet
connection for network members and occasional
users (most common in Northern America).
2. Mainly for connecting users to each other, but also
Internet connection is available (most common in
Europe and in some parts of Northern America).
3. Mainly for connecting users to each other, no
Internet connection (most common in Australia
and in some parts of Europe).
Northern America is typically among the first areas to
adopt new technological innovations. New devices hit the
markets early allowing the prices to come down quicker
than in other parts of the world. Northern America has also
a higher penetration of laptop computers, PDAs and
network devices than other parts of the world. Affordable
network parts are crucial for building community
networks. The low price of WLAN devices allows building
the community networks with low costs. Additionally, in
Northern America broadband cable Internet connections
have been widely available for years, which makes it
common to share Internet connections to the wireless side.
Also the public authorities have approved the use of
WLAN technology without specific restrictions. Wireless
community networks in Northern America are typically
used for Internet connection sharing.
In Europe the community networks are used both for
connecting people to each other and sharing an Internet
connection. The practice varies by countries, as the
legislation and availability of technology varies. For
example, in Ireland a broadband cable connection is very
expensive, which makes the community network idea
attracting. On the other hand, in many parts of Europe
cable connections are reasonably priced. Compared to
Northern America, Europe has higher density of
population and higher penetration of cellular devices.
European markets are already dominated by mobile
operators making the situation difficult for community
networks, as the mobile operators want to keep the control
over the whole market.
Australia is a vast and mostly low populated country.
Covering the whole continent with broadband networks
would be an enormous and unprofitable effort. Outside the
big cities telephone lines or satellites are the only options
for a network connection as building wired broadband
connections would cost too much. Therefore people have
started to connect to each other with WLAN networks but
unfortunately they can not share any Internet connections
as the legislation does not cover the issue explicitly. The
law requires a license for providing any wireless Internet
connections. The high cost of the license has caused
difficulties for non-commercial community networks.
However, the community networks in Australia have been
able to evade the law, as local radio amateurs have a
permission to use the frequency domain of 2400-2450
MHz (which happens to be used by the 802.11b and
802.11g).
As mentioned, legislation affects greatly on
implementation of wireless networks. The legislation limits
the maximum transmission power, used bandwidth etc. As
in Australia, the legislation may also limit the permissions
to provide wireless connections. The legislation may
require commercial ISPs to be prepared to a catastrophe or
state of emergency. ISPs also have to collect logs and
information on network and have to have the ability to
observe certain users if required by public authorities. If
the legislation equals community networks to commercial
ISPs, they are required to fulfill all the same obligations
than the ISPs. This might make the community network
implementation unreasonable.
In addition to local legislation, also the ISPs may be
limiting the usage of WLAN community networks. The
ISPs can not forbid anyone from building community
networks but they can still deny sharing of their Internet
connections to anyone else. However, some of the ISPs
allow the connection sharing, even without extra charge
(see [4]).
A usual policy in community networks is that a user
having a cable Internet connection shares the connection to
people in the community network. The user may or may
not require a fee for using the Internet connection.
Nonetheless, any communication inside the community
network must be free of charge.
One common rule in community networks is that
everyone is always allowed to use the existing community
network without a charge. Additionally, when extending
the network coverage, everyone has to be allowed to use
the new connections without any charge.
Community networks in the world use mainly IEEE’s
2.4 GHz 802.11b WLAN standard because of the high
bandwidth, low prices and good availability. However,
community networks reach continuously towards new
technologies and higher transmission speeds. As widely
known, IEEE’s 802.11b has a critical security weakness in
the built-in wired-equivalent privacy (WEP) encryption
scheme. The problem is mainly related in the key
scheduling algorithm, on which the WEP encryption
scheme is based. The weakness allows almost anyone to
retrieve the encrypted network key and gain a full user
access with a laptop computer and promiscuous network
software.
Unlike commercial networks, the security threats are
not a severe problem to the community networks because
they do not require enterprise-level security systems. In
fact, in community networks the WEP is usually turned off
to make joining the networks as easy as possible. It is also
possible to use some additional security measures, such as
VPN, in critical connections that need to be secured from
outsiders.
Although community networks are usually unsecured,
there have not been reported considerable problems with
network attacks. As community networks are usually built
by computer enthusiasts, other enthusiasts are not
interested in breaking them. Unlike in commercial
networks, the transferred information is rarely confidential
and does not usually require high security means.
Instead of using only wireless connections, community
networks can also be built by using traditional network
cables (like HipHop communications community network
in Helsinki, Finland - see [5]). However, connecting clients
with cables introduces new bureaucracy compared to
wireless networks. In practice, the cables have to be rented
from ISPs. The additional costs will usually require small
monthly charges from network users. However, the fee
will still be remarkably lower than in ISP networks.
Wireless networks are more flexible to network
structure modifications than wired networks. Wireless
access points are easy to relocate whenever needed but
network cables are more fixed. On the other hand, wired
community networks are usually able to provide their users
with higher communications speeds and more reliable
connections than wireless networks.
It is obvious that both wireless and wired community
networks have their benefits and drawbacks. While wired
networks are well suitable for residents and non-moving
devices, wireless networks can reach also occasional
visitors and moving devices. In many cases, it is
reasonable to use a combination of wired and wireless
network connections to achieve a good balance of
reliability, speed and usability. A wired high-capacity
backbone network with a wireless last mile to the end
users, for example, would be a good overall solution. In
every case, a huge amount of private effort is needed to
overcome all the obstacles, to build the community
network with low costs and to keep the network
operational.
Community networks make joining and using the
network easy as there is no need for contracts with any
ISPs. However, community networks are not in direct
competition with the ISPs. Utilizing community networks
commercially is a great challenge, as they lack the
reliability and management required from any official ISP.
Network users paying for the connection are considerably
more demanding than users surfing via free network. In
order to charge the network users, the network has to offer
a good price/quality ratio.
The lack of centralized administration of community
networks results in some restrictions especially in the
reliability of network connection and in commercial
utilization. Centrally managed public multi-ISP networks
aim to cover the gap between community networks and
wireless ISPs and bring an affordable option for the
consumers. Although the central management is more
complex to implement, it also brings new possibilities
compared to community networks. Central management
improves the network’s reliability of operation and allows
better commercial usability.
3. Centrally Managed Public Multi-ISP
Networks
Simplistically, a centrally managed public multi-ISP
network can be considered as a community network added
with functionality to manage the access network and route
the users to the correct ISP. The biggest difference
between community networks and these centrally managed
networks is that in centrally managed networks there is
only one manager in the access network. This “access
network operator” is a neutral player responsible for the
access network’s correct operation, which allows the quick
repairing of network failures and clarifies the responsibility
issues important in commercial use. Neutrality allows
keeping the different needs and interests of different
participants in balance.
By default, centrally managed public networks do not
aim to provide a free Internet for everyone. The goal is to
provide a free local access network and connect all the
participants (ISPs, service providers, end users etc.) to the
same common access system. ISPs are still responsible of
providing connections to outside of the local access
network and charging the users for using the connection.
This is the main reason why centrally managed networks
allow better chances for commercial utilization than the
community networks.
As there is no longer need to build several overlapping
networks for each of the ISPs, planning and building an
access network is easier and cheaper. As in community
networks, also private people can contribute in building the
access network. They can set up individual hot spots that
can be connected to the larger infrastructure.
We have found two networking projects in the world
that match the above definition of a public centrally
managed multi-ISP network: StockholmOpen.net in
Sweden and WLpr.net in Finland.
3.1 StockholmOpen.net
StockholmOpen.net (see [6]) is “a common access
system with a minimum number of shared services”. The
main goal is to provide a model for building an access
network that offers connectivity and provides a choice of
ISPs. “Minimum number of shared services” means that
the access network framework does provide only the core
services required for the network operation, i.e. user
registration and DHCP services. See Figure 2.
Internet
MAC
ISP 1 ISP 2
DB
DHCP DHCP DHCP
Relay
Operator Neutral Open Access System
Figure 2. StockholmOpen.net network model [7]
The (wireless) operator neutral open access system (on
the bottom of Figure 2) is open for everyone. When a new
user connects to the access network, the user receives a
temporary IP address from a DHCP Relay, which allows
the usage of local services. There are just two local
services available: user self-registration and client IP-
address auto-configuration. The user is automatically
forwarded to a self-registration web-page, in which the
user chooses the ISP. The IP-address auto-configuration
service then relays the DHCP requests to the specific ISP
chosen by the user. [7]
After the user has registered and chosen the ISP to be
used, the ISP provides the correct network configuration
including IP address and takes care of Authentication,
Authorization and Accounting (AAA). [7] The
StockholmOpen.net is mainly a framework for registering
and routing the network users to the correct ISPs. In other
words, StockholmOpen.net framework is used as a broker
between the network users and the ISPs. The
StockholmOpen.net itself does not provide any additional
value services to the users. All the additional services are
located in the Internet and can be accessed only through
the ISPs. This means that every user has to have a contract
with one of the ISPs in order to get access to the services.
As the ISPs give and manage the IP addresses in the
local network, the network users from different ISPs are
separated in different segments of the access network and
cannot “hear” each other. This prevents the users from
communicating directly; all the connections between them
have to travel through the ISPs and the Internet. There can
be no direct communication between the users in the local
network.
Due to the simplicity of the StockholmOpen.net
framework, the access network is rather straightforward to
implement. The framework is already productized;
installation packages and instructions are downloadable in
the StockholmOpen.net project web pages ([6]). This
allows rapid deployment and commissioning of the local
access network. At the moment, StockholmOpen.net
framework is being adopted for example by SparkNet in
Turku, Finland.
The main limitation of StockholmOpen.net is that there
is no content available in the local access network.
Although anyone can connect to the network, there are not
really much to do in the local network. The network model
does not provide any additional services, such as
positioning, local forums, city maps, public transportation
timetables, virtual tourist guides etc. to the network users.
In order to use any real value services, network users need
an Internet connection through one of the ISPs. The
Internet connection is not likely to be free, so actually
every network user has to pay in order to get access to any
services or other network users. To be strict, there actually
is no open local network that could be used for any useful
purposes.
3.2 WLpr.net
WLpr.net (an acronym of Wireless Lappeenranta
network, see [8]) is a public access network model created
by Wireless Lappeenranta project running in the
Laboratory of Communications Engineering at
Lappeenranta University of Technology. Wireless
Lappeenranta project researches an open, operator-neutral
network environment. The idea is to create a local access
network model that allows free access and local services to
everyone.
Just like StockholmOpen.net, WLpr.net is a public
common access system and operates as a broker between
the network users and the ISPs (see Figure 3). However,
unlike StockholmOpen.net, WLpr.net also offers a broad
range of local services, such as positioning (in the wireless
part of access network), city maps, news, games, etc. to the
local access network. These services can be provided by
private persons as well as companies. The local services
can be used directly in the access network – without an
Internet connection. The goal is to increase the local
influence of the network and bring the information society
closer to everyday life. In [9] the term information society
is defined to describe the ideal modern societies have set
for themselves – a society that stresses the increasing
importance of knowledge, skills and electronic services
and the information industry. More information on
providing information society services through public
access networks can be found in [10].
Internet
ISP 1 ISP 2
Local services
Source based
(DHCP, DNS, login,
user routing &
DBs, positioning, maps,
HTTP Cache
guidance, games, …)
Operator Neutral Open Access System
Figure 3. Wireless Lappeenranta network model
The main differences between the StockholmOpen.net
and WLpr.net lie in the access network management and
local services. WLpr.net takes care of the whole access
system management and provides the network users with
added value services. These local services do not require
Internet connection; they are freely accessible by all the
network users. Unlike the StockholmOpen.net, the
WLpr.net allows all network users to “hear” each other and
communicate directly with each other. This will boost the
network’s local influence and provide people and service
providers with new opportunities.
Unlike in StockholmOpen.net, in WLpr.net the ISPs are
separated from the access network management (as shown
in Figure 3). The WLpr.net infrastructure offers both basic
services and added value services to the local access
network. The basic services include the core services
(sharing IP addresses with DHCP, user login system,
traffic routing, HTTP cache etc.) that are needed for the
network operation. The added value services can be
offered through a specific Service Interface. The Service
Interface acts as a portal and makes it easy for the users to
find the local services. The Service Interface also provides
an interface for the local services for accessing additional
information from the network core components. This
includes for example positioning and user authentication
information that can be used to provide the network users
with location or ISP dependent services, such as city maps,
virtual tourist guides, public transportation timetables etc.
The Service Interface is also a platform for local service
concepts, such as discussion forums, virtual chatting
rooms, network games etc.
WLpr.net infrastructure includes a "transparent" HTTP
cache. The cache intercepts all outgoing HTTP traffic,
checks user authentication and redirects unregistered users
to login pages. The solution allows providing the users and
services with location dependent information and
advertisements or announcements, as the cache can insert
or replace information for example in web pages retrieved
by a network user. The cache can also be used to provide a
network user with some other web pages than the user was
originally requesting. This might be necessary in order to
inform a user of incorrect DHCP configuration, for
example.
The network manager can use WLpr.net’s
announcement system to provide access network users for
example with information on network breakdowns or some
sponsored access points. The announcement system can
also be used to send advertisements to the network users.
Organizations and stores, for example, can automatically
send advertisements when a user walks nearby (if the user
has approved this kind of advertising). The target group for
announcements and advertisements can be chosen based on
user groups, user locations and time. Announcements can
also be sent to an individual network user, if needed. It is
also possible to define the priority of the announcement.
WLpr.net includes a positioning system that allows
positioning an access network user within an accuracy of
one access point. The positioning does not require any
additional software in the user’s device and can be used for
providing network users with location based services, such
as city maps, location based games, and driving
instructions or virtual tours for tourists etc.
Although WLpr.net provides a free access network for
everyone, a free Internet connection cannot be provided.
There is always someone paying for it, as the Internet
connection is not free for even the ISPs. Users in need of
Internet connection have to make a contract with one of the
commercial ISPs connected to the system. This allows the
commercial usability of the network model. The easiness
of choosing and changing the ISP whenever needed will
keep the competition high and prices low and will
eventually benefit the end user in a form of better quality
connections.
A network user can choose the required connection
level based on the needs. If local services are sufficient,
there is no need for Internet connection. Whenever Internet
connection is needed, it can be easily purchased from one
Commercial
Community networks
networks
Access network Closed Public hot spots
Get customers, Provide Internet & local
Goals
provide Internet links, get rid of ISPs
Commercial potential Very high Low
Costs to end user High Low
User opportunities Limited Wide
Free local services No Possibly
Operating reliability High Low
Network manager ISP Private people
Table 1. Comparison of commercial, community and public access network models
of the ISPs. The ISPs will take care of forming the
customer relationships as well as Authentication,
Authorization and Accounting (AAA). As the local public
network attracts also occasional visitors, such as tourists,
the ISPs can also offer short-term connections for them.
The local access network coverage area can be extended
in several different methods. The network can use any
existing connections (wired or wireless) and network
technologies. WLpr.net does not limit the usage of any
network technology (Ethertnet, ATM, WLAN, Bluetooth
etc.). Any technology can be used as needed.
Building new network connections is rather unrestricted
and there are many options for extending the network.
Companies may offer their existing connections, new
connections can be built and sponsored, and private people
may add new hot spots to the network. In practice,
extending the network can be made as flexible as in
community networks. The basic idea is that the local
access network manager will take care of administration of
the network components in order to be able to guarantee
the operation reliability. There can also be individual hot
spots that are not maintained by the network administrator,
but the reliability of these individual hot spots cannot be
guaranteed.
The Wireless Lappeenranta project has built a wireless
research network for testing purposes. The local access
network is open for everyone and the goal is to keep using
the local network and its services free of charge. The
network structure works as expected.
Further information on Wireless Lappeenranta network
model can be found in [11], [12], [13] and [14].
4. Comparison of the Network Models
A straightforward and complete comparison of the
presented network architectures is extremely complicated
as the different network types have different starting points
and commercial goals. However, some similarities and
differences can be found. See Table 1 for summary of the
features of commercial, community and public access
network models.
StockholmOpen.net WLpr.net
Public Public
Provide a public access Provide a public access
system system with local services
High High
Low Low
Rather limited Wide
No Yes
High High
Neutral communications Neutral communications
operator (& private people) operator (& private people)
Commercial single-ISP networks
Traditional commercial single-ISP networks are built by
ISPs that want to provide an Internet connection for their
existing users and get more customers. The ISPs want to
keep the competition low and profits high. The ISPs
already have strong end-user relations and many of the
ISPs have reached a monopolistic situation that blocks the
competitors from the markets. The threshold for a new ISP
to reach the customers and build a competing network
infrastructure is very high. This leads to the fact that the
existing ISPs lack the motivation to develop the quality
and the services in the network.
The current situation with commercial ISP networks is
not beneficial for end users. It is typical for the commercial
ISP networks that the access network is closed and only
registered customers are allowed to connect. Low
competition keeps the prices high and the network
functionality is not always good enough. However, it is
impossible for the users to get better service as there is no
choice.
There are no local free services in the access network;
the ISPs want to connect the users to the Internet where
they can access the services. In other words, the users need
to have an Internet connection to access any of the
services.
Community networks
Community networks are built for trying to reduce the
power of ISPs, share local resources, and access to
Internet. Community networks are open for everyone.
However, the commercial potential is low as the network
consists of private hot spots and there is no-one controlling
the functionality of the whole network. Community
networks lack the reliability of commercial networks as
they usually are managed by several individual people.
Community networks allow wide opportunities for
advanced network users that have enough knowledge on
the network operation and are willing to participate in
building the network. However, community networks are
not as suitable for normal end users needing just an easy
network connection and reliable access to some basic
services.
Unlike in commercial ISP networks, an Internet
connection is not self-evident in community networks.
Some hot spot owners may provide an Internet connection
through their own ISP, but whether the connection will
work in other parts of the community network is a big
question. Additionally, most of the ISPs forbid sharing the
Internet connection to other users. The situation is difficult
as the community network might have some local services
but usually all the services needed by the network users are
located in Internet.
Unfortunately the community networks will have
difficulties in commercial usability. Therefore the
community networks are likely to stay a playground of
advanced users.
Public multi-ISP networks
Public multi-ISP networks, like StockholmOpen.net and
WLpr.net aim to provide a common access network that is
open for everyone. The access network is public for
everyone but the Internet connections are made through
commercial ISPs. There are multiple ISPs connected to the
network infrastructure and network users can easily choose
and change the ISP to be used. This allows new
commercial prospects for both ISPs and network users.
Public multi-ISP networks will open the competition
between the ISPs and some of them will lose their
monopolistic state. On the other hand the ISPs can profit
from the higher user number that the public network will
attract. For end users, the public multi-ISP networks offer
easily available local network and a lower-cost Internet
connection.
As the publicity opens the competition between the
ISPs, the network connection quality is likely to improve.
And anyway, network users can easily change the ISP if
there is a better choice available.
The common access system requires a neutral player
responsible for the access network functionality. This
access network operator has to connect all the involved
parties to each other and see that everyone’s interests are
equally taken care of. The position of the access network
manager is central and therefore requires co-operation and
support of all of the participants. In practice the situation is
quite complicated as there are three main actors in the
access network: property owners, ISPs and end users. They
all have their own perspectives and different goals. This is
why neutrality of the access network manager is vital. The
common access system has to offer new opportunities for
every participant; otherwise the concept will not work. [15]
There are different options for the role of the access
network manager. The manager can build the access
network and rent it to the ISPs. Other option is to
interconnect the existing ISP networks and form a
consortium for managing the new access network. The
access network manager may or may not be fully
responsible for the network operation. The responsibility
could also be shared between the manager and the ISPs, for
example. [15]
StockholmOpen.net concentrates on developing a
common access network model for the ISPs and network
users. There are no local services; all of the advanced
services are located in the Internet behind the ISPs. In
practice the network users need to have a contract with
some of the ISPs to access any services. The
StockholmOpen.net model boosts the competition between
the ISPs and gives the network users a real choice of
service provider. However, the access network itself is
divided into different segments dependent of the ISPs. This
prevents the network users from “hearing” each other in
the access network and communicating or offering services
directly to each other.
WLpr.net is doing the same as StockholmOpen.net but
with additional local services. These services boost the
local influence of the network and allow users to access
some basic services, such as local discussion forums, city
maps and services of local authorities, without needing an
Internet connection, which is of course needed for any
non-local services. The access network is open in the sense
that the users can “hear” each other and communicate
directly with each other. They can also easily provide their
services to the other local network users.
5. Conclusions and the Future
This publication has discussed about different WLAN
network models and their properties. They all have their
own benefits and drawbacks. Therefore, it is impossible to
state implicitly whether one of the network models is better
than the others.
The traditional “single-ISP networks” offer easy
implementation for ISPs. These networks allow
commercial aspects but limit the opportunities of network
users.
For enthusiasts and for small-scale local network
implementations the community network structure can be
considered the right and easiest choice.
For large-scale networks with commercial aspects,
some of the public multi-ISP network models should be
considered. StockholmOpen.net offers an easy
implementation method for connecting multiple ISPs to
one access system. On the other hand, WLpr.net highlights
the locality, adds also local services to the access network,
and allows all of the local network users to “hear” each
other in the network.
When planning and building a local network the choice
of the used network model depends on the starting point
and the needs. Commercial ISP networks or community
networks are good for easy and fast implementation but
they both limit either the end users’ opportunities or the
commercial prospects.
When striving for more opportunities, the network
builder should consider one of the public network models.
StockholmOpen.net is an easy-to-deploy common access
infrastructure but does not provide considerable local
influence. If the emphasis is also on the locality and the
end user opportunities, WLpr.net could be the right choice.
Should the choice be any of the mentioned network
models, there is one thing that can already be seen:
publicity will be the trend of the future. However, the
network technologies and implementation models need
still strong development before they can reach a correct
balance of interests for all of the participants.
In the future, a network model that can provide the end-
users with the flexibility and opportunities of a community
network and the ISPs with commercial opportunities will
be in a good situation. Also the locality will be a key word
in the future, as more and more content is concentrating in
the locality of people.
6. References
[1] J. Kiviniemi, Business Plan for a Local WLAN Operator:
Case Wireless Lappeenranta, Master's Thesis (in Finnish),
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, 2002.
[2] Freenetworks.org, web pages, http://freenetworks.org/
[3] N. Ronkainen, Public WLAN Community Networks,
Information Technology Special Work (in Finnish),
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Finland, 2003.
[4] Wireless-Friendly ISPs, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
http://www.eff.org/Infra/Wireless_cellular_radio/wireless_f
riendly_isp_list.html
[5] HipHop Communications community network, web pages,
http://hiphop.tietojoukko.fi/hiphop.html
[6] StockholmOpen.net, project web pages,
http://www.stockholmopen.net/
[7] E. Pelletta, F. Lilieblad, M. Hedenfalk, B. Pehrson, The
design and implementation of an Operator Neutral Open
Wireless Access Network at the Kista IT-University, Proc.
12th IEEE Workshop on Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002, pp. 149-150.
[8] Wireless Lappeenranta Network, project web pages,
http://www.wlpr.net/
[9] The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority
(FICORA), web pages,
http://www.ficora.fi/englanti/tietoyhteiskunta/index.htm
[10] J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Information Society Services
Provided by Access Networks, Book of Abstracts of
WSEAS International Conference, Crete, Greece, 2003, pp.
49.
[11] M. Juutilainen, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Connecting
Multiple Operators to a Regional Network, Proc. 2nd
IASTED Wireless and Optical Communications, Banff,
Alberta, Canada, 2002, pp. 545-550.
[12] M. Juutilainen, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Evaluation of a
Next Generation Public Wireless Multi-ISP Network, Proc.
27th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks,
Tampa, FL, 2002, pp. 405-414.
[13] M. Juutilainen, Design of Operator Interface, Master's
Thesis (in Finnish), Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, 2001.
[14] J. Kiviniemi, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Striving for Mass-
Markets with a New Model for Regional Public Access
WLAN Provider, Proc. 27th IEEE Conference on Local
Computer Networks, Tampa, FL, 2002, pp. 197-204.
[15] V. Kordas, E. Frankenberg, S. Grozev, B. Liu, N. Zhou, B.
Pehrson, Who sould Own, Operate and Maintain an
Operator Neutral Access Network, Proc. 12th IEEE
Workshop on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,
Stockholm, Sweden, 2002, pp. 161-162.