Future of Open Networks Panel discussion –Chair Jouni Ikonen (Lappeenrata Univ. of Tech.) –Petri Krohn (HelsinkoOpen.net) –Jaakko Kuosmanen (Sparknet)

Future of Open Networks Panel discussion

– Chair Jouni Ikonen (Lappeenrata Univ. of Tech.)– Petri Krohn (HelsinkoOpen.net) – Jaakko Kuosmanen (Sparknet) – Björn Pehrson (KTH) – Tuija Riukulehto (CEO, Kuuskaista)

Case: Lappeenranta Model• Wireless Local city

network (WLAN)• Open to all• Limited access to

Internet• Only users trying to

access Internet authenticated

• www.wlpr.net

Wireless Lappeenranta network

ISP ISP ISPs

I n t e r n e t

Services

Services

Background

• Try to avoid overlapping WLAN networks– Interference– Cost

• Encourage co-operation– Use existing networks’ capacity– Multi organization

• Speed up technical development

Information Society Services from access networks and Internet

• Services are offered in local network and Internet

• Likely scenario• Localized

services possible

Core Internet

Access network

WLAN Ethernet xDSL modem

Public Information

Society Services

Public Information

Society Services

and/or Local services

Economical considerations

• Forcing operators to allow free access information society services will not be greeted happily (?)

• Open access for users can still be beneficial for operators, due larger network enabled user base. Users are already trained to use network and services.

Current network status in WLPR.NET

• ~ 60 access points (University, technology center, city hall, airport, railway station, harbour, some residental areas).

• Multiple ISP organizations (University, city, technology centre, WLAN-project).

• Network spread over multiple network and building owners (student housing, university, city, …)

• Maintanance by a university project

Future of WLPR.NET (1/2)

• Who will mainintain the network is unclear?

• Business model

• Network agreements

• Open access?

• Gateway to governmental Information Society services?

Future of WLPR.NET (2/2)

• Will 802.11 capabilities stand the increased user masses

• Will the capacity be sufficient or should wireless be considered only as secondary access method (FTTH?).