The Internet is often described as a network of networks. For most home users however this is not the case. In reality most home users are simply single machines that connect straight into the generic cloud that is the Internet. The physical shape of a network, where the wires run from and too, is called network topology. The current topology of the network for most home users is not at all optimal. It is a consequence of the wires that already existed in the public telephone system. Home users typical connect via a phone line to the local telephone exchange. From there they are routed to an ISP who typically is not related geographically to them in any way, and from there onto the rest of the Internet. This is not the way such a network would be built in say an office environment (see history of network topologies in office environments). The physical network should be built around the physical geography of its users. That is, users should connect first and foremost to those other users that are physically nearest to them. There is a natural hierarchical structure to the physical geography that could and should be mirrored in the network topology. Home users should first connect to their streets LAN, this in turn should connect to the nearest other street LANs to form ward LANs these in turn can be connected together to form borough LANs.

The concept of building the network around the physical geography of its users goes far beyond just access for individuals in their homes. In essence it is about building the network around local communities. It is not just about connecting individuals to each other, it is also about connecting them to local council facilities, local libraries, local schools, local businesses. Although the Internet certainly allows for the creation of non geographical virtual communities, which can be very real, there is also as much power in a network , in enhancing the functioning of existing communities as there is in the creation of purely virtual ones. Largely because of the historical topology of the public telephone system however, this enhancing of existing communities has not been the focus of as much attention as the ability to build virtual ones on the internet has. Look at a school and imagine the strands of community extending out from it into the streets, houses and shops around it. The children and parents alike as well as all others who work there carry out those strands everyday. The potential of building the network around the physical geography would be to enhance exactly this kind of existing community. There was an idea there but no name. No name until David Cantrell, a friend and a network and security consultant by trade, summed the whole thing up as a CAN or Community Area Network.

Because it is impossible to really know what could be achieved with such a local network, until it is put in place and people encouraged to use it, I believe that a CAN would have to be set up and funded as an experiment. Once it has been established what a CAN could be used for, it then becomes possible to make sensible decisions about how such a network might be funded in the long term. I believe such an experiment could be done. It could be built and controlled primarily by those people who actual use the network. It could be built relatively cheaply by using standard IT components rather than expensive telecoms equipment. A telephone company looking at connecting a street to its network would budget and plan based on the expense of digging up that street, along with the associated high costs and high inconvenience. The actual members of the street could link themselves together in much more creative and cost effective ways. Essentially they could connect themselves up by drilling a few holes in connecting walls, by running a bit of cable through their gardens, or along their guttering. As well as communities having the ability to connect themselves more cheaply and more effectively than telephone companies, they can also do it in a more organic and multi hierarchical way.

An experimental CAN would have to be about a lot more than just putting in the wires to an individual house or business. It will be necessary to identify and build applications around each individual connected including necessary support and education. For each node connected to the CAN it will be necessary to ask ‘how can this network help and enhance this persons interactions with their community’. Weather this is simply providing a ‘free’ voice link and webcam from an individual to say their elderly mother, or weather it is setting up a car pool website for the local school run. The installation of the wires must go hand in hand with the setting up of specific applications and with a major focus on education. There are some good government attempts to increase access and availability to ICT (information and computer technology). Add local networks to efforts like these and you have the basis for an experimental CAN (see nearly there)

A central difference that a CAN would have from existing generic internet access would be identity. With identity on a CAN relating to a physical point in a physical community a whole range of possible ‘trust based’ network applications become increasingly viable. Schemes to rate anything from local plumbers to local library provision. Individuals and businesses will be able to build up a ‘profile’ based on their actions in the local community. Your trust rating may become more important than your credit rating in such an environment. Ultimately you may be able to start constructing wider non geographic ‘trust based’ systems over the internet, by using your local credentials as verification of identity.

A core potential of a CAN would be to look at how a networked community could use such a facility to enhance and promote real participation in local democracy. There is endless discussion as to the loss of local community ‘spirit’. A CAN has real potential to help reverse this trend. Running an online forum on a CAN would be very like running such a discussion forum on the internet. These forums however will hark back as much to the original forum in Rome because they like it will be based on local geography and identity.

A CAN could be a major facilitator in the promotion and effective use of local e commerce. I would guess that a large proportion of the trade that goes on in my local high street is between the businesses strung along that street and the local residence and workers there. A network that is based on this same geographical clustering could enhance local e commerce far beyond what could be done by using the generic Internet. It could also be used by local businesses to ‘link’ up separate local sites they might have. In a similar way A CAN could be a major tool for local councils. Just at the purely functional level, they could provide a means for local councils to greatly enhance their services and interaction with the local community at the same time as dramatically reducing their costs. From the sending out of community charge bills to the linking of local council offices a CAN could play a major role.

A CAN could provide an effective means for communities to buy their wider telephone and data connections in bulk. A properly implemented CAN would not only be able to provide telephone services within the network for ‘free’, it would also allow the possibility of linking the CAN to the existing public telephone system. This in turn would allow the members of the CAN to buy their access to the rest of the public telephone system collectively and therefore at rates much lower than those available to individuals. In fact a CAN could be a resource that could be traded with telephony and or video providers. Rather than granting exclusive franchises to such companies, who then go and spend vast sums digging up the road to put in a network that is only useable by them to sell services over, a CAN could provide a system whereby any service provider could offer services. NTL for example could offer its telephony and video services to customers on a CAN. In turn the communities than control the CAN could trade such access for say connectivity to the Internet or public telephone system. That is, we will let you sell your services over our network at no cost, in return for routing our telephony or internet traffic outside the CAN. Alternatively the community could allow service providers to sell their services at reduce prices, compared to where they are providing them over their own networks.

A CAN could help to drive and enhance community banking and community letts schemes. They could also be a major force in reversing the continuing trend of centralisation and depersonalisation of banking services. At the moment Banks see online banking as yet another means to centralise and insulate themselves from their customers. Online banking via a CAN could force banks to look at moving once more to a local and community model for banking. I do not want to link from my house to some anonymous central bank website, I actually want to link from my house to my local branch, where I can not only check my balance etc but can also communicate with the staff there. This is as true for telephone banking as it is for online banking. If Banks where to ignore the potential of working at a local level then the local community could use the CAN to set up local banking schemes. This could even go as far as local CAN based currencies appearing.

To try and create a CAN, able to address the range of potentials possible, with the necessary focus on the build out of ‘education’ as of networks, is a daunting task. It would need the support of the local community, including local government and local businesses. It would need to be funded and supported by equipment manufactures and by web based service providers. It would need to be supported by enthusiastic and skilled IT professionals. In return it could provide a broadband test environment for the development of next generation Internet services. It could be a major initiative in the government’s drive to create a networked economy and community. It could play a major role in education. It could be a major force in the moves towards a decentralised and devolved political environment. The people who currently own the ‘wires’ over which the networked society is being built are not and will not create a network that’s primary functions is ‘community’. They are and will continue to build networks that provide the most commercial return for their shareholders. The only way to make the wire owners create the kind of networked environment that will meet these needs is to let them know that we can and will build them ourselves if they do not.

history of network topologies in office environments

The networking of the office environment provides a useful and informative guide as to how network environments could develop in the wider community. The first ‘networks’ that appeared in offices were totally based on a central control and connection topology and philosophy. Companies would have large mainframe computing resources. They would use a network to allow remote access to these central computing resources. Then the personal computer started to appear. These where initially used for stand-alone tasks, such as word processing. The next stage was to then connect these stand-alone PCs direct to the central mainframes, in much the same way the terminals before them where connected. This model was soon to be replaced by LANs (local area networks). One of the first objectives of LANs in offices was to share local resources, the most common being printers. However it soon became apparent that the LANs could be used for much more than the sharing of printer resources. It became obvious that there was more flexibility and functionality to be gained by linking a department together in a LAN, which in turn would be linked to other department LANs and finally to the central mainframe resources, making the corporate WAN (wide area network). If you label the Internet as ‘central computing resource’ then it is clear that for most Individuals and small companies we are still at the stage of linking all the individual PCs straight into the ‘centre’. At the moment the next stage of evolution is missing. That is, the linking of PCs together, based on physical proximity, into LANs that then link together along with other keys elements of the community (local government, libraries, schools etc) to make CANs. Community area networks.

government sure fire

The government has announced recently some ambitious and worthy schemes to get ICT (information and computer technology) into wider hands. The 12,000 HOMES GET WIRED UP IN £10M PROGRAMME announced on DFEE web site illustrates such a scheme. If the idea of putting these PCs into homes and training people to use them was combined with also linking those people together in networked LANs, it would be a major step towards the creation of a CAN. By linking such sites to other community sites , schools , libraries etc you have created a CAN.

[people to talk to for quotes]

Local council , person who runs current council websites Local internet cafes Local libraries ? who Local schools /colleges Someone at DFEE for box out [government] local

Author - Erol Ziya