Comments on: Bypass the Internet!

By: Mark Gilbert

Mark Gilbert — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:43:57 +0000

Multiplexing of processing and bandwidth won’t be such a problem in the very near future.

By: Lia

Lia — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:41:24 +0000

There are actually a lot of projects developing on this.
MIT is working on roofnet which is available on their campus.
There’s freifunk.net in Germany.
The B.A.T.M.A.N protocol (better approch to mobile adhoc networking) is released in version 2011.4.0 and supported by openwrt, a linux distribution for routers.
And last but not least the open-mesh.org wiki with instructions and tutorials of how to set up such a network.

By: Vance Woodward

Vance Woodward — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:08:35 +0000

Great points. I totally agree. I’d been thinking that is the way of the future for a long time–sponge nets and jewelry nets–but I didn’t have any words for the ideas. Thanks!

By: ryan

ryan — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:09:11 +0000

i am not very technically knowledgeable about this kinda thing but lemme give this a shot. if we did a wireless adhoc network, at current available speeds, the latency issues would be a problem when you communicate with someone very far away. too many hops. but people nearby would be pretty darn fast. in your community it may prove to be faster than it currently is. that may be a good thing though. it forces preferential treatment of local data and users, and would slow down the decay of local communities that we’ve seen lately, but not in a way where your speech is controlled by anyone. Also it could leave markets open for ISPs, such as if you want to send data across continents or oceans, which you couldn’t do with regular wireless. just a thought.

By: Kyle Rybski

Kyle Rybski — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:20:53 +0000

The Ronulans are really on my nerves, here.

There’s way too much scientifically ignorant, morally abhorrent, and economically catastrophic stuff Paul wants to do to vote for him despite his praiseworthy stances on wars, drugs, and the Internet. Don’t be so narrow in your issues.

By: Haxagon

Haxagon — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:41:38 +0000

Universal healthcare and help for the poor != Surveillance state.
Try taking a look at the US PATRIOT act.

By: harry tuttle

harry tuttle — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:26:17 +0000

The founders of the United States included many who would identify with the left at that time, given that the terminology comes from the seating arrangements in the French revolution, those sitting on the right being those who believed in the divine right and absolute power of kings, and the left being those who wished to see that power restricted or overthrown altogether.

Also, If we are looking at the development of big government, it would seem to predate the existence of the United States and the terminology of left/right politics by a reasonable margin and structurally has much more do do with the needs of the rich in empire building abroad than with the political desires of the poor at home.

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:56:57 +0000

Yes, I think he created the tubes.

By: dukeofurl111

dukeofurl111 — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:48:17 +0000

Wasn’t the Internet created by Al Gore?

By: Jack Mosel

Jack Mosel — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:46:27 +0000

Ron Paul 2012.. It’s time we got our hands untied… Don’t you think? Sound Money, A Gov’t that represents people not Corporations, ending the illegal wars we are in and cutting One Trillions Dolaars on day one.. “Keep the Change we can believe in” from the Left and DEFUND the corrupt Right. Bringing our troops home, A 0% Income Tax, and a REAL national incentive to manufacture and employ here “Made In The USA” once again. Yeah.. That’s how we do it! There’d be NO HOMELAND SECURITY, No Joe Lieberman Scare mongering and no more LOBBYISTS, WE wouldn’t be watched.. Gov’t would be (AS IT SHOULD BE).

By: gaoptimize

gaoptimize — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:40:36 +0000

“The capability to make these kinds of devices is almost here. If some government officials don’t like it, well, so what? Right now, I don’t have a lot of respect for government.”

I’d like all the lefties here to acknowledge that they were the ones who advocated for and built big Government. You thought it would benefit the underclass and even the playing field. You thought it could right wrongs and solve big problems. You built this monster, now it will destroy your Liberty, exactly as understood by the Founders. Yes, technology may allow you to hide. Good luck with that.

By: Vivamies

Vivamies — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:58:03 +0000

A nontechnical considertion: Do it the American way:Leverage the forcce of the “free market”. Build a special, prrivate and tiered “pay-for-service” system, which assures freedom of expression and access to content without restriction—by pricing. Methinks it could win enough users to to make its provider(s) very rich and powerful—so R&P that it (they) can readily and regularly bribe our law making “representatives” to guarantee the Gov’s hands off.”our cloud.”

By: Ron Burgandy

Ron Burgandy — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:52:49 +0000

How about voting for Ron Paul, the only Presidential candidate promising to cut 1 trillion dollars in spending by reducing the size of government? He’s also a strong supporter of the Internet.

By: Nityajit

Nityajit — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:46:57 +0000

Yes we can think of wireless sensor devices which can communicate to each other. there are so many routing protocols for wireless sensor network. but we have to upgrade the sensor devices to some computing devices through which we can do anything instead of just sensing…

By: robert clapp

robert clapp — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:54:19 +0000

I have little technical knowledge of such matters, but seriously applaud any methods which keep us FREE of all government controls.

By: toto

toto — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:45:14 +0000

That IS internet…. just understand what you are talking about….. What do they bock… DNS = human readable adresse repository, use the IP instead…. and china filter the in and out boud physical cable, but as they get richer, it will cost too mush to check all the possible calbes and if they missed one, you can avoid the control…
Ignorance is glod, not knowing you are an ignorant is a lot of money for us…;o)

By: vinnie

vinnie — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:58:30 +0000

On TED Web there was a new concept called the black box I think that was going to give us our on t an t’s

By: Lance

Lance — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:54:10 +0000

Perhaps a tiny device placed “on” you somewhere, like maybe, the right hand or the forehead? Yeah, right, you go ahead, I’ll pass.

By: Thumpinator

Thumpinator — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:36:00 +0000

if you want to do way with your isp you are going to really need to wait for super wifi and other TV band technologies.

By: IMperfect

IMperfect — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:25:47 +0000

comment summary:
a forum thread discussed this before,
good idea,
tech barriers and “sponsors” not ready for it yet.

By: Viktor Kozeny

Viktor Kozeny — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:13:47 +0000

well the technology had been developed in what is sometimes called “democracy radios” using UWB signals ie pulse based radios using time domain …these are nearly impossible to intercept and capable of doing great job in conjunction with cognitive radio technology ..for may reasons while the technology is mature and time domain is gaining wider popularity it is unlikely that this will deregulated anytime soon

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:44:20 +0000

I live up in the hills in southern Oregon and although my cellphone regularly drops out due to ridge lines, etc. on every road between home & the 3 closest cities I can find (with a smartphone app Wifi Analyzer) wireless routers that completely blanket/overlap every path. All it would take is a program of education to get most of the owners to install a light-weight TCP-router-encrypter to enable an all encompassing mesh network. Which just goes to show that the hardware is already in place for what you describe.

By: AC

AC — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:12:03 +0000

Google ‘Pirate Box’

By: René Kabis

René Kabis — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:57:50 +0000

For anyone creating mesh networks, also build into your network the ability to “downgrade” your mesh nodes when newer, faster nodes come online. Technology is ever-increasing, so if you already have three generations of nodes, the fastest and newest ones can act as the backbone, with the oldest ones being the nodes that preferentially provide client connections. When a client starts demanding too much bandwidth, the node can pass the client off to the second generation nodes, and so forth. That way, once newer generations come online, the older generations can give up their networking capabilities in favour of simple client-to-node connections; maximizing their marginal utility to the network as a whole.

By: occupy

occupy — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:00:29 +0000

“cjdns” is an attempt at a mesh network for DNS, something many other meshes don’t attempt.

Governments have already placed limits on the broadcasting power of home networks, I would already have a mesh network covering my city if it weren’t illegal.

By: Giulio Prisco

Giulio Prisco — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:41:29 +0000

@Razor re “Surely as soon as soon as a “new” platform becomes mainstream it’ll come under the same sort of regulation issues.”

Of course, you are right. That is why we must keep out-innovating and out-smarting them, and always stay a few steps ahead of them. They have the money, but hackers are much smarter than 9-to-5 workers, and they work much harder.

By: tom kersey

tom kersey — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:16 +0000

However; fido net is/was basically an email net. It was actually pretty good considering that the backbone was the telephone system. I remember that I could get a message from AZ to Australia with fido faster than i could through the gov messaging system.

By: tom kersey

tom kersey — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:31:58 +0000

I have given this considerable thought. Good idea. It worked very well with Fido net back in the late ’70s and in the ’80s before the internet was available in a lot of places.

By: Razor

Razor — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:11:58 +0000

Surely as soon as soon as a “new” platform becomes mainstream it’ll come under the same sort of regulation issues. And how free do you want your free expression to be? It’s a Trap! – on the one hand we want the liberty, but on the other you dont want terrorist/bogeyman abusing that liberty. The handling of Intellectual property legislation is smearing everything in a load of old shit. But whats the most controversil data on the web today? In my opinion the genome sequences of pathogens – I’ve found the complete sequences for strains of smallpox and others with great ease – for research purposes! – but the fed’s ain’t come knocking on my door yet.

By: Giulio Prisco

Giulio Prisco — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:06:41 +0000

I totally agree with Pearson. The governments and the corporation will kill what we call “Internet” today and replace it with a controlled, centrally managed platform that that will use for their spam and surveillance. We may have a few years left, and we must use the time to build alternatives that cannot be controlled by governments and corporations.

Mesh networks, or sponge networks as Pearson calls them, are an ideal solution. If network nodes communicate only with their peers (like BitTorrent nodes) without needing a central server, there is not much that governments and corporations can do to control the network or switch it off. There are already prototype implementations of mesh networks, see for example the Serval project:
http://www.servalproject.org/

I see a future where we can join an encrypted mesh network from our rooted smartphones, anytime and anywhere. There are still many technical challenges to solve, but the free citizens of the free Internet have enough brains to solve them. Let the governments and the corporations keep their dull sanitized “Internet,” we don’t need it and we will move out.

By: Robb G.

Robb G. — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:52:40 +0000

How will these networks deal with the “big empties” that exist in the world? For example the American West, the African Sahara, Australia and much of the Middle East where there are large sparsely populated areas, between dense populations.

By: Giulio Prisco

Giulio Prisco — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:46:20 +0000

@Alex – they can switch TOR off if they really want. They could not switch off the mesh network outlined here.

By: Alex C

Alex C — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:31:22 +0000

I might be utterly wrong or missing the point but TOR is one way to essentially remain anonymous on the web. But I guess one still relies on their ISP even with TOR. But at least you don’t have prying eyes from the government and your ISP.

By: tesla4567

tesla4567 — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:28:24 +0000

Amara, it sounds like you are describing UWB technology. Is this what you are referring to. UWB will allow the specific results you describe for an Internet alternative. In addition, it is difficult to detect & almost impossible to block the signal, is inherently very secure and it can handle hi data rates like video. I’d like to hear more about what you were thinking…..

By: Laborious

Laborious — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:45:41 +0000

Yes I agree. Even for places like egypt need this. Similar to wep,but they killed that and self assembling like the drone net’s. http://cmol.nbi.dk/models/infoflow/infoflow.html They need a tiny bit of security, but not to much. As the first step seems to get people to the new forms and get them familiar with them and setup. They will naturally have there own layers of security in time. Also as you put it P2P type net and passing of packet structures. Also they need to be able to use current systems as they may go from one full network to a closed down net and dark net’s. DNS and IP stacks are easy enough to spoof also let alone the protocol so it self builds and still has a type of security. Low crypto is also a nice one to put into it to help with that low level of security. the bitcoin P2P looked promising for that. There are a few possibilities.

By: Dusty

Dusty — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:30:54 +0000

You are describing Mesh networking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking
and some open source work is being done in the field. An ancient project is netsukuku:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku
But active ones exists, for example:
http://www.open-mesh.com/
http://opensourcemesh.org/links.html

By: Alan Parker

Alan Parker — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:22:39 +0000

I am involved with an RF product, that would not have sufficient bandwidth to handle video, but could enable most of the normal data transmissions that one uses the internet for. The first application of this technology should be ready in several months. The beauty of our network is the ad-hoc mesh, with random hopping, and self-healing properties. Best of all, it can accurately locate and/or track any other tag within its LAN.

By: Otter

Otter — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:16:42 +0000

Dovetailproject.org
He is working on wifi protocol to crowd hop and share messages with tags to allow multiple threads. He had a unsuccessful kickstarter campaign that ended a week ago.

By: joe

joe — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:19:07 +0000

Very much agreed! This is actually something I have imagined for a long time as a way to get broadband to the country – everyone has some sort of super WiFi device which can both send information and forward any packets it recieves. Every house acts as a mini tower and a node on the network. Of.course I don’t know the technical details… Could be daunting, and i imagine it would consume a lot of power for mobile devices.

By: Andrew T

Andrew T — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:08:53 +0000

Let’s make the whole think a darknet while we’re at it: encrypt *everything*, even the most mundane of communications. https:// everywhere.

My one concern about a sponge-net or something else that bypasses ISP’s is the latency. One good thing about ISP’s is their access to the major pipelines and backbones of the Internet, lines designed to handle very high volumes at very high speeds. Bypassing that could mean many more hops between A and B, along much slower & more congested routes, resulting in possibly significantly higher latencies and slower connections.

Overall though a pretty good idea.