Free internet. As in, "Free Beer" AND "Freedom"

[diablo75]

To save time, I'm just going to copy and paste in portions of a couple e-mails I wrote to a few friends about this lately, so a couple parts will repeat, but extra detail is also present. I just want feedback about it

E-mail #1:
The first idea on the list is what I would call a Black Internet (and when I say black, I'm talking Black Market...I know that's a terrible title, but it's not as bad as it sounds). The infrastructure of it would consist of nothing but already existent wireless internet hardware that people already own or could buy dirt cheap. Lots of people have wireless internet adapters and networking cards. All they need now is a piece of software to enable auto-configuring, Ad-Hoc, Wireless-Mesh-Topology network; a freelance, public controlled Intranet (that's INTRAnet, or, a very huge Local Area Network). Such a software already exists that enables such networking, and it's called Wipeer, and it runs on Windows only. The developers are considering going open source (and they should do it now before their idea is copied and someone develops an alternative faster than they can upgrade their own and have a Linux version available).

All communication from peer to peer on such a network is encrypted with high end encryption. So that, if you are conducting data transfers to others in the wireless mesh that you wish to be kept private from end to end, it can be done very easily and safely. Data Encryption is something of a blessing, these days. I don't understand why the entire internet hasn't become encrypted yet. Probably just to save on bandwidth... But it can be forced upon a public controlled wireless network.

File sharing isn't the only thing this network would support. It could also be used as a replacement for telephone calls. Also be a method for computer gamers to play multilayer video games with each other. Eventually, you would have such an infrastructure in place that within it would be several people who have dual network connections. One network is the wireless mesh, and the other is the actual internet. These nodes would act as doorways that would allow the resources on the actual internet to be shared with the wireless intranet. The possibilities of it's use are really endless. The only limit it would need to break is co-existence with the real internet, until the line between the two networks blur enough that you can't tell the difference between the two very easily.

E-mail #2:
Ok, so who would benefit? Well, to use an analogy, pretend we're talking about hobbyist CB Radio operators. You know...those yahoo's who yell at each other over the airwaves just for fun? Or worse, send messages in mores code to each other. Yeah, those nutty guys. Well, a long time ago, you had to have a special license to engage in this form of communication. But later on, that rule was dropped, and just anybody could participate if they wanted to. I even knew a guy who went so far as find another guy to trade files with via a special kind of external modem and a CB radio. No phone line. And we thought we were nerds. This guy lived in Ozawkie, right next to the middle school. (I ever tell you about Rick?)

Blah blah, anyway. People who would wish to participate in some sort of wireless mesh internet are the types who would start off by doing it as a hobby. But later on, it's fringe benefits would become viral, and spread like gossip. "What? You can P2P file share? Talk to others in your neighborhood, even your city, via the computer, and for free? And I don't have to pay anybody? And it's legal? Awesome!" Well it may not be 100% legal, but proving it illegal would be 99% impossible, thanks to heavy encryption.

Seems like the only thing that stands in the way of giving people access to the internet for free is copper wire and a $40 bill and some nosy ISP or worse.... But the internet, the very concept of this form of global communication, isn't something that is impossible to rebuild without wires or fiber at all, but instead, radio waves and wireless devices and built voluntarily by the public. Access to it would eventually become practically global, or at least, as available as a cell phone might be (because they're are a lot of people there). Sounds impossible, but where else can the internet go in the next 10 years? Where has it gone in the last 10 years? Everywhere, faster and faster. People need it. It's addictive for good reason. But they also want ensure it to be truly democratic in form and nature. Not monitored and spied on.

Traffic: The flow of data would happen in the same manner that data flows in a bittorrent swarm. You would send a file to someone by bursting scattered chunks of data towards random people, but it would still be routed to the place it needs to go to, using routing protocols that comply with IEEE 802.1s, or something similar. When you request a file from soneone, it could actually comes to you from several different people at the same time, either because they have a copy of it too, or are just distributing their available upload/download bandwidth they currently have available; everybody shares the load. Cable modems limit upload bandwidth at about 64KB a second. It's worse with DSL. But we all know that our own wireless adapters and wireless access points/routers are well capable of transmitting several Megabits a second in both directions, especially if you're using 802.1n or better. I mean, we're actually on the cusp of witnessing consumer wireless network devices cross the Gigabit data transfer range. Why not put that bandwidth to better use?

Do I want to make money off of this? No. I don't want to play a centralized role in this, at least not one where I might be held accountable. Then again, it's either that, or no role I guess. I might as well try it. How might I do this?... I think the only way to get something like this off the ground is through some sort of viral marketing, reliance on word of mouth, and a website that would give visitors live feedback on the likeliness that someone else in their neighborhood would be interested in participating in such a project. So, you'd have a map of Topeka (or wherever), divided into arbitrary regions, which would have tally marks of the number of people who live in those places who have indicated that they have downloaded whatever software is available to them from the same website (which I would host) and that they are interested in seeing others in their neighborhood pickup the ball and play. It's not intended to replace the internet, but rather, expand it's freedom into local regions (and perhaps, allow the regular internet to become sanitized so the RIAA has a harder time tracking people). File sharing sure might play a big part in it, but so would a lot of other features. It would be targeted against cable companies, telephone companies, and eventually internet service providing companies, the RIAA, the MPAA, enemies of the constitution...etc. etc. Trying to ban it would be in direct violation of the first amendment, so the concept of a black internet has nothing illegal about it by itself. It is neutral without participation, so the idea is not illegal. How people use it, that would be left to them.

So....CB radio + Computer = Black Internet. Or whatever. It's just a dream. But it is within our grasp if we just want it enough. Call it "Plan B' if Net Neutrality fails. It is only a possibility.

[mykalreborn]

the idea is not bad imo, but the problem is the start. you would need a town full of computer enthusiasts willing to give up their aol isp, willing to try to do something else on the internet other than instant messaging. you realize it would take a lot of people. i don't find the idea impossible. with the development of technology things are getting cheeper and cheeper and if for example more and more people would buy wireless modems they would get even cheeper.
the name kind of puts it down though. and it sounds a bit like you just want a faster way of downloading your mp3s. :p
the first steps would be hard.... and the rest will be as they say history.:D

[saulgoode]

Sounds quite similar to mesh networks (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2004/01/22/wirelessmesh.html) (which are at the core of the One Laptop Per Child deployment).

[diablo75]

They wouldn't need to give up their AOL or other ISP Internet. It doesn't cost them any money to participate in this experimental replacement. They could be used at the same time. Even more, they could be shared, if the user desired to, although I'm sure the ISP companies they buy their bandwidth from wouldn't be happy about that. I wouldn't be surprised if Google backed starting this kind of thing up in a large metro to see what would happen.

There are probably many ways a person could amplify their current wireless signal. Perhaps program a router with some open source software and enable it to act as a repeater, or attach to an external antennae that people could put on their roof. I don't think this would be an expensive endeavor for even a hardcore hobbyist, but their mere existence would enhance the rest of the networks reach.

[mykalreborn]

They wouldn't need to give up their AOL or other ISP Internet.
this wasn't my point. i was reffering to the fact that most people - most unfortunately - don't want to spend time with creating a free internet. they're okay with how things are, even if they don't stand so well

[Steveire]

Sounds quite similar to mesh networks (which are at the core of the One Laptop Per Child deployment).

I was just going to mention that. It is a nice idea, and analogous to the bittorrent swarm alright.

[diablo75]

this wasn't my point. i was reffering to the fact that most people - most unfortunately - don't want to spend time with creating a free internet. they're okay with how things are, even if they don't stand so well

That's ok. They don't have to participate. But anyone who does will do so to reap it's potential.

It wouldn't even have to start in neighborhoods. Suppose a bunch of people who liked the sound of this idea, decided to try out a miniature version of it in a coffee shop or public library. They would have an easy to use piece of software to initiate connections between peers, and decide what to do from there. The software would have to act as a firewall, of course, as well as have the ability to participate in file and printer sharing, or at least have the ability to enable it as an option. People could just show up to these places, openly share files if they wish, exchange ideas, and it would just be for fun. Now, it goes without saying that it will be attacked as a venue for illegal file sharing to run rampant, but let's face it. This kind of network is going to become very easy to establish soon, with the right software, and these activities that which may or may not be illegal will simply continue on in much the same manner as it always has. In addition, people will be able to host controversial information on their own web servers.

So, that's one big feature that needs to be exploited while I'm thinking about it: Web hosting. The reason your cable or DSL Internet provider limit your upload speed to something like 30 to 60 KBs, is because they don't want you to host a website on their network using up their hosting bandwidth without getting anything extra. Because, most people who want to host websites do so in the best interests of owning and running a business; they're self-employed perhaps. And they want to host their own website from their own computer, or one other in the home. Making this easy to do would not take much work at all, I don't think. People could host their own content. And that could be anything from a small web page with family photos, to the next YouTube or Myspace.

[mykalreborn]

you have some interesting ideas... but there is a saying:"int theory both practice and theory are equal, but in practice they are completly different" ;) (read this in a sig on these forums :D)

[TBOL3]

I actually had this exact same idea (except that the routers could be pre-made some day). But I was stumped at the idea of safety. Why would anyone risk their files going to someone else rougher, or allowing someone to send a file via you.

[diablo75]

I actually had this exact same idea (except that the routers could be pre-made some day). But I was stumped at the idea of safety. Why would anyone risk their files going to someone else rougher, or allowing someone to send a file via you.

I'm not sure of a really good answer, but I could ask another question in reply:

Why do people use Skype? I mean, when you look at how it works, you would probably wonder why people use it.

Edit:

I wanted to add in the following. I have this going in more than one forum on the internet, elsewhere, and someone said, "But bandwidth is cheap. Why bother?"

I replied:

Bandwidth is NOT cheap. Look at what you pay for the following:

DSL - Starts at 13 bucks a month for 1.5 Mbps.
Cable - Starts at 40 bucks a month (where I live, anyway) for 4 to 5 Mbps. You can pay more and get up to 9 Mbps. And I've even heard of services that can get you about 14 Mbps to your home...but I don't know if it's cable, or something else.

I'm not really placing emphasis on the money right now, but would ask that you look at the bandwidth being sold; the Mbps. Now, let's take a look at something else.

Your standard Wireless 802.1n-Draft router is able to both send and receive data simultaneously without interference at a rate of no less then 520 Mbps. 520 Mbps vs. your standard 4~5 Mbps sold to you for 40 bucks a month...when you can buy a wireless N router for a one time fee of about 100 bucks (and dropping fast), which could have some sort of special software built into, and if not the router, than the Wireless N enabled PC that connect to the router on the fly if it needs to, or to some other wireless network. That is a HUGE!!!!!!! HUGE!!!!!!!! difference in speed. THAT should be incentive enough, I think. Imagine trying to BUY 520 Mbps from the cable company or AT&T! That's an enormous amount of money. They'd probably have to hook you up with their broker or whoever they buy their own bandwidth from.

So, there is a huge amount of potential. And wireless networks are continuing to get faster. Imagine a city filled with these kinds of devices. You might even pitch it as a municipal project, sponsored and paid for by tax dollars. "Hey everyone. We're giving you a free wireless router, which will connect you to the Internet 100% free. Try it!" The details about how it works, that's yet to be hashed out. But I think it will work. I'm glad I'm getting feedback about this idea.

The city might also procure it's own wireless transmitters that is also connected to the real Internet. That one transmitter could either serve the entire wireless mesh, or you could setup more at a very low cost, and do it all legally.

If you look at what the Internet is, how it's built, and how it's maintained, you aren't really looking at anything special. Just a bunch of computers and a lot of copper or fiber wires hooking they all together. But there is no reason why that copper or fiber connection couldn't gradually be replaced with a wireless mesh infrastructure, or at least go half and half somehow. The ultimate goal is to find a way to establish global, cost free communication. Video Phones, perhaps a replacement for your cell phone, Internet, the whole shebang. It would just take time to build up, and nowhere near as much money as we spend on, say, war.

[schrombot]

I actually had this exact same idea (except that the routers could be pre-made some day). But I was stumped at the idea of safety. Why would anyone risk their files going to someone else rougher, or allowing someone to send a file via you.

Free multi-megabit data transfer. This will probably become a reality if the net neutrality bills are shot down in the US.

256-bit encryption would mask what file were being transferred through other people's routers, same way bit torrent clients use encryption. The advantages of a Darknet are really limitless, just so long as the user base is large enough.

Dugg

[darkhatter]

net neutrality bills are shot down in the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

did you even know what Net Neutrality is?

[diablo75]

All I know about Net Neutrality is that the term is misleading, and the real definition seems to take for ever to read (that's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia). I think most people would like to see the internet remain democratic in the way it works, but it's still not free. Not in either sense of the word.

[schrombot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

did you even know what Net Neutrality is?

Yes, the FCC is currently in control of how much power ISP's have over QoS. They allow prioritizing things such as VoIP for customer gain, but will not allow blocking or lower prioity of ports or services for gain of the ISP, such as kick backs to keep sites live or fast. If congress were too relieve the FCC of mandate powers over ISPs, they would be able to charge, at will, what they wanted to prioritize sites. On the other hand, if the internet was classified as a utility and the FCC is kept in power, then all ISPs would have to provide equal service for all traffic, unless it was beneficial to the customer.

This is my understanding of the whole deal, if I am wrong, let me know! Thanks!

[diablo75]

If you find yourself returning to this forum to check on it's progress, I have a request for those who are reading this. Help me try to develop this idea. If you've had this idea before, don't let me take credit, and give credit where credit is due. I don't want to make any money. I just want to find a way to very easily get people into this, ways to make it more accessible, and ways to attract people to it, to participate in a network such as this.

But that's just half of the issue. The other half has to do with software. How would I, or we Ubuntu/Linux/Open Source geeks, go about getting something open source written that could turn already existent wireless hardware into hardware that will behave in this sort of 802.1s way? There's windows software out there that does this. There should be some Linux software out there that does this too, but I don't know what it is, or if it really exists. I've heard that it's being used in the OLPC's, but that's all the info I have to go off of. Is there software for Linux that would allow this to work? And if so, is if open source, and are there developers out there who are willing to invest some time in expanding the software's capabilities?

Anyway, let's just keep the ball rolling. Sounds like a dream, or a waste of time to some, but I call it a hobby, which could become something huge.

[silwol]

I really find this idea very thrilling, and I would be willing to try this whole thing out.

Maybe some background about the OLPC project and how their mesh works. They do not use software for this because if the mesh network runs in software, the first thing to increase battery runtime would be to turn the whole thing down. The OLPC uses a wireless chip that has a separate low-power microcontroller which coordinates the mesh capability. This makes the mesh network also available if the computer itself is turned off. Maybe this method could also work with mobile phones - there are more and more pushing into the market that have wireless lan capability... seems the next one from http://www.openmoko.org/ will also get one.

I also have a question about the mesh network:
If there are bottle necks, let's say a chain of computers that connect two big swarms, how does the connection behave there?

Another small idea for input: Why not put a small computer into your car? You would be able to provide a mesh node to people around and also have net access at the same time. You could for example use http://www.openstreetmap.org/ for gps navigation.

Looking forward to additional ideas about this...

[Steveire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

[TBOL3]

Well, we've got a good p2p software, now we need wireless routers, and good protocols to run them.

[argie]

I had the same idea (well, on the 'hey, is this possible?' level) for some time after I was inspired by a digg post that showed how to make an antenna out of a Wok. I don't know where that post is, but a search for Wok antenna brought this up:
http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/

[diablo75]

I also have a question about the mesh network:
If there are bottle necks, let's say a chain of computers that connect two big swarms, how does the connection behave there?

Well, I would assume that it would behave no different than the way any wired network would work where there are two networks seemingly connected to each other via one single route. But that is just sort of a rarity these days, especially on the internet. Now, one path between two swarms wouldn't that bad, considering the available bandwidth between those two links is well in excess of a few hundred Mbps, and I think we've gotten beyond that limitation thanks to standards like 802.1n. So, the short answer is that, traffic might, or might not be, a little bumpy. But over time, multiple paths would appear, convergence would take place on more broad range of geography, and soon, there would be no bottle neck.


Another small idea for input: Why not put a small computer into your car? You would be able to provide a mesh node to people around and also have net access at the same time. You could for example use http://www.openstreetmap.org/ for gps navigation.

Looking forward to additional ideas about this...
Yeah, this isn't much of a new idea. I bought a book about a year ago that goes into good detail about how to build and install you own ITX motherboard based "Carputer" in your auto. You can attach GPS devices, Wireless networking devices, Bluetooth to connect to your cell phone, which would in turn, connect to the internet via a paid subscription, if that's what you're wanting. But we already mentioned a wireless networking device. I've even seen very stylish looking external antennas that you can mount on the roof of the car for added reception and transmission.

The only problem with this is, let's say you live in a city that is also participating in a thriving mesh network. This same question applies to mobile devices like cell phones, laptops, etc. And the answer is in protocol handling. The question has to do with hop management. Going from one node to the next. How quickly can a laptop, for example, (let's put it inside of a moving car, just for fun)....how fast can it fly to new ad-hoc connections, in the same way that cell phones are able to go from tower to tower on the fly, without interruption (hopefully). This shouldn't take much to work out, but is just a minor concern for now...

[diablo75]

I had the same idea (well, on the 'hey, is this possible?' level) for some time after I was inspired by a digg post that showed how to make an antenna out of a Wok. I don't know where that post is, but a search for Wok antenna brought this up:
http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/

You know, it probably wouldn't take much of anything to mass produce wireless Woks for a reasonable price, if you could find a way to make perfect use of them. The upside of the Wok is that it can participate in long range communication. The downside is that, that communication is unidirectional...right?

[Tehut]

I believe the internet will be replaced by something along those lines, most likely not in the next 10-20 years, but for sure in, say, 50. Not so much for technical, but for political and economical reasons.
There'll be a bunch of people who won't like the idea at all, either for the lack of control it implicates or for the money they'll loose, so a development in that direction would/will be delayed.
But at least there's hope that whatever restrictions will be laid upon the internet in the future won't remain forever. :)
Thank you for sharing the idea.

[fyllekajan]

Did somebody say free beer? :popcorn: ...oh yea, the future is uncertain ;)

[Tehut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

Perhaps not for as distant a future as I had thought. :)

[moffatt666]

That's a great idea but, at least in the UK, it would not be feasable.
Where would the gateway between the 'access network' and the intranet be? Who would be willing to pay for a connection capable of supporting that many users? Do you even know just how much that connection would cost???

[diablo75]

That's a great idea but, at least in the UK, it would not be feasable.
Where would the gateway between the 'access network' and the intranet be? Who would be willing to pay for a connection capable of supporting that many users? Do you even know just how much that connection would cost???

Well the gateways could be everywhere. And keep in mind that the wireless network itself would also be a live network, serving up its own collection of servers with content ready to be directly accessed from other ad-hoc wireless devices.

The end goal would be to completely rebuild the whole internet from scratch using nothing but wireless devices, and a decentralized mesh topology. This is a hypothetical goal, mind you, and isn't actually necessary.

As far as gaining access to the "real" Internet, and "who would pay for it?" Well, why not the government? Or better yet, Google. Rumor has it they're about to take the cellular phone market by surprise with a new network based on fiber optics and wireless frequencies they're in talks with the FCC to bid on later.

[pedrotuga]

This is very interesting topic and lattley i've been reading some stuff about this, but i sm still lacking a lot of technical knowledge to get into it as much as i would like.

I think this is perfectly possible. And i don't even think you need to have a wirelless device, any conection device would do it if you could speak the same network protocol.
The whole thing with this kind of stuff is the development it would take. It would need A LOT of people working on it and a huge user base that would ensure good QoS.

Now, if we look at ubuntu and what it achived, we have to be aware that there's a company that put effort ont this project. An alternative mesh network would also need some heavy weight suport like that.

i think right now, effort should be put on stuff like freenet or i2p, it's not exactly the same concept as they work over the internet we know, but i belive right now it's the way to go before we go for a completly distributed self-manteined network.

[Dimitriid]

Id be interesting to start it as a VPN within current connections then as it grows considering it as an alternate network.

[southernman]

That's a great idea but, at least in the UK, it would not be feasable.
Where would the gateway between the 'access network' and the intranet be? Who would be willing to pay for a connection capable of supporting that many users? Do you even know just how much that connection would cost???

It's already being done in the UK. Don't believe it? have a read for yourself (http://www.broadband.coop/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/)

[diablo75]

It shouldn't need to me mentioned in here, but this is one of the enemies:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

Someone at techguy.org once told me that China would be the first place in the world to achieve the first widespread "Darknet" as is being discussed in this thread. He never explained why. I was thinking about this earlier, a few nights ago, and had a bit of revelation as to why this might be.

China is notorious for internet censorship. It is also notorious for having a high population density. Now, I'm not from China, nor do I know anyone who is from there originally, but I do know that finding ways around internet censorship in China is something that has been going on since the Internet first reached that country. With the same sort of drive to find weaknesses in systems that modern hackers from the states have, so do some of the Chinese. I think of it a natural reaction, a human reaction, to the forced condition of living in a society that bids it to be illegal to read about your own countries history, or to be banned from information which other citizens of different countries are free to access with no punishment attached. Again, I'm not from China, nor to I know what it's like to live in such a society that has so much control over access to information. But I think it's a natural human impulse to resist such controls.

[kopinux]

yep, the PSP and One Laptop Per Child is already doing that concept.

but a high powered transmitter similar to CB radio is a good idea, except
that you will need a cb modem 2 antenna since cb radio has 1 antenna limitation like it cannot send and receive radio waves simultaneously.

cb radio was the chatroom of the 80's

[pedrotuga]

diablo, what is that picture about?

Anyway, don't think that all the evel censorship is in china. Relevant and trusted information is very valuable. Just to give an example, out of thousands...
universities all over the world buy censorship software. That software basically updates a blacklist daily from the retailer in USA. I once had a conversation with the responsible for my university's network and he said that the vendor told them that the database wes updated with over 10.000 sites a day.
I find it realy scary that public universities simply hand in themselves to censorship by someguys they think they can trust.

Even with your own comercial internet access, TV, radio, newspaper, don't think you really access reliable informtion everyday.

[RAV TUX]

To save time, I'm just going to copy and paste in portions of a couple e-mails I wrote to a few friends about this lately, so a couple parts will repeat, but extra detail is also present. I just want feedback about it

E-mail #1:
The first idea on the list is what I would call a Black Internet (and when I say black, I'm talking Black Market...I know that's a terrible title, but it's not as bad as it sounds). The infrastructure of it would consist of nothing but already existent wireless internet hardware that people already own or could buy dirt cheap. Lots of people have wireless internet adapters and networking cards. All they need now is a piece of software to enable auto-configuring, Ad-Hoc, Wireless-Mesh-Topology network; a freelance, public controlled Intranet (that's INTRAnet, or, a very huge Local Area Network). Such a software already exists that enables such networking, and it's called Wipeer, and it runs on Windows only. The developers are considering going open source (and they should do it now before their idea is copied and someone develops an alternative faster than they can upgrade their own and have a Linux version available).

All communication from peer to peer on such a network is encrypted with high end encryption. So that, if you are conducting data transfers to others in the wireless mesh that you wish to be kept private from end to end, it can be done very easily and safely. Data Encryption is something of a blessing, these days. I don't understand why the entire internet hasn't become encrypted yet. Probably just to save on bandwidth... But it can be forced upon a public controlled wireless network.

File sharing isn't the only thing this network would support. It could also be used as a replacement for telephone calls. Also be a method for computer gamers to play multilayer video games with each other. Eventually, you would have such an infrastructure in place that within it would be several people who have dual network connections. One network is the wireless mesh, and the other is the actual internet. These nodes would act as doorways that would allow the resources on the actual internet to be shared with the wireless intranet. The possibilities of it's use are really endless. The only limit it would need to break is co-existence with the real internet, until the line between the two networks blur enough that you can't tell the difference between the two very easily.

E-mail #2:
Ok, so who would benefit? Well, to use an analogy, pretend we're talking about hobbyist CB Radio operators. You know...those yahoo's who yell at each other over the airwaves just for fun? Or worse, send messages in mores code to each other. Yeah, those nutty guys. Well, a long time ago, you had to have a special license to engage in this form of communication. But later on, that rule was dropped, and just anybody could participate if they wanted to. I even knew a guy who went so far as find another guy to trade files with via a special kind of external modem and a CB radio. No phone line. And we thought we were nerds. This guy lived in Ozawkie, right next to the middle school. (I ever tell you about Rick?)

Blah blah, anyway. People who would wish to participate in some sort of wireless mesh internet are the types who would start off by doing it as a hobby. But later on, it's fringe benefits would become viral, and spread like gossip. "What? You can P2P file share? Talk to others in your neighborhood, even your city, via the computer, and for free? And I don't have to pay anybody? And it's legal? Awesome!" Well it may not be 100% legal, but proving it illegal would be 99% impossible, thanks to heavy encryption.

Seems like the only thing that stands in the way of giving people access to the internet for free is copper wire and a $40 bill and some nosy ISP or worse.... But the internet, the very concept of this form of global communication, isn't something that is impossible to rebuild without wires or fiber at all, but instead, radio waves and wireless devices and built voluntarily by the public. Access to it would eventually become practically global, or at least, as available as a cell phone might be (because they're are a lot of people there). Sounds impossible, but where else can the internet go in the next 10 years? Where has it gone in the last 10 years? Everywhere, faster and faster. People need it. It's addictive for good reason. But they also want ensure it to be truly democratic in form and nature. Not monitored and spied on.

Traffic: The flow of data would happen in the same manner that data flows in a bittorrent swarm. You would send a file to someone by bursting scattered chunks of data towards random people, but it would still be routed to the place it needs to go to, using routing protocols that comply with IEEE 802.1s, or something similar. When you request a file from soneone, it could actually comes to you from several different people at the same time, either because they have a copy of it too, or are just distributing their available upload/download bandwidth they currently have available; everybody shares the load. Cable modems limit upload bandwidth at about 64KB a second. It's worse with DSL. But we all know that our own wireless adapters and wireless access points/routers are well capable of transmitting several Megabits a second in both directions, especially if you're using 802.1n or better. I mean, we're actually on the cusp of witnessing consumer wireless network devices cross the Gigabit data transfer range. Why not put that bandwidth to better use?

Do I want to make money off of this? No. I don't want to play a centralized role in this, at least not one where I might be held accountable. Then again, it's either that, or no role I guess. I might as well try it. How might I do this?... I think the only way to get something like this off the ground is through some sort of viral marketing, reliance on word of mouth, and a website that would give visitors live feedback on the likeliness that someone else in their neighborhood would be interested in participating in such a project. So, you'd have a map of Topeka (or wherever), divided into arbitrary regions, which would have tally marks of the number of people who live in those places who have indicated that they have downloaded whatever software is available to them from the same website (which I would host) and that they are interested in seeing others in their neighborhood pickup the ball and play. It's not intended to replace the internet, but rather, expand it's freedom into local regions (and perhaps, allow the regular internet to become sanitized so the RIAA has a harder time tracking people). File sharing sure might play a big part in it, but so would a lot of other features. It would be targeted against cable companies, telephone companies, and eventually internet service providing companies, the RIAA, the MPAA, enemies of the constitution...etc. etc. Trying to ban it would be in direct violation of the first amendment, so the concept of a black internet has nothing illegal about it by itself. It is neutral without participation, so the idea is not illegal. How people use it, that would be left to them.

So....CB radio + Computer = Black Internet. Or whatever. It's just a dream. But it is within our grasp if we just want it enough. Call it "Plan B' if Net Neutrality fails. It is only a possibility.

In the little unincorporated town I live in, Internet is free in the whole downtown area (http://www.silverspringwifi.com/), free wi-fi; I have read that this is true on the island/country of Mauritius also.

you can search where internet is free via free wi-fi here (http://www.wififreespot.com/).

[diablo75]

diablo, what is that picture about?

The picture is about Net Neutrality and what might happen to the Internet if things go in the wrong direction.

[nowshining]

I get free dialup - :) no ads, banners, etc..

[bliffle]

I think it's a great idea, and I think it's going to happen, too. And not just in the distant future.

Similar things have already been done by "Hams", Radio amateurs. They've been multiplexing digital signals for decades.

CB radio might be a good starting place since the cost is low and there are no licensing requirements, just keep the power down. The half-duplex nature of the antenna coupling is easily overcome with internet packeting and cell-phone type distriution. It's probably true that the signal is computer modulated, wrapped with ECC codes, and tagged with IP like information and broadcast as a spread-spectrum signal.

All this stuff is old electronic art and is easily available for cheap prices.

As more people join the *free* network all they have to do is buy a little box attachment for the computer (or 2 or 3, any number can play) which will be shared by the load-leveling functions of this distributed brainpower.

Pretty soon: wifi everywhere. No more ISP charges!

To avoid the "Tragedy of The Commons" dynamic algorithms are performed by by distributed computers to fairly distribute bandwidth across members, taking into account load history, equipment contributions (basically bandwidth contributions), etc.

So, a noobie, wanting to hook into the internet, can start out at his local Internet Cafe with free wifi to start, then when he wants to work at home he buys a $50 box (one time cost) which gets him started at the low end of the bandwidth availability curve. To get more available bandwidth for DLing his massive porn, he buys more or bigger hardware which will automatically be incorporated into the Cell-internet to make that power available to others as well.

If anyone hardware cell goes down the net mends itself and goes around on alternate paths.

There's plenty of money to be made designing producing and selling the hardware boxes, which will quickly proliferate all over the world.

Eventually, cell-net users will sponsor their own satellite for those really hard-to-reach locations. Just as the Hams did with Oscar many years ago.

And best of all, it means THE END of recurring monthly charges to snotty ISPs!

[pedrotuga]

The picture is about Net Neutrality and what might happen to the Internet if things go in the wrong direction.

Thank you. I followed some link to a video about internet neutrality and i understand the picture now.
It's indeed scary if things go in the wrong direction.

[Capricori]

I was actually thinking about something like this earlier today, after reading an article about a similar idea (but it was mobile phones, not internet).
Just a couple of issues...

1. The majority of the world uses Windows machines... which surely presents a security risk? I'm not sure as to the exact nature of this risk, but such a network would attract huge amounts of malicious attention, and where there's Windows, there's a way.

2. Even if the risk was minimal, no doubt that ISPs would start a FUD campaign to persuade the less tech-savvy user to stick with them.

3. If the idea really took off, the amount of people migrating to the new network would cause performance to degrade, and the amount of people leaving their ISP, would result in ISPs being able to offer better service to remaining customers, perhaps better than the new network could, creating a sort of two-tiered internet, where people who could afford to pay premium prices to ISPs would get a better service than everyone else?

Tell me if I'm wrong, my knowledge of network theory isn't great.

[diablo75]

I was actually thinking about something like this earlier today, after reading an article about a similar idea (but it was mobile phones, not internet).
Just a couple of issues...

1. The majority of the world uses Windows machines... which surely presents a security risk? I'm not sure as to the exact nature of this risk, but such a network would attract huge amounts of malicious attention, and where there's Windows, there's a way.

2. Even if the risk was minimal, no doubt that ISPs would start a FUD campaign to persuade the less tech-savvy user to stick with them.

3. If the idea really took off, the amount of people migrating to the new network would cause performance to degrade, and the amount of people leaving their ISP, would result in ISPs being able to offer better service to remaining customers, perhaps better than the new network could, creating a sort of two-tiered internet, where people who could afford to pay premium prices to ISPs would get a better service than everyone else?

Tell me if I'm wrong, my knowledge of network theory isn't great.

I have to disagree with you on #3.

Increase in users on a FULL-DUPLEX wireless network would actually increase the overall bandwidth availability of the mesh because it spreads the whole workload across more nodes. When there are fewer users, there are fewer paths available for data to travel, geographically speaking. With many nodes to select from, you can spread the workload across many potential paths. This is exactly how things work on the real Internet too, at least with P2P programs that use a mesh topology.

In addition, I think that if there are people en mass who are buying wireless darknet equipment and moving away from DSL/Cable based ISP's, it's not because of bandwidth available, but because of politics, legal regulations, utter lack of a neutral ISP.

Giving the ISP's permission to administer a "two-tier network" also gives them the ability to make any website they (or some other corporation) want unavailable to the end user using the "lower tier". It brushes right up against violating the 1st amendment.

I partially disagree with you on #1.

Yes, "where there is windows, there is a way". My question to you is: What makes the wired network we currently call the Internet any more safer, more secure, than a wireless based network? All computer networks are entirely a separate entity from the computer and the OS running on it. They interface with the network, and enforce their own permission and security policies (example: software firewall such as Zone Alarm, or even the built in firewall included with Windows). Then outside of that, you'd likely have a NAT router to block a lot of incoming request.

HOWEVER! A wireless network is much more susceptible to packet sniffing, middle-man attacks, and DoS, among a few other things. Encryption will need to be strong. I don't know much else about wireless networking in detail and other methods of overcoming these hurdles, but I know there are other people out there who are up to the challenge.

And as far as #2 is concerned:

They can start all the campaigns they wish. The Internet (as a group) will likely start its own counter-campaign, denouncing government regulation or ISP controlled censorship, or things of that sort. In addition, I have a feeling the wireless mesh (if correctly implemented) would offer much more bandwidth than current cable or DSL are able. You think 5 or 10 Mbps is fast? Try 300 or 400. Keep it for FREE. Who could resist that?

[pedrotuga]

diablo, good and interesting analysis there.
Mesh topology as for sure a lot more potential than the topology used by most of the ISPs which is basicaly a hierarchich topology.
Just think about the power of bittorrent for example... you can distribute a file at higher speed than any webserver can, and you can do it from a regular computer with low hardware specs. I love the concept!

diablo, do you have ay relevant links to wireless darknet network and/or access-hardware? That looks like an interesting subject.
I think the time to claim people's rights concerning comunication is comming, in my opinion ISPs have way too much power over their costumers. I don't think my ip should be trackable, i 100% disagree with that and i think that is only giving oportunity to lobies to stop tecnological development in their economical favor.

By the way, if anybody here uses freenet i wold kindly ask you to pm me as it looks like a cool comcpept but i am still looking for a peer.

[diablo75]

A good start is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

You might also look for detailed information about the OLPC's intention to actually do what we're discussing in real life with their cheap laptops, basing communication on the 802.11s standard (technobabble for "wireless mesh").

Also, what if the entire content of the internet was treated the same as files are treated with P2P software. The key here is the allow a website to cache itself on someone elses computer, and then that users computer (which would multiply into 1000's of computers) would all share portions or all of any particular website.

Say you visited yahoo.com. You haven't visited it in a day or however long you want (for this little thought experiment). So, the first thing your computer will do is hit the DNS up and find the IP address for Yahoo's official servers. You download the webpage from them, but at the same time, are also able to download it from other users nearby, or anywhere else within the mesh, and you would do the same, passing on data that you've cached (See link below for a better explanation; the term used to describe this new concept is Dissemination Networking).

This is actually the Internet will work pretty soon, wired or wirelessly. Data will be stored in vast multitudes of locations, instead of in one central location. I heard about this concept in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&q=new+way+to+look+at+networking&hl=en

Key points about Dissemination Networking in the video:

* Data is requested, by name, using any and all means available (IP VPN tunnels, zeroconf addresses, multicast, proxies, etc.)
* Anything that hears the request and has a valid copy can respond.
* The returned data is signed, and optionally secured so it's integrity and association with the name can be validated.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the above video/link, as the latter half of it is very relevant to current and future transformations of the Internet as we will know it.

One other thought.... IPv6 should be utilized from the start, not IPv4. Just a thought.

[Conspirator45]

http://melbournewireless.org.au/