Free Broadband to Alternative WWW

[ebutton]

I was just now listening to the radio broadcast of Democracy Now, a bit they did on the USA MainCore data base. It got me to thinking how all of our voice and digital communication is probably monitored and to an extent controlled by governments and "big business".

I guess it is still 1984.

I think we don't have to accept this situation. CB radios are inexpensive. Similar radios with data link connections to our computers would also be inexpensive. Existing technology can provide the necessary hardware and software to allow individuals around the world to interconnect their CB-like data radios/computers to establish the Alternative World Wide Web (AWWW). An encryption scheme that could prevent "Big Brother" from assuming control might be possible.

I thought to plant this seed and see if it would grow.

Love to all of us,
EdB

[gletob]

I have often thought of this The FCC would never allow it here
EDIT: Plus we'd need a lot of support to get it started if you 1000 users in VA and 1000 Alabama then that two separate networks

[ebutton]

Well, please don't tell the hams!

[ebutton]

Seriously. There is nothing that could stop this from working, technically or govermentaly. Apathy could, though.

[Silpheed2K]

I've thought of something like this a while back... an alternative second internet... but I didnt think of radio... but i'm wondering what kind of speeds can be achieved through the CD radios.. I'm just curious... I'm really all for it.

[ebutton]

I'll have to verify my guess, but since a 1.5 MHz T1 carries about 80% of the carrier speed as intelligence (overhead + data), a 25MHz or so radio signal should handle at least 5Mbs of strongly encrypted data.

Maybe an amatuer radio enthusiast out there can add to this discussion.

?

[ebutton]

That's just for a point-to-point connection. If you mean the average available throughput in and out of the network, we'll need to build some prototypes and do some testing.

See this image. A GoogleMap view of a hemisphere with interconnected dots. Each dot is a radio with a range that overlaps several adjacent dots/radios. Given existing multi-path routing capabilities, one might achieve nominal throughput anydot to anyotherdot.

[gletob]

We'd have to put a system place so that if client A connect to server 1 he'd go through client B normally but is in the range of clients B,C,D,E,F and client B goes down it reroutes data not through one radio but splits it up in to parts for each radio as not to overload other clients
P.S. Only Linux on this new network Windows takes up to much traffic with viruses and Mac OS X (I have no reasoning for OS X)
P.P.S Another good thing to do is set aside band with so if Client Bg (next client in line to server) is overloaded it can send a signal to reroute so as not to use Bg ( so Bg can re-stabilize)

[ebutton]

We don't want a server model. It's a distributed model.

[Silpheed2K]

I feel we'd have to revamp the whole concept of IPs because some people claim that the internet could run out of IPs eventually so I think a upgrade for that is in place at least.

[gletob]

I think instead of using hard to remember IPv6 We should change IPv4 so that either the number go above 255 or add another octet (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)
BTW there are 4,294,967,296 IPv4 combination's (minus some ranges like 192.xxx.xxx.xxx or 127.0.0.1)

[ebutton]

We no longer are about to run out of IP addresses. NAT changed all that. There is, however, nothing stopping us from implementing an IPv6 network, though I think it is not necessary or advisable. We would prefer to stay entirely compatible with the existing infrastructure. The world is not yet quite ready to switch from IPv4 to IPv6.

But what about the big picture? Do you see it?

Love,
EdB

[wrtpeeps]

We'd have to put a system place so that if client A connect to server 1 he'd go through client B normally but is in the range of clients B,C,D,E,F and client B goes down it reroutes data not through one radio but splits it up in to parts for each radio as not to overload other clients
P.S. Only Linux on this new network Windows takes up to much traffic with viruses and Mac OS X (I have no reasoning for OS X)
P.P.S Another good thing to do is set aside band with so if Client Bg (next client in line to server) is overloaded it can send a signal to reroute so as not to use Bg ( so Bg can re-stabilize)

Whaaaattttt. :)

So basically, the first thing about this "free" network would be the restriction on who can use it? :lolflag:

[aktiwers]

I love the idea and have been thinking about the same before. I mean a good alternative to WWW.
Where people where completely anonymous and maybe even inventing a new protocol/browser.

Look at all the downsides of Http and the WWW and try avoid them in this new protocol.
But my knowledge is too limited for any good strategy or plans for this to happen.

[ebutton]

Exactly. We don't exclude, we include. Ubuntu.

Love,
There's no end of it,
EdB

[wrtpeeps]

You are aware that you will probably need satellites to transmit your radio waves long distances.

Even if you do restrict it to within the US, this is still a large enough area to be affected by the earths curvature.

And satellites cost money.

Lots of money.

[ebutton]

We do not need satellites. The nodes are close enough that all radio communication is ground point-to-point. That's the crucial point. Relatively low power Citizen's Band and perhaps VHF and so forth are, for the most part terrestrial. We, of course, include tropospheric scatter, but completely reject the notion that globe orbiting relays are needed. HF radio is the minimum and sufficient requirement.

[wrtpeeps]

You're trying to build a reliable network on something that isnt even reliable.

Some day you'll go to download something and get 99% packet loss because

1. the guy next door is downloading
2. it's a wee bit cloudy outside

[ebutton]

OK. You're right, it won't work. End of discussion. Geez! WHAT was I thinking anyway.

Just kidding. Please do go consult someone who knows this subject area and then get back to me. I mean this in the nicest possible way: You do not possess the requisite knowledge to engage me in this discussion.

Ed

[wrtpeeps]

OK. You're right, it won't work. End of discussion. Geez! WHAT was I thinking anyway.

Just kidding. Please do go consult someone who knows this subject area and then get back to me. I mean this in the nicest possible way: You do not possess the requisite knowledge to engage me in this discussion.

Ed

Hey, I'm not the one who thinks I can magically create a second internet here. :lolflag:

So, how easy will it be to have multiple systems talking to each other at the same time?

[TBOL3]

I've actually been thinking of setting up a network like this. Rather then having a ISPs (a user pays someone money to live on their established network), we have the users set up their own network. I spend a couple hundred to connect to my neighbors, they can do the same, otherwise, I could connect to the ones after that. When you stop to think about that, I would be cheaper, let's say you pay your ISP $30 a month 30x12 is $360 a year, and that's not including other hardware and setup fees.

I even had plans of setting up a company that would implement it for other people. There would be 3 methods:

1. I would release the hardware plans of routers etc. online. For people to look at, and possibly big companies to change. I would release it under an equivalent to the GPL, requiring other companies that used them to release there hardware (well, the parts that were connected to the plans that they used anyway).

2. Just sell the routers, etc.

3. Provide a service where we would come out, and actually set it up for the user.

(You could use other hardware on the network, but this would be specialized for it).

Of course there would be ways to mix the 3 options, and the second would cost more then the first, and the third even more, but it was a start.

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly hard thing to do. I have to have an incredible background in networking. And possibly in hardware design. It would take several years to even get started. But hay, it's great to see that someone else is also taking an initiative on it.

(I am still learning as much about networking as I can, but I'm rapidly running out of material, so if any of you have any resources, I would happily read them, thanks)

[ebutton]

The way to prove the principal is to engage existing "amateur radio enthusiasts". Here's a place to start: http://www.hello-radio.org/wedothat/

I have not yet explored their current technology, but I doubt that you will be disappointed with their current capabilities.

Thank you for "getting it".

Ubuntu,
EdB

[Methuselah]

I often thought of the idea of a truly free internet as well.
While it's a place for the free exchange of many ideas, the doors to the internet are still primarily controlled by a few big entities.
Then when you hear talk of fundamental changes in the way sites can be accessed you wonder whether we can take even the current state of affairs for granted.

[ebutton]

Ooops! My bad. The HAMs already are doing it. Just take a look at:
http://www.hello-radio.org/wedothat/

See. It's not a big leap. It's one small step for ... Ubuntus, "Us" for a short way to spell it.

Now, all that we (perhaps) need is the software. It looks to me that the hardware is already available. If you doubt, visit and study the content of the above URL.

Ubuntu!

[Kvark]

As you say you need 2 different things on 2 different layers of communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model).

On the physical hardware layer it would be cool if everyone owned their own internet connection so there is no ISP that can cut off their access. Another existing technical solution besides CB radio is community WiFi networks (http://www.hearusnow.org/internet/190/) such as Alameda Wireless (http://alamedawireless.org/), all they need is another way than ISPs to bridge the distance between cities.

On the software application layer it would be cool to replace HTTP with an anonymized and encrypted peer to peer protocol so nobody can trace who is communicating with who or eavesdrop on what they are saying. These anonymity networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anonymity_networks) also already exist, the most well known ones are Tor (http://www.torproject.org/) and Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/).

All this is compatible with each other. If you establish a CB radio link to someone who also uses their city's community WiFi then you have access to that WiFi net and unless all ISPs have cut off everyone in that WiFi net you also have access to the Internet. You can use Freenet, Tor, HTTP and HTTP anonymized through Tor at the same time over that connection.

[gletob]

I meant on the server side guys not client side but we do need good firewalls in place

[mips]

I'll have to verify my guess, but since a 1.5 MHz T1 carries about 80% of the carrier speed as intelligence (overhead + data), a 25MHz or so radio signal should handle at least 5Mbs of strongly encrypted data.

Maybe an amatuer radio enthusiast out there can add to this discussion.

?

I think you are confusing bandwidth and frequency. The 25MHZ operating frequency hams use has nothing to do with bandwidth.

Data over radio is way to slow. It also requires expensive equipment and radio usage is regulated in most countries so you still don't get around the gov. If it was this simple everyone and his dog would have been doing it already.

Only real alternative would be stuff like WiFi & WiMAX which operate in the GHz frequency bands. It's the only way to get good speeds on radio. You could build a meshed wireless network like this and could potentially also link towns this way but microwave would be a better option here. This is already happening in many cities/towns across the world including here.

I would have no interest in what you are proposing as I honestly think it will be a really bad service & will not work.

I suggest you speak to someone that is a radio engineer or read up on radio technology (it's a pretty comlex field if you ask me and I studied electronic eng.) and maybe you will have some new ideas.

The easiest way to to protect data privacy is to encrypt all data, this is much more doable than building a new network.

EDIT: Something else I forgot to mention is the problem of latency which many users of a few wireless technologies complain about.

[Delever]

How secret it would be? - depends on people who will use it. i.e Big Brother next door.

Would it be free? - yes, people would just donate some cash for Joe to do maintenance and installation work.

Would connections to nearest people work? - probably, if technology is good (see http://freenetproject.org/). However, some would want higher speeds, so Joe would offer service of few master nodes or something similar.

Could it be owned at the end? - yeah, Joe have already made good progress.

Also, it can also be made illegal. That would be just OutrageouS.

I would suggest other way: keep systems as open as possible and owners as distributed as possible, and encrypt necessary streams which need to be encrypted, so those who listen can continue to do so. No?

[/extensive amounts of sarcasm just for fun :lolflag:]

[TBOL3]

Hay, I just had an idea, because radio waves can travel long distances, they could be used to connect long cities.

[gletob]

I'm back
I been thinking if we were able to start a company we could install and maintain the network have free service but tack things on for extra money (higher bandwidth, web server, email server, etc.) and we could once we built the infastructure enough have TV and phone service

[Mateo]

Could I borrow your tin foil hat?

[init1]

This sounds like a cool idea. It wouldn't be an Internet replacement, but more of a hobby. It probably wouldn't be too fast or extensive or reliable but again, it would only be a hobby.

[MaxIBoy]

I thought about doing this too, only with neighbor-to-neighbor LAN connections. Like everyone has a hub with three connections going off to three different neighbors, plus one going to their computer.



I don't think that it would be a good idea to do it by radio, but revamping the Internet is a good idea. The whole concept of a backbone cable is just stupid.

[gletob]

I thought about doing this too, only with neighbor-to-neighbor LAN connections. Like everyone has a hub with three connections going off to three different neighbors, plus one going to their computer.



I don't think that it would be a good idea to do it by radio, but revamping the Internet is a good idea. The whole concept of a backbone cable is just stupid.

I know think about it you send a file to a friend a mile away from you (with a different ISP) so it has to go all the up your isp's pipe into the other isp's pipe and down to you friend

[MaxIBoy]

Then again, the backbone is kind of the most efficient way of doing rapidly updated websites with user-created content, like Wikis, forums, and YouTube. If the web was done with a bittorent-style model, getting the "most recent" version of something would be a real pain.

[dhughes]

The 'Mesh Network' concept is popping up more often, it sounds like a good idea but until data over radio or WiFi is improved it's still way too slow for most people.

Even 802.11n at its max output of 300Mbps, less than a quarter the rate of a T1, WiFi never achieves the 'speed' of what is stated since interference from objects will degrade it, by probably 50% on a good day.

Shortwave has the range but as someone said it's not so simple, you're creating an entirely new way to communicate, unless you can somehow make shortwave act as WiFi.

Then you get into the problem of DNS, everyone will have to have their own DNS server at home, and if using a laptop on their system or many people will have to have a DNS server up at all times. Either that or we all have to remember each website's IP address! There will have to be many nodes up at all times, too few of them and they'll be vulnerable to attack.

I admit I have thought about it and most computer geeks are also into Ham radio so it's a perfect match, if it can ever be designed.

[MaxIBoy]

I just don't think Wireless is a mature technology yet, and never will be until it can top the security, reliability, and speed of cables.

True story: When I first got my computer, and we got broadband so we could share an Internet connection, the first LAN we set up was wireless. In my room, I was getting sub-dialup speeds. The next day, we returned the wireless router, bought some LAN cables, and ran them under the house. They got tangled up, and I had to spend about an hour in the crawl space getting the knots untied, but we haven't had any problems with them since. That was four years ago.

[TBOL3]

Who ever said that it would be wireless? I'm pretty sure that most of my neighbors wouldn't mind me buying a cable, and connecting it to their house.

And sure, some people may use wireless, but that is the point, they could choose what they wanted to use. (Although getting a cable strund over a public road may be a bit of a problem, legaly).

Also, it would not start as a world web. I was thinking it would start as a LAN. My neighborhood would have one, maybe yours as well. Anyone in that neighborhood could have their own webpage, and put up anything they wanted, using their own hardware and the network for hosting. Maybe after a while, we could get the neighboring neighborhood to join in. If you wanted to, you might be able to share part of your ISP connection, but most ISPs I know of don't like this. And most people wouldn't share it.

[Delever]

Who ever said that it would be wireless? I'm pretty sure that most of my neighbors wouldn't mind me buying a cable, and connecting it to their house.

And sure, some people may use wireless, but that is the point, they could choose what they wanted to use. (Although getting a cable strund over a public road may be a bit of a problem, legaly).

Also, it would not start as a world web. I was thinking it would start as a LAN. My neighborhood would have one, maybe yours as well. Anyone in that neighborhood could have their own webpage, and put up anything they wanted, using their own hardware and the network for hosting. Maybe after a while, we could get the neighboring neighborhood to join in. If you wanted to, you might be able to share part of your ISP connection, but most ISPs I know of don't like this. And most people wouldn't share it.

The main problem is, if someone *does* connect it to ISP, it becomes Internet.

And you can't block that from happening, because no one owns such network, right?

[TBOL3]

What's the matter with that? If someone wants to share their ISP, and their ISP will allow it, why not?

[wrtpeeps]

What's the matter with that? If someone wants to share their ISP, and their ISP will allow it, why not?

No residential ISP is going to allow you to share your connection over a LAN that goes outside the confines of your home. Period.

And, there are lots of good reasons why you wouldn't want to anyway. Number one being you'd be legally accountable for anything that goes through that ISP connection as it's yours and you are the one sharing it.

[mips]

What's the matter with that? If someone wants to share their ISP, and their ISP will allow it, why not?

It's not going to happen for various technical & legal reasons.

[webdr]

I'm a bit late to your party, however, as a wifi-Mesh pioneer, I would direct you to look at http://www.locustworld.com

They have an open source wireless adhoc mesh distro which works very nicely with PrismII based wireless devices. While this is not CB radio, it is very easy for one and all to make an experimental network with it.

5mbps over CB spectrum is not possible with today's modulation techniques, HOWEVER, I'd like to point out that some people have used their connected their CB radios to their PC's and used gmfsk (linux based digital modes ham radio software) to achieve links for text messaging w/ CW, and data transfer with psk via their CB radios.

I'm currently working as part of a team that is prototyping hand held, portable, multi-band, wireless terminal devices which focus on adhoc on demand data and voice transport.

73's,
Mark (KE5SHQ)