Can we network around traditional ISPs?

[Garrison0fMars]

I sincerely do not have a clue, even after reading their material.

If they are proposing an 'alternative' to the Internet, they don't need to care about IPv4 allocations, so I don't understand why they're talking about them. They can just issue their own IPs. Shoot: they can use Token Ring instead of TCP/IP if they want.

I'm sure they know what they're doing, but I'm just not clear on what it is, exactly.

Well it's explained here http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2010/09/21/ham-radio-helping-to-build-a-fast-and-free-internet/

San Francisco hackerspace, Noisebridge, is making an alternative network modeled after the Internet that would provide high-speed connectivity for a fraction of the cost of traditional internet service.

Noisebridge is working on this project using commodity Wi-Fi equipment that’s been modified to work under amateur radio frequencies. The FCC grants experimenters spectrum space to build high power, long range radio systems. Through this provision, Noisebridge has begun building the HInternet (a combination of “Ham Radio" and “Internet”).

As one enthusiast explains, “You can run any application you could run over the Internet, the difference is you don’t need any wires. Everything is done through radio links. In the event of a major disaster, you wouldn’t have to worry about downed lines or earthquake damage to underground equipment -- the network would naturally reform itself, routing around failures.”

The idea to create the HInternet was triggered by the realization that there was a lot open IP space allocated to amateur radio that was not in use. Aside from the benefits this system could provide in natural disaster, the HInternet is driven by the belief in freedom and open access to the Internet. The United States is debating a bill to create an Internet kill switch, also known as the PCNAA bill. For true redundancy, a non-critical network such as the HInternet is being built to avoid this single point of failure.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Totally unworkable, of course. There's too much data to try to move it across such a distributed system, which is why the backbone evolved in the first place. The "big boys" can afford to invest in big pipes that have the capacity to handle the data and can send it long distances. My little laptop doesn't have the stones to let my neighbor download Netflix videos through it. So he'll have to go with someone who can afford to buy better infrastructure, and we're back to someone in the business of "providing Internet service."

Why would it be unworkable though? I think it all depends on what data you're transmitting and how you're transmitting it. On demand video streaming would probably be a lot harder to do under such a system, but sharing files via some p2p system may not be under such configurations. I don't know though, that's why I'm asking

It seems after further reading, the Hinternet (Ham Radio Internet) is a bit of a planned dual based system, (So not totally independent like I thought) like Alameda Wireless (albeit on a continental level).

Alameda Wireless is a data network of user-owned, user-operated wireless nodes covering the city and nearby area of Alameda.

Think of Alameda Wireless as a "mini Internet" or an "Alameda Internet", this wireless network would allow those on the island to communicate freely around the island and Internet connectivity providers would be able to connect individuals to the full Internet without needing to wire a cable directly to each subscribers house.

Initially Internet connectivity would be donated, but as the infrastructure is built, higher speed options could be added.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I sincerely do not have a clue, even after reading their material.

If they are proposing an 'alternative' to the Internet, they don't need to care about IPv4 allocations, so I don't understand why they're talking about them. They can just issue their own IPs. Shoot: they can use Token Ring instead of TCP/IP if they want.

I'm sure they know what they're doing, but I'm just not clear on what it is, exactly.

Apparently I was wrong, they aren't building an alternative Internet, per se. Building a cheaper way for ISPs to be connected with the home, (and apparently bringing down the cost for smaller telecos to operate) but also allowing individuals to communicate in the wireless network on their own, without an ISP (I guess a sort of smaller Internet built on top of it) Seems Alameda Wireless is the system they're trying to emulate, albeit on a much larger scale.

 

[Dancing David]

Anyway around that problem?

Not easily, the point is that you can send data some way other than through the standard transmission lines. There is plenty of static in the current wires/optic lines that run around the world. (Mainly at the ethernet end, there is a limit for them.)

If you were trying to send data packets through the ham radio (sortwave?) the best means would be to use redundant channeling, where you send the same packets of three seperate frequencies and then have them compared at the reception.

But all someone has to do is start broadcasting at the same frequency to jam it. Easy to do at the reception end.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, it's intended to stay operation even if there's a shutdown or a disaster. I asked about neutrality though, and they said the plan is to leave that up to the people running the repeaters. My guess is though, there'll be enough people who embrace some form of "neutrality" in transmission running the repeaters. Assuming this network actually works.

The focus certainly isn't targeting ISP discrimination/censorship, however it looks like if it does work, it could help solve that problem.

You might want to post this in the Computer forum.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

You might want to post this in the Computer forum.

Oh wow, I didn't even know there was a computer subforum. My bad!

 

[nathan]

There are 13 "root zone servers" scattered world-wide (in practical terms, of course, they're not severs, but server farms). Although they're individually owned and operated, they're all supervised by the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee, and the actual changes to the root zone are directed by the US Department of Commerce. I forget who the authoritative name server for (e.g.) the .com domain is, but again there's a single entity responsible for it, and I think that entity is subject to US law.

So, yes, it's quite possible for one person or organization to cut you off from the existing DNS. Especially if they're willing to call in a few solids.

And, yes, there are alternative DNS servers (AlterNIC is the most famous) but they've never been able to achieve traction.

While all this is correct, as I understand it, countries that block sites, do so by manipulating Border Gateway Protocol (and its variants), to make particular IP addresses inaccessible. That way, even if you happen to know that google's IP address is w.x.y.z (which is what DNS will find out for you), you still can't get to it. They can do this, because they have control of the one route out of that country. If there are several million routes out of the country, it's harder to manipulate.

 

[blutoski]

Well it's explained here http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2010/09/21/ham-radio-helping-to-build-a-fast-and-free-internet/

Yes, and I don't understand it. They appear to be making contradictory statements.

It sounds like a WAN. Nobody thinks WANs would be disabled by an Internet kill switch. They would just lose their connection to other WANs.

 

[blutoski]

Apparently I was wrong, they aren't building an alternative Internet, per se. Building a cheaper way for ISPs to be connected with the home, (and apparently bringing down the cost for smaller telecos to operate) but also allowing individuals to communicate in the wireless network on their own, without an ISP (I guess a sort of smaller Internet built on top of it) Seems Alameda Wireless is the system they're trying to emulate, albeit on a much larger scale.

Mm. Well, UBC had had wireless broadband on its WAN for quite a few years now, so I'm not sure why this is extraordinary. Except that it's user-operated, I guess. Maybe there's no ISP but I'm sure there's still a committee who decides on the design and build.

And the ISPs are still ahead of the curve on this. Most already offer wireless broadband to residences and business customers through smart hubs. Here in Canada, those are popular for farms in the prairie provinces, which can be hundreds of km from an ISP's facility.

I may still be missing something.

 

[blutoski]

While all this is correct, as I understand it, countries that block sites, do so by manipulating Border Gateway Protocol (and its variants), to make particular IP addresses inaccessible. That way, even if you happen to know that google's IP address is w.x.y.z (which is what DNS will find out for you), you still can't get to it. They can do this, because they have control of the one route out of that country. If there are several million routes out of the country, it's harder to manipulate.

Now I think I get it. The value is that this can bypass the national choke-points.

Not much use if the Internet itself is deactivated in the website's country of origin, or if the banned site is in your own country.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So I wonder if anyone from Egypt read this thread or the links.