Could we start our own "internet"?

[wessman]

I have to ask this question: With wireless taking off and daisey-chains becoming more and more powerful and popular, is it possible that file-sharers could eliminate the need to use regular internet protocols thru our ISPs to swap and switch to a huge underground daisey-chain internetwork? Hmmmm....


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Simple, Cross Platform P2P File Sharing via 802.11b? |
| from the wireless-communications-without-the-TCP/IP-hassle dept. |
| posted by Cliff on Monday August 26, @23:55 (tech) |
| http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/26/1956203 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

[0]apago asks: "I travel alot on business and always need to exchange
files with other people. We are always trying to figure out the best way
to link two or more PC or Mac systems together. I carry regular and
crossover cables and a small hub. Even then everyone has to configure a
temp. IP address or have someone running a DHCP server. Most of these
people have wireless 802.11b capability. Is there a way to share files
between OSs using 802.11b without having to configure a temporary network
setup? The autodiscovery and configuration of Bluetooth and ZeroConf
sound like a good start. I like the easy of use of P2P apps." Does
802.11b need a TCP/IP stack to work? Could a low-profile stack, designed
around ease-of-use, be used instead (all you would need to connect to the
network would be the SSID, for example)?

Discuss this story at:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/08/26/1956203

Links:
0. http://www.apago/~dkelly


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 802.11b Urban Network - 3 sq km! |
| from the spreading-the-net-wide dept. |
| posted by Hemos on Tuesday August 27, @16:34 (tech) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/27/1544229 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

wireless junkie writes "[0]NZ Herald has an [1]article about a 3 sq km
wireless network. Roaming, seamless handoff, VoIP, and its only the
[2]demonstration network. 100 sq/km coming soon (according to the
[3]RoamAD site) [4]MiniStumbler on an iPaq shows a whole heap of signal
on and near downtown Queen Street. All I want for Christmas..."

Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/08/27/1544229

Links:
0. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
1. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2351473&thesection=technology&thesubsection=general
2. http://www.roamad.com/roam_home_demo_nf.html
3. http://www.roamad.com/
4. http://www.netstumbler.com/download.php?op=viewdownload&cid=1


'Wi-fi' makes laptop net access a breeze in the Auckland CBD

27.08.2002 - By PETER GRIFFIN IT writer
Downtown Auckland is set to join the likes of San Francisco and Seattle as a wireless internet hotspot where cafe goers flip open laptops rather than newspapers over their morning brew.

Wireless operator RoamAD has built a network covering three square kilometres of the central business district where it is offering wireless internet access for owners of laptops and handheld computers equipped with "Wi-Fi" or wireless network cards, which typically cost $200 to $300.

The venture, partly backed by property developer Andrew Krukziener, will soon extend to a fifty square kilometre area of the city and reach areas like Ponsonby and Parnell.

Web surfers would enjoy access speeds of up to 330Kbps (kilobits per second) as they moved around the CBD, their connection switching to the nearest radio access point just as cellphone calls are handed from one cell tower to another.

The network is operated over the unregulated 2.4GHz spectrum band used by wireless operators Walker Wireless and Radionet through to microwaves and cordlesss phones.

RoamAD plans to make money wholesaling its network services to telcos and internet providers who will use their marketing power to attract subscribers. More than 3000 subscribers could connect to the network at one time without access speeds dropping.

WorldxChange was being used as a telecoms interconnect partner allowing voice calls to be made over the network, however the quality of calls was average.

RoamAD chief executive Paul Stoddart, said pricing of the service would come down to the resellers, none of whom he was willing to talk about yet.

"My expectation is that pricing will come in between ADSL and the 2.5G mobile offerings," said Stoddart.

That would see RoamAD's service priced with a monthly data cap at a premium to Telecom's Jetstream service, which requires access to a phone line, but less expensive than the mobile data services of Telecom and Vodafone.

While RoamAD will face competition from the likes of Walker Wireless which is trialling its own high speed wireless service in Auckland, Stoddart says the service would avoid competing with the mobile operators existing services.

"It will allow them to position this so they don't cannibalise their legacy network products," said Stoddart, a veteran of both Vodafone and Walker Wireless.

RoamAD, registered as Nomad Communications, had raised "millions of dollars" through two funding rounds and was going to the market for more capital. The company was divided among more than 40 shareholders, with a group of US and local engineers responsible for developing the technology, holding a 20 per cent stake under the Anguilla-registered company Rebus Group International.

RoamAD's chairman Martyn Levy said Krukziener was a seed investor who bought in 18 months ago. He owned around 10 per cent of RoamAD which based its network operations centre in his Albert Street building.

Stoddart said RoamAD would be able to tap into demand for 3G (third generation) like services but could build the network at just five per cent of the cost of constructing a 3G mobile network. Coverage could be extended to a fifty square kilometre area for $2.5 million to $3 million.

University campuses could also be brought into the loop cheaply - for between $300,000 and $400,000 said Stoddart.

Wireless networks operating on the 802.11b standard have grown haphazardly overseas in the last two years, but are particularly popular in large US cities where hotels, restaurants and the StarBucks coffee chain have developed their own wireless hotspots.

Sydney-based telecoms analyst Paul Budde, said he was an enthusiastic user of Wi-Fi, but building a business case around it was proving a headache for wireless operators.

"In all these years there are now three hotels in Sydney and two hotels in Melbourne connected. Every time I book in I have to double check if it is working."

Commercialisation of the technology has in part been hampered by 802.11b's poor security record and it's vulnerability to traffic congestion due to its open access.

But Stoddart said RoamAD's network would not fall victim to the web's latest fad, warchalking - where the tech minded flag spots where fellow wireless enthusiasts can log onto unsecure wireless networks for free internet access.

The double-curved symbol of the warchalkers has begun to appear on pavements and in shop windows from London to San Francisco, striking fear into corporates who discover the symbol in their own neighbourhood.

Stoddart said a mix of encryption technology and password cross-referencing kept the network secure.

He expected the service to be commercially available with add-ons allowing business customers to log into company networks, by Christmas.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Broadband via Power Cables trials in Scotland |
| from the lookit-all-them-wires-in-there dept. |
| posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday August 27, @11:00 (internet) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/27/1240255 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Wacko writes "Scottish Hydro-Electric have started a trial of
[0]Broadband internet access via power lines. Just plug the modem into
any power point in your house, with no need for additional lines into the
house, and reasonably priced too. Details are a bit scketchy right now
but interesting to see how the trial goes."

Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=02/08/27/1240255

Links:
0. http://www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/

:sw

[Dark Messenger]

hi, wessman! :)

a great article...i thank you for bringing it to our attention...unfortunately for myself...it was "over my head" I couldn't really get into or understand the "concept" of a wireless network...however it is innovators like yourself and many others whom I/we (the dummies) rely upon to educate us...eventually we will catch up with you guys out in the "forefront" or "cutting edge" of technological innovations.

Pioneers like the ones you pointed to in these great compilation of articles will most likely continue to lead the way and become "driving forces" in the furthur advancements of p2p and p2p technology.

again...my apologies for not understanding (don't bother explaining it to me...i'm afraid its a lost cause. ;) )

hopefully though after it becomes MAINSTREAM i will be one of the ones singing the praises of this idea when and if it ever becomes the accepted norm...

ohkay here are some UNEDUCATEd questions form me WHO HASN'T read ALL the information you provided....okay these "wireless" networks.....how do they work? (if you can explain it simply for me) and b)aren't these "wireless networks rather COSTLY right now and pretty much limited to Corporations and businesses...so wouldn't this for the moment be impractical for "general populace' (you know like when vcr's first came out and were OVERPRICED by demand...but as the market place became saturated with the products the prices were eventually driven down by inventory and oversatturation of availability in the market place? maybe one day the wireless protocol networks will become AFFORDABLE and even practicle even for General and common use.

The other thing:

c)I think these networks i VERY LIMITED in their RANGE or COMPACITY


again my apologies if I misread or overlooked something in your post or in any of the articles you listed....This is INTRIGUING and I do THANKYOU for thinking ahead. :-)

best wishes,

-DM

[Rickio]

sure it's possible

don't you remember BBS's (perhaps you weren't around then) :-)
talking circa 1980's not so long ago really...I was playing with computers since I was 12! :-) commadore and atari back then and DOS! :-) and the atari I speak of was not gaming but a actual computer....

you can create a private BBS. BBS's were very popular right before internet got popular and folks would chat, send messages and share files.

I havne't looked in a long time but am sure some of that software is still available. It is not linked to internet in anyway, it is private networking and was the first idea that the public used before the government loosed it's hold on the internet.

also their is fidonet, also pre-internet and still going strong.
It is a network of people who share, files, news and information on a seperate non-internet network.

If the internet get's to constrictive, a lot of people will remember all this again!

:-)

Peace!

[wessman]

Rickio:

I haven't used BBS's in a long time, but I understand what you're saying here. We need to (re)educate people on these non-internet networks and set up a task force to think about using wireless as the connection point.

That is the future of P2P, in my opinion. :sw

[psychotronic420]

I too remember the BBS daze, but didn't the protocols for this require one machine dialing in and using phone lines? How would this work with Cable? It could work if you use DSL I guess............................................. hmmmm looks like I might need to switch over to DSL.
As far as wireless is concerned this is an amazing way to access the internet and transfer information, my brother currently uses wireless his speeds are constantly 1.5Mb down and ~800kbps up the only drawback to wireless, is when there are atmospheric disturbances then your service gets really bad.

[Rickio]

Yeah The BBS's were basicly local networks, do you remember that AOL, Compuserve & Prodigy among others were all really glorified BBS's. I mention that to indicate how big a BBS can be.
Many of these BBS's especially Compuserve had special software to optimise connectivity. Meaning it would login, download mail, news and scheduled file downloads from libraries and be off in a few minutes. Thereby making it inexpensive and very useful.
It was a big deal when AOL first accessed newsgroups and internet came much later to be integrated into aol and then others like it.
Compuserve is still around I might mention and it is still the best as far as a BBS.
In otherwords if in some weird way internet went down. AOL and Compuserve still have their own private network. If you do not realise it, they are in fact a seperate network linked to the internet.
If someone had enough money and incentive it could be done again and kept seperate from the internet.
I am sure BBS software is still around I last looked a few months ago but did not look deeply into it.
Perhaps I will look somemore now. I like the idea of a private network and to give you a hint. ATT offers a unlimited calling plan to people who also have ATT long distance. :-)

[macazar88]

all we ned is software like netzero,connects to the net thats all forget mail and shit get an email at mailcity.

[Rickio]

macazar88

not sure if you lost the point or I just didn't get your point.
but we are discussing non-internet network here.
A seperate network from the internet. As in private or in the least
not a part of the internet.

Peace

[gorphon]

itd be possible to set up a bbs style network that could be accessible by cable users... To be honest Im not really up on the technology but I think you could set up a private, telnet style site, specify it a specific port on your (static) ip and route it through a linux box acting as a server to close off all unneccesary ports. If this would work you'd have no long distance charges- I HATED only being able to access local bbs' as a kid- and a private network that would be below the horizon of 'corporate america'. well, at least theoretically. Im going to ask around about this now, unless someone here knows alot (it shouldnt be hard) more about this then I do.

And I remember the commodore 64 too, and dot matrix printers that smoked... and getting a tandy computer and thinking I was the coolest kid on the block because of its 20 MEG harddrive...

[gorphon]

I know thats not really our own "internet" more like just a private network... itd work fine though I think as along as we had a security expert ortwo along for the ride...

[wessman]

Originally posted by gorphon
I know thats not really our own "internet" more like just a private network... itd work fine though I think as along as we had a security expert ortwo along for the ride...

That all sounds great and actually, very easy and cheap, but we would still need to use websites like Zeropaid to tell people about our network. How would we screen new users; would we need to to prevent RIAA cronees from hacking the system? And would sites like ZP then be attacked by the RIAA's lawyers?

This thread is turning into one hell of a good discussion! :sw

[gorphon]

Originally posted by wessman


That all sounds great and actually, very easy and cheap, but we would still need to use websites like Zeropaid to tell people about our network. How would we screen new users; would we need to to prevent RIAA cronees from hacking the system? And would sites like ZP then be attacked by the RIAA's lawyers?

This thread is turning into one hell of a good discussion! :sw

Initially I think it would have to be a very small thing, a group of core users all known to each other in one way or another and trusted. I think that this would have to be 'truly' underground to survive for any long period of time. I can think of at least a dozen members here off the top of my head that I do not doubt would take this seriously and secretly. When membership would expand, speaking strictly theoretically, I imagine a grass roots style method rather than any form of advertisement on the web. So friends could join, people with established members to vouch for them. This no doubt is a slow method but would eventually grow exponentially out of the owners (or administrators) control. And, conversely, show the powers that be the true power of the internet and the intelligence of its users. If this type of model became huge they would have to take notice and adjust.. or another option would be to to set up information police... Berman needs a crate of 1984 books sent to him. But you can not stop a river, even damns dont last forever. This is what we must try and teach them.

Ok, I know, I like tangents. Another thing Iwas just thinking over is encryption. If we could agree (again theoretically) all on a standardized encryption method- or even just to encrypt files with unique keys that must be given to the person downloading- this would greatly incresae security provided that the keys stayed secure, this is why I favor the method of encrypting each with a unique key. Additionally there would be no transfer speed loss ala filetopia as the encryption wouldnt be on the fly but beforehand. Of course, this would make hashing next to impossible afaik, and require the support of all users but I think it has big potential. I believe this would also take care of RIAA twits hackingthe system, even if they did they would need to beat the encryption... and barring the support of the NSA or theft of each unique key (anyone heard of a one time cipher?) they would not be able to do anything, legally, to stop it.

And I agree, I think this discussion could be going places...

[MusicMan]

Couldn't we use the servers here at Zeropaid.com to get it up and started a little bit. Wow, that was a long time ago when I last used a BBS, I was a little kid back then that would go and get games off their little selections, I have classics such as Goose Track I think it's called, those were the days. We should really consider this "underground internet" thing. Could I get in on it if you guys decided to take some action. Form a comittee or something.

[Rickio]

I think PGP would be the best way to go as far as encryption and setting up a BBS is really fairly easy.
The key would be to get enough users to link it together like fidonet does.
It has key members with mirrored servers in each country and hopefully districts cloes enough together.
Example:
L.A. server, Orange County Server, San Diego Server....all the way from west coast to east coast, thereby cutting costs for transferring files and access by members. Basicly Usenet operates like that. You do realise Usenet (newsgroups) are not really a part of the internet. But a seperate network also linked and accessed by the internet.
So what happens is newsgoups servers login in to main newsgroup servers daily or hourly and download the current posts.
This all could be done if we could get enough interest and it does not have to be huge scale. Just develop it with the concept of buidlng on to it.
We do have member with expertise who would likely participate if their is serious interest and some more specific information developed.
Who truly wants to begin to look at this?

Peace!

[gorphon]

we'd kind of take the reins into ourown hands, except at the isp level.... so now I guess we should set up a commitee to check out the different methods of implementation to find which would be most efficient, secure, and inexpensive. Personally, I think security is more important than efficiency, but if its gonna get done it should be done right...

I always liked pgp, but wasnt there some deal awhile back where the fed gov't was making noise aaboutwanting access to all keys ,or skeleton keys or something? do you know what came of that rickio? And could you explain more about fidonet? I know nothing about it and plan on google searching it later when I finish teaching myself this statistics nonsense.

[MusicMan]

Would you guys like me too sticky this thread, or put in a word to Jorge to see if whoever wants to be on the commitee can have access to their own special thread section here? How does that sound?

[gorphon]

anyone know what it would entail and how difficult it would be to set up a stripped down vpn akin to aol or prodigy except designed for file sharing? With my little knowledge on the subject the hardest thing I can figure would be to keep it decentralized.... and the coding of course. But this would sure make for an easy gui... but then, I guess we might as well be designing another fsp in that case...

other than that I think something like a private newsgroups would work just fine, Id forgotten they werent truly part of the internet...
Yeah, maybe this should be stickied... we all should definetly get together for a little virtual conference and try and get some concrete ideas and research.... hell, and maybe implement something all new and community based. that'd be pretty sweet.

[wessman]

Originally posted by gorphon
...Yeah, maybe this should be stickied... we all should definetly get together for a little virtual conference and try and get some concrete ideas and research.... hell, and maybe implement something all new and community based. that'd be pretty sweet.

I vote to have this item stickied. I'm not much for committees and meetings at work, but this item deserves some traditional brainstorming and documenting. :sw

[MusicMan]

Thread stickied.

Proposition:

I don't know how many of you guys are at the programming level to take on a project like this, can't expect too many of you to be able, but if we really wanted a project like this to go down, we might have to hire some sort of gui programmer or try to get volunteers. Although, that's very far away from where we are now, that's what it might come to, funding.

[wonderboy2005]

wow... i am amazed... i never would have thought of somthing like this. of course, by the time i started getting into comps and the net, it was in full swing allready ( about a year and a 1/2 ago). this would take a long time to reach critical mass, but i think it could work. the thing is tho... if an avereage yokel like me could gain access to this network, then why couldnt a prick from the RIAA? but as somone said earlier, they prob couldnt do anything (leagally) about it. when (and if) this goes down, i wanna be a part of it. but no ne here knows me and i dont have much technical expertise... :( maybe you could impliment a system where a user gains trust over time. they would have to share files; some of which are controlled by the RIAA, and some that arent. that way, no RIAA prick could get in, because he/she would be illegally sharing files that they havd or had no jurisdiction over. i dunno... if you dont understand what im trying to explain (most of the time no one does) then ill go into further detail. damn this sounds cool :)

[morgrum]

If we ran our own private network, we would theoretically be able to design our own protocol that treats addressing in a new way, but even on a private TCP/IP network, IP addresses would start in the 192.xxx.xxx.xxx range, so we would not be traceable by IP addressing alone.

[mojo-ris-in]

:devil This is a very interesting thread with some great ideas. The idea of using a bulletin board type system is something I never would have thought about but seems like a very plausible idea. Rickio I also remember the early Compuserve, Prodigy days from my time using my Atari 800 and Commodore 64 (anyone remember Q-Link?). Wow you guys may be on to something really big.

[Rickio]

Here is software to enable creation of private network, either linked to internet or sperated from internet.

http://www.bbsnets.com/public/overview.htm

excerpt from the webpage :
Here are just a few capabilities which set the WIN Server apart from the competition:

Dial-up Connectivity

Don't limit your potential audience to only those people who are already connected to the Internet. With the WIN Server, users/employees can connect directly to your server via dial-up modem this is perfect for associates on travel they can connect to the home office and have connectivity without going through a third party to provide Internet connectivity while on travel. All a Windows user needs is the Wildcat! Navigator or a standard Internet connect window.


what do you think?

This can be modified for our idea.

[Desbaine]

Wherever these ideas are going, they don't sound like they'll be faster than 56k. Not saying that it's a bad thing. Any freedom from prying eyes is a good thing, even if it is at 5KB/s. After all, there is more to P2P than sharing compressed audio and video, right? = P
For wi-fi networks, forcing retransmission nodes to be less than (insert maximum wi-fi transmission distance here) apart seems quite scary.
You could replace TCP with something else, but I don't any advantage to doing that.
Why hasn't quantum physics revolutionized computing and communications yet?

[Ghost 23]

Gorphon - info about Fidonet - FidoNet consists of approximately 30,000 systems world-wide which comprise a network which exchanges mail and files via Modems using a proprietary protocol. They are connected for the purposes of exchanging E-Mail to the Internet thru a series of gateway systems which interact with the Internet via UUCP with cooperating UNIX-based smart-hosts which act as their MX-receivers.:devil

[gorphon]

I posted something over in the cool technology section awhile back... these dudes (scientists) are coating single silicon atoms with a thin layer of gold and scanning for the absence or presence of a single atom...
"Professor Franz Himpsel, group leader and principal investigator on the project, said: “We have produced a memory right at the atomic density limit, where a bit is stored by the presence or absence of a single atom.

“We can format the memory by depositing extra atoms, write it by removing atoms with a scanning tunnelling microscope, and read it on-the-fly by scanning along the tracks.”

The ultimate density of silicon based media, they have concluded, is 250tbits/sq in. Now this is the use of things learned in quantum mechanics applied to existing technology to find a theoretical limit. Its still in its infancy period for the most part but it is there, and it is coming. it just might take decades. But then, we all could be pleasantly surprised as well. Ok. heres the link if anyone is interested and doesnt want to go searching: EE Times (http://eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20020725S0006)

Interestingly enough they seem to think that hd speed, and therefore size, would be limited by the total system speed and are looking into methods to speed that up as well, I am very interested to see what comes of it in years to come.

And fidonet sounds cool ghost, sounds like it could be adapted to what everyones talking about here. Especially if we had a few sweet gateway systems that could handle lots of communications, encrypted or otherwise. Yeah, I think pgp or even ridjal (or howeverits spelled) would make something like this even more secure, exponentially so.
what up ghost? aint seen you around much

[gorphon]

I think a combination of both...ridjal for transfer of data, pgp for mail transfer of requests, passwords, and such... I dont see a way to be much more secure than that... but I imagine we'd have to have several business class service providers to get the necessary speed... I think theres a bellsouth business dsl package aroundhere now thats supposed to get 2mbit/s. With a few of those itd be enough for a real small scale... anything too big and it would just bog down. I think it might be a good idea to look into thigns that use available bandwidth (as in already existing for each of us, similiar to how a fsp works) rather than needing main high powered gateways. Or am I understanding fidonet wrong? Ah, I am.... the gateways are gateways to the internet, the proprietary system operates within the constraints of existing bandwidth. hmmm... anyone know where to get their proprietary code? hehe... or code our own? We need to figure out what suits our needs best and figure out a structure...

[Rickio]

Here is a plac to begin reading about unix,bbs,usenet

http://www.dsnet.com/unixbbsfaq/unixbbsfaq.html


also http://www.dsnet.com/unixbbsfaq/ to get software

I will post info on fidonet later but their software is openly and easily available as well as accounts if you want to be a member.


Gorphon! what is ridjal ? did I miss something?

[gorphon]

is the latest advanced encryption standard, though I may be horribly butchering the spelling. It can also be easily encrypted on the fly I believe.
Something on internet and pc security I found informative:ars (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=3250941235&r=3250941235)

scroll down to the faq, though the story is interesting as well... I'll be implementing much of this soon myself

[wonderboy2005]

i think everyone ignored my main point above... maybe thats for the best....:black but i will simplify it so u actually read it.

maybe to keep any authorities or RIAA/MPAA somone could create a script that would search a users media being shared. if the user is NOT sharing files that are both under the control of the RIAA/MPAA and files that the RIAA/MPAA have no control over. that way, the RIAA/MPAA couldnt get in because they would be illegally sharing files. ex: a user wants to joinm and hes sharing some brittney spears music (sorry, it wont be me) and some Rammstein music. he would be able to get in becuase he couldnt be an RIAA/MPAA prick cuz the RIAA doesnt (i dont think) have control over any of rammsteins music. it would have to be both types of files because then some org. that for example controlled rammsteins music could get in... unless RIAA/MPAA files were shared.

GD... i used RIAA/MPAA too many times :)

[Psilaxs]

Not to sound cheesy, but this is what cyberpunk really is.

ok enough of that. If this does get rolling i would like to offer any assistance/ideas i can. We may not get along sometimes on the news forums, but this is too important. Keep me posted
on whats developing. my e-mail should be in my prifile.
If it isnt let me know.



Best regards to ALL

Psilaxs

oh P.S Wonderboy, I think your idea of scripting a search on shared files is a good idea.

[jonny5]

wow.. interesting ideas flowing in here. Too bad it's mostly over my head. I'm gonna go check out that pc security link crackerjack(i think) posted. Keep up the ideas ! :)

[Rickio]

Here is some more background material on fidonet.

http://www.writebynight.com/fidonet.html

http://fidonet.fidonet.org/

So basicly now you can see by reading about usenet and fidonet & BBS's, alternative networks are completely feaseable and software is available. So now I suppose the original idea was how to work something like this with wireless networks.

A alternative network could be be created easily with but making it as fast as high speed broadband is something I have yet to learn about.

I will do some more research and see what I can find.

ok here is a interesting page on virtual private networks.
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/vpn.html

this would enable ability to use broadband and all data can be encrypted.

vpn's & encryption
http://www.itprc.com/vpn.htm

there is more but this is enough to read for now.

hmm a bit much huh?
I do think the same results can be had with simpler solutions, but this is also just info to be informed.

[Rickio]

Well this may be all anyone needs to have their own private p2p sharing.

Not a seperate network per se but for all intents and purposes this is just about all you would need to accomplish private sharing.

eFTP is a 32 bit Windows 95/98/NT/2000 combined FTP
client/server which is fully compatible with other
third party clients/daemons. When the EFTP Client
connects with an EFTP Server, optional 448 bit
encryption can be achieved. This means that FTP
connections via the Internet/Intranet can be made
more securely than they are today.
http://www.eftp.org/

WWW File Share is small HTTP server that allows you to
easily setup a folder on your local PC that you can share
with your friends. It automatically creates an index page,
listing the available files and allows them to download any
of them, using their browser. The program is easy to use,
but only provides basic functionality.
http://www.wfshome.com/

Free PeerFTP is the first component in a complete
line of products to enable peer to peer file sharing
among your friends and coworkers.
http://www.clientbackup.com/products.htm

PRIVARIA is a secure, firewall-friendly platform for
peer-to-peer networking. This unique open-source
software establishes authenticated, encrypted tunnels
for remote access to colleagues computer desktops,
file transfer, whiteboard, and videoconferencing
http://www.privaria.org/

not to mention you can share files with instant messengers and your own ftp site or create your DC seerver. But honestly these apps above are simpler, easier, faster and at least 2 are encrypted.

Anyone interested in creating private file sharing groups can do it easily. You now have all the information and new things are always around the corner.

Also anyone interested in sharing music might check out my group.

Peace!

[Bytronix]

Here's something the companies making wireless access points would like...
(I think it's just a matter of time)
Everyone should start buying wireless access points, daisy chaining them, and see if they could hop from one end of the country to the other using just 802.11a & 802.11b.

If you want more speed, get more access points and use more then one frequency per cell.

Create a sort of wireless defacto backbone.

My 2c for now.

[Bytronix]

Thought of a side effect of a wireless backbone...

Could potentially annoy users of cordless phones.

:)

[Matt_T_hat]

I don't know how many of you guys are at the programming level to take on a project like this, can't expect too many of you to be able, but if we really wanted a project like this to go down, we might have to hire some sort of gui programmer or try to get volunteers. Although, that's very far away from where we are now, that's what it might come to, funding.

That'd be someone like me then :)

If we ran our own private network, we would theoretically be able to design our own protocol that treats addressing in a new way, but even on a private TCP/IP network, IP addresses would start in the 192.xxx.xxx.xxx range, so we would not be traceable by IP addressing alone.

To think about re-writing the IP system (ref: IPX/SPX) is to open up a whole can of worms. The french spent vast ammounts of wedge on a system that was theoreticly better than TCP/IP but can we eve remember it???

A alternative network could be be created easily with but making it as fast as high speed broadband is something I have yet to learn about.

One method would be to combo PGP with a P2P exclusive Protocol and use the WWW to bundle the data accross geographical devides. As metioned else where in this discusion a modem (dial-up) post, grab and cut (like outlook and some BBSs) system would be limited to about 49333bps top speed because although your modem can handle 56K the phone lines might not be up to it.

Originally posted by Bytronix
Here's something the companies making wireless access points would like...
(I think it's just a matter of time)
Everyone should start buying wireless access points, daisy chaining them, and see if they could hop from one end of the country to the other using just 802.11a & 802.11b.

If you want more speed, get more access points and use more then one frequency per cell.

Create a sort of wireless defacto backbone.

My 2c for now.

What we are talking about here is that "bandwidth" is limited only by the medium of transmittion. You could use CBs and get a similerish result between mates located within a few blocks of each other. (sorry that was mostly irevlivant)

One other group you will p1ss off will be BT + ATT etc (the phone companies) Internet 101: the WWW was slowed by about 12 years because of these groups.

[Matt_T_hat]

The basics required are a common cross platform language. The problem is that one must ether write this (oh my god...) or adopt it. Then we are at the server/recipiant computer problem CGI is difficult to impliment on the WWW because it leaves the host computer WIDE OPEN.

I recomend a simple "Request - Conferm - Send" system posibly with event logging as standard.

the other big question is this: You have so far talked about a free-form semi-mesh topology rather like the mobile phone system. so how does one cover the cost?

I have an idea (actually I've been dieing to have a go at just this kinda thing for about a year now). This is my idea - Some one said the best way would be to grow the system by a introduce only your best most trusted mates kinda way. Why not go one step further and run the actual thing in the same way?

Network-Networking! If I am Bobby Joe No-one I might have access to say one or two other centers. I search for say Bon jovi (for some reason...) my request is sent to my introductory friend. His PC communicates this at next conection to others with a time-decay code (n-number of sends) this is returned with details of available files. these he can then request namelessly to nameless people via the return path: Joe's PC - mate's PC - Bob's mac - Fred's new thingy - execept only unique identifiers (relative to the request path) are given ie meaningless numbers.

If that all sounds mad think about how URLs and IP addresses are populated through the net. Servers gather this infomation and after about three days the URL will work anywhere in the world.

It is very conectionless routing but build-up/tear-down (conection oriented) for transmittion.

What I am discribing works in much the same way a virus does and www-land does but to our own unique advantage. Viral conecting on a non-centralised conectionless (no one rute) mesh topology network. This would allow for wireless, web transmit and hard wire. Infact you only need to be useing the core File Transfer Protocals on whatever link you and your mates can jury-rigg togeather. "Band width" would depend on the number of users in a given location.

In fact speed goes up with the increase of users. Give some form of lagit useae for the network and F**k the copywright guys coz you can't trace fog. "no officer I use this system as a free chat system...". "sorry to have botherd you son" etc.

It would be undergroud in the most real sence, un-lawed, total organic and viral growth. as long as some one can link to someone else who links to the bulk of someones....... if I build a six user CB network and have two PCs WEB-Send to another user who has a link to another user via a lan who has a dial up to someone who has... who finally conects to me.

Don't forget the WWW was supposed to be a network of networks. It works for W3 lets make it work for us.

Hope I have not lost you.

[Ghost 23]

What we need is someone to give us access to these server at lease to hop off because you would need new hardware to support such speeds:
FIRST-EVER NEXT GENERATION INTERNET PROTOCOL PERFORMANCE RECORD SET IN
INTERNET2 LAND SPEED RECORD COMPETITION

Team from University of Oregon, the Oregon Gigapop and NYSERNet set
initial mark in IPv6 Category

Washington, DC--September 26, 2002--The University of Oregon, the
Oregon
Gigapop and NYSERNet, a New York-based not-for-profit leading-edge
networking organization, have set the first record for Internet
performance using IPv6, the next generation Internet protocol, as part
of the ongoing Internet2 Land Speed Record (I2-LSR) competition.

By transferring 3.47 gigabytes over 3000 miles (4810 km) of network
from
Eugene, Oregon to Syracuse, New York in one hour, the team set an
I2-LSR
IPv6 category record of 39.81 terabit meters per second. The mark was
established in the course of an ongoing project that uses IPv6 to
transfer over 60 gigabytes of Internet newsgroup data between the
institutions each day.
:fire

[Matt_T_hat]

Originally posted by Krell
Given the limited range of most wireless systems, we can not yet eliminate the main backbones of telecommunication. If you make a cell call, where does it go ? A tower, then the Phone company, . . then to another tower. Want to get on the internet? It goes from your PC, to . . you guessed it, the phone company, then to your ISP, then hops off in another town, off another fiber, thru another telco, then to another computer.

Need more range ? Try to battle the FCC for that one !
:hole just a small flame risk but Yeah And? sooner or later we're gonna want to bridge gaps like the alantic might as well make use of the big boys work to let us do what we do best.

I was gonna sugest the development of some "web-send" packageing technology. I could probably have an alpha version in a month or so....

[icyBlue]

First let me say that this whole thread is full of great attempts at a perfect goal. You all are aiming for the right goal. What you’re trying to accomplish is not an easy task; actually so far it’s a goal that has proven unattainable.

NOTE: All the following is my opinion and mine only, I have substantial experience in most of what I talk about but I am not saying at all that I am right and there are no other answers!

One thing you have to remember is that if you can use this system then so can the RIAA or whoever doesn’t like it. Once they know about it they will try to shut it down. The only options are to make sure they don’t know about it or make sure that when they find out that there is nothing they can do about it; either ‘they don’t know’ or ‘they can’t control’.

Making sure “they” don’t find out about it is not a reasonable option. It’s the simple fact that the main requirement of a file sharing environment is that there be an abundance and variety of files. What that comes down to is an abundance of users and users bring attention. So the only option is a system that can’t be shut down no matter what people try. One incredible system that accomplishes this feat is FreeNet(1). FreeNet has exactly the right idea but the problem is they need more users and the protocol needs to be refined so it’s at least a little faster. For more information on FreeNet (and links) read the last paragraph.

In my humble opinion using phone lines and a BBS like system would never work because it would have to rely on some kind of main servers to host the majority of the content because of the limited speed telephone based communication provides. And trying to use DSL or cable modems with a system like that would not work because DSL and cable based internet connections are just links from the user to an ISP and an Internet connection. Once you involve the Internet you are bound by the same restrictions of ‘they don’t know’ or ‘they can’t control’ if you want any kind of long-term success.

The idea of a wireless system is a great one and a very possible one for urban areas. If everyone just starts buying wireless networking hubs and links up to the network eventually we will have a wireless network useful enough to be a file sharing system. But what happens when it reaches this size is that it will pretty much be a wireless version of the Internet and will draw attention by organizations that don’t want it used for so called illegal file sharing. Then what will happen is they will start enforcing rules on the wireless Internet just like they do on the regular Internet. “That’s impossible on a wireless system,” you might think at first and yes it would be more difficult but if wireless networks become that big I guarantee you they will start enforcing laws on it via radio wave triangulation or whatever other means they come up with.

Please know that I am not trying to discourage in any way attempts at a system that will solve our entire file sharing problem, I am merely saying that as far as I can tell, so far, all we have are short-term solutions to a never ending problem. I think that FreeNet has the right idea for a long-term fix and if it becomes more usable for file sharing it will be the nearly perfect solution. Its not really designed specifically to fulfill that need but its possible that as it develops it will because usable as one, or maybe someone will convince Ian Clarke (FreeNet’s creator) to create a similar system designed more for use as a file sharing system (if that possible).

(1) FreeNet is essentially a completely different protocol on the Internet. FreeNet isn’t about a server/client relationship (like most file sharing systems come down to) where someone requests a file and then when a user or users are found with the files you want the data gets sent directly (or nearly directly as far as anonymity is concerned) to you. FreeNet works like a huge encrypted file system (like one big hard disk); and each user becomes like a sector of that hard disk. When someone submits a file into FreeNet it gets transmitted onto this huge virtual hard disk and it can never be removed from the system unless it expires due to lack of hits. Now the only reason it works is that each user can’t tell what data their sector is storing for the network; so short of shutting down every single user (even those that are not even downloading content that is restricted by “them”) of FreeNet there is no way to get anything to be removed from the network. If you like the idea visit http://FreeNetProject.org and contribute you skills if you can or just become a user and create content for this alternative Internet.

Thank you all who have read this far for at least hearing me out, I would really appreciate feedback on my rantings via both ZeroPaid.com and by e-mail if you like. I am not sure where to future of file sharing is going or the future of the free Internet for that matter, but I know one thing it depends most upon all of us standing up for what we believe in and we’ll all take care of the details as they happen ;)

This text is copyrighted © by icyblue@jman.org. If you wish to use the preceding text in part or whole feel free to drop me a line and I will gladly permit its use (credited) for free as long as you ask me first. Obviously that does not include quoting me while in this thread at ZeroPaid.com.

e-mail: icyblue@jman.org
_________________
icy ^_^ Blue


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Ben Franklin

"As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility."
-Arnold J. Toynbee

[Rickio]

Yes Freenet information has been posted here on ZP, but I suppose only the older members remember that.

Thanks for your reminding us.

I think groups of like minded folks should share ideas and info and by being a part of a group they can keep file sharing going very nicely amongst themselves. No one can clearly forsee what the future may be in regards to p2p. some say it cannot be stopped. But most never saw it coming either. I don't think any possible outcome for the future can be counted out.

If you enjoy music, come to a forum that enjoys and has members who help each other find and discover new music.
File sharing is more than music to be sure, but we are a group that thinks along these lines but focuses on music. Brand new and needing new members :-) Begun around th time this thread began...

http://musicmagnet.tk

[icyBlue]

Originally posted by Rickio
Yes Freenet information has been posted here on ZP, but I suppose only the older members remember that.

Thanks for your reminding us.

I think groups of like minded folks should share ideas and info and by being a part of a group they can keep file sharing going very nicely amongst themselves. No one can clearly forsee what the future may be in regards to p2p. some say it cannot be stopped. But most never saw it coming either. I don't think any possible outcome for the future can be counted out.


I think I may have come across as promoting FreeNet more than I had originally intended when making my first post. The point I was trying to make more so was that most of our current file sharing concepts are all vulnerable to attempted shutdowns via weaknesses in their protocol. Primarily in current systems it’s just far to easy to track users sharing certain files and then prosecute them.

I defiantly agree that the future is completely unpredictable sometimes and hopefully we will see more unprecedented new ideas different from anything we have encountered as of yet. One thing I am very positive of is that with the size of the current file sharing community there are plenty of people capable of continuously taking file sharing to new levels for a very long time :)

e-mail: icyblue@jman.org
_________________
icy ^_^ Blue


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Ben Franklin

"As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility."
-Arnold J. Toynbee

[Access Denied]

What we would need is just to organize I think. Create a standard" If you will" amoungst all of us across the country.

Then setting up a grid of areas that are open and the logins, and pass( if required, good idea , I think) then we just pass this information on to all members.

My suggestion is, I know, simpler than it will actually be.

But the priniciple is sound.

[CCSDUDE]

Whoa, great thread, but I wonder. How bad are the wireless signals? Brain cancer? Stuff of that nature? I seriously wonder if technology will be the fall of man......If we go so far that we turn into some odd creature LOL like 'golem' or some shit. Hugging our PC's with our pasty white arms an muttering 'my precious.....'. Also it's quite crazy when you think about it. That every millisecond of every second of every day there's millions of microwaves/signals/ect passing throughout our bodies that we can't see. Anyway back to the topic at hand. Sounds like a great idea in theory but in practice it would be a tad clunky till you work all the kinks out. Maybe someone should set up a linix/unix box/server an test out a small network with a few 'major players' off ZP.

As for when I came into the 'PC revolution' I started off with a 286 PC an dabbled in alittle BBS but that's about it. Oldest system I've had the displeasure of using was an Apple ][ LOL a classic but a slow POS! Tough as hell though it even took the old 5 1/2 in floppy covered in nail polish covered blackcat power trick without dying. The drive bay lit up! Still worked though.


BTW Anyone remember the original Pitfall? For Atari. Or that game for the old ass Commodore 64 - miner 49er? Where you're climbing a 'moutain/wall' An there's like bears an campfires an shit. Think it was called miner 49er might have been an over written disk though.




This was all pretty useless, great thread though.....



Peace all, Later

[zaphodiv]

I used a world wide network of wireless BBS's years ago when I was into
amateur radio. It was only 1200 baud, it could only be used for legal stuff,
the BBS operators had to enforce the rules. It took about two weeks for
a message to get from Europe to Australia and another two weeks for the replys to arrive.

Wireless cards are cheap now. Currently doing packet forwarding over over wireless networks is not easy. The consume.net (http://consume.net) people are playing with 486's running BSD, about as un userfirendly as you can get. The 486's are cheap enough to leave on roofs or in a cuboard in some company building, any where you can steal some power ;-)

There are projects like mobilemesh but that havn't been deployed to my knowledge.

You will never get coverage of a whole country or state, geography gets in the way. IT will work best in large citys once some didicated people establish nodes in tall buildings.

There are plenty of telnet bbs's on the internet.

>would we need to to prevent RIAA cronees from hacking the system?
The consume people suggest that users encrypt their communications.
With a group of friends you can use VPN software so nobody outside the group can see what is being transfered or join the network.

>If we could agree (again theoretically) all on a standardized encryption method
It easiest to use standard programs and do the encryption at network level.
The freeswan VPN system is free for anyone to use.

[3l1t3]

IT'S BEEN DONE B4

[Bytronix]

In regards to anyone who has used both telnet & dialup BBS's, correct me if I'm wrong, but, compared to -direct- dialup, don't most of the telnet BBS's seem a bit sluggish even when using a broadband connection? I'm pretty sure it's because the information is sent out in packets scattered across the internet rather then an orderly stream of synchronous data that one gets when dialing directly into a system.

-Mike B.

PS: Wouldn't it be great if one DSL modem could dial directly into another rather then having to go through the I-Net? And why is it I-Net, as in Inter net? Shouldn't it be called WE-Net, after all it all seems like borg technology to me. :)

PPS: Re: Encryption in prior message... I think a private dialup is much more secure then the internet. no code, no entry. no questions. one way in. one way out. no port numbers. just a phone number. no way for snoops en route to capture your transmission. Especially once encrypted. I'd be willing to make a bet that the CIA and/or NSA could probably decode almost anything that goes through or is connected to the internet if they really wanted to. Especially considering that the internet was originally developed by the pentagon. Trust your government? Maybe. But not with my privacy. Then again, it doesn't really matter to me. I have broadcasting as a career interest. :)

-MJB

[chipperrox]

first off, I would like to say that this is a great idea. Second, I agree with Ccsdude(haha my precious computer, we must never leave you."WE MUST" NO!)(schizo)- the waves passing through our boddies at all times im almost positive will be harmful, so cancel that out. The only problem as faras i am concerned is that there isnt really any high speed cheap technology like a dsl modem dialing into another one.--yet. I think I heard of one coming out in a few years but dont quote me on that. I think the idea of sharing some RIAA etc stuff is a good idea, but then again, the RIAA OWNS the stuff so it shouldnt be illegal for them to do it. At least i think
Peace

[Tremaine]

or you could just develop a freenet network that doesnt require the world wide web. but i dont know how that would help freenet could be and underground web thats better than the actual web that work off the web if it developed to it full potetial. Freenet would be the best soulution for warzez even though this is a bit off topic to what your actually talking about.

[Munchables]

Ok well there is a wireless network transmitter that will transmit 3 miles that is meant for civilian use. One problem they have to get it past the government.

Ok I was thinking when wireless networks first arrived and when $tarbux said that they would start to put wireless networks in every café then some company joined with Version said that they would start to peppering the nation with these wireless networks I came up with this:

MARK MY WORDS!
Wireless networks will change the Internet unlike anything. Wireless networks in 10 years will be more available than cell phone signal today and be many times faster than they are now. Wireless networks will mesh together uniting cities. Phone companies at first will support the wireless network because they would be crushed outer wise. They will provide the lobbying force to make illegal TV, radio and outer similar broadcasts. Ultimately they will fail at controlling it because personal wireless transmitters will be so powerful and widely available that no company could control it. Future phone companies will inherit the outdated copper web that the US government has spun with taxpayer dollars. (Phone lines in the US are built by taxpayer dollar. Doesn’t that make you mad? O by the way ADSL which can go up to 8 mbits a sec and ADSL uses your original phone lines yeah that’s right 2 little copper lines which the same 2 carries you phone conversations) This network will widely be useless however the more updated parts will be used to link together wireless networks between cities and contents. With out TV and radio signals we will Instead we will be getting our TV from website similar to www.pottv.com but the links will be a improved SigtoDat and you will download there ep’s on a p2p network where the TV “station” will have a server to supply the TV shows 24/7 on p2p network(s) as well as downloading it form outer people.

802.11 other wise known as bluetooth will be implemented in almost every electronic device. Today we see it in wireless headsets for cell phones. When wireless networks mature we will start to see wireless network phones. Also the next gameboy will be bluethoth capable (ok gameboy was = to nes gameboy advanced was = to snes will the next gameboy be = to N64? I think so)

True I am scared that this network will be the becoming of big brother if you have ever read 1984 (there TV’s spied on them for one) I am also scare that phone companies mite make personal wireless transition illegal. However in such countries as Japan and all of Europe will support the individual in having wireless networks. Eventually the US will be free from Evil Corporation trying to make money on our freedoms. What is interesting is that China is becoming more and more free and is now friendlier with the US than its communist “Brother” North Korea. True this is because of globalization thanks to trick the dick (aqua Nixon that little fucker not for globalization so much even though china has horrible human rites but for the war on drugs.) but the way things are going in 15 years china will be freer than the US.

[stuperfied]

Some of you may remember me, though I havn't been on here in a couple of months. I'm one of those people who just likes helping newbies (though I can see that newbies are in short supply here).

I learned on the 64 as well and I was wondering about this multilink connection going around. Is it possible to connect to two dialup modems over the same carrier at the same time. If so then would it be feasable to use that by distributing virtual server software and (as Matt_T_hat suggested) link everyone togeather forming a true web. It may be fun writing the protocol's.

If this idea can be used with all connections including wireless it may be an advantage in taking controll out of the hands of the profeteer's.

[nasrules]

i have only one thing to say:

that would be SOOOOOOOO cool! (so long as it works with cable :-)

[Bytronix]

For those who don't already know, 802.11g should work up to as far as aproximately 10 miles away between antennas, line of sight, directional antennas, with amplifiers. Without violating any FCC rules or requiring any special licences. Possibly a little further. I'm not sure what the record is, but I know it's at least 10 miles. At least it was for 802.11b. And, if it was for 80211b, it should be for 802.11g as well. For good wireless equipment I would recommend visiting http://www.hyperlinktech.com/ .

Personally, I think that until people can get direct connections from one dsl modem to the next, it's the best way to go for such an idea as creating another internet.

Anyone know what the status is on that whole Internet 2 project? http://www.internet2.edu/

And what's the holdup with IPV6? http://www.ipv6.org/

-Mike B.

[zaphodiv]

ip6 is not going to reach the average web surfer for years yet.

I'm not an expert on ip6 at all so I may be wrong about some
things. This is my view based on what I'v read.

3G mobile phone is being built on ip6 but it is all (supposed
to be) transparent to the end user. 3G is going nowhere but
thats another story.

Win2k and linux support it, more or less. Last time I looked
are some ip4->ip6 gateways you can use for no charge. There is
nothing of interest you can only connect to with ip6.

The free gateways started using your ip4 address as the lowest
bytes of your ip6 address to track hackers who were covering
their tracks by going in one ip6 gateway and out of another.

The rollout of ip6 is to address two problems, the global internet
routing tables getting too big and a shortage of ip addresses.

I havn't been able to find any convincing figures but I think
the internet is not doubling in size every 180 days anymore,
nowhere near.

Buying bigger cisco routers, carriers merging or going bust
and not letting anyone have provider independant ip blocks
anymore solves the routing table problem.

There is still plenty of opportunity to reclaim squandered ip4
blocks. Compaq , Hewlett Packard and DEC have a class A each
but they are one company now.

In theory at least, with an ip6 cablemodem you could plug
in as many computers, ip-phones, and tivos as you like without
having to have a NAT/connection sharing machine and all your
devices can have a reachable ip with working incoming connections.
I doubt ISP's want connection sharing to be easy.

The ip6 protocol seems to have been designed by a committee
based on putting in their friends ideas rarther than what is
technically best. It's a long time since I looked at it so
I forget the details. I remember one good thing about ip6 is that
the time-to-live field is not included in the checksum, ip4
routers have to recaclulate the checksum on each packet.

From the point of view of someone who plays with networks ip6 is
a pain, I have enough troble remembering which computer
is 192.168.1.18 never mind which one is fe80::203:6bff:fe6e:52a0

[stuperfied]

Can wireless connection quality be degraded by atmospheric disturbances?

Any network must be compatable with all connections from 14.4k through to T1 otherwise it will be inaccessable to those who cannot afford the lattest technology.

Wessman, Rickio and gorphon, have you decided the most feesable way to implement wessman's idea and if so are you planning any test's because it would seem that you have more than enough volunteers?

If the response you have recieved to this post is any indication of the world's response to having free internet being placed under their controll, then it would seem clear that you are now obliged (after getting peoples hopes up) to provide such a service or to pass the responsibility onto someone else who is willing to see it through.

[Bytronix]

Wireless signal quality can be affected by lightning storms. Other then that, not much will affect it then interference from other radio signals in the same frequency. Distance is an issue of course, the further you get, the slower the connection. And I'd like to make a correction to the previous post. I think the record distance for an 802.11b connection was just under 20 miles without breaking any laws or getting any licences. not 10. I'm going to have to look that up unless someone else wants to. I imagine that at that distance the speed probably dropped to around 1mbs. But it's been a while since I looked up that info. With 802.11g I would think that both the distance and quality of signal should increase slightly.

-Mike B.

[Rickio]

Originally posted by stuperfied
Can wireless connection quality be degraded by atmospheric disturbances?

Any network must be compatable with all connections from 14.4k through to T1 otherwise it will be inaccessable to those who cannot afford the lattest technology.

Wessman, Rickio and gorphon, have you decided the most feesable way to implement wessman's idea and if so are you planning any test's because it would seem that you have more than enough volunteers?

If the response you have recieved to this post is any indication of the world's response to having free internet being placed under their controll, then it would seem clear that you are now obliged (after getting peoples hopes up) to provide such a service or to pass the responsibility onto someone else who is willing to see it through.

this discussion was quite awhile back and recently people have found it and posted on it again. At the time their was just a few people actively interested.

If we created a mailing list perhaps we could get it going.
Yes their are responses here but we all hve PM boxes and no one has taken a step towards this yet.
Other then I created musicmagnet to further the idea to a extent. (hint)


peace

[stuperfied]

Do you think it's possible to make multiple connections over the same carrier signal simultaniously?

[zaphodiv]

>multiple connections over the same carrier signal simultaniously

You go down to the shops and buy a wireless ethernet card, you
put it in your computer, you can connect to all the other
computers with wireless cards that are in range and on the same
channel.

802.11b cards transmit sometimes and listen sometimes so
the physical layer stuff can do multiple connections.
It's just the same as wired networking where you send
some packets address to one computer then some packets addressed
to another computer down the same wire.

[stuperfied]

Yeah, but not everyone can afford it, I think it should be something compatable with their existing hardware.

I may have found what I was looking for. Telstra is now splitting one line into multiple connections which means that 10 house holds could use the same line but it greatly reduces line bandwidth as it is devided up evenly between the connections.

It seems that it is possible and this technique may be adoptable to any connection type.

[matstao]

I wonder what Dave Hughes would have to say about this thread...

from CNN.com
full article: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/01/26/wireless.cowboy.ap/index.html)

..."Ignoring convention
In the 1980s, when many were using personal computers for such basics as word processing, Hughes showed neighbors in Colorado Springs and teachers in one-room Western schoolhouses the power of electronic bulletin boards.

A decade later, he was merrily ignoring the conventional wisdom that high-speed Internet access for out-of-the-way places was cost-prohibitive and technologically arduous.

Armed largely with grants from the National Science Foundation, Hughes set up wireless connections in small towns, an Indian reservation; the Wisconsin woods, the Mongolian steppes and Puerto Rican jungles. His pioneering in "packet radio" put Hughes far ahead of the current explosion in the wireless Internet.

"Col. Dave Hughes, USA, Ret., is the only character who has popped up in the plot every time I've investigated the roots of a technology revolution," futurist author Howard Rheingold wrote in "Smart Mobs," his 2002 book about the sociology of constant Internet connectivity.

Mainstream catches up
Hughes' ideas about wireless are now mainstream.

Witness the boom in the networking standard called WiFi, the government's overhaul of airwave regulation and the growing number of "fixed wireless" services that beam data at broadband speeds directly to subscribers.

"This is the beginning of a global revolution in communications, and I'm tickled pink!" Hughes bellows in an interview.

With a long white goatee and stout body, Hughes resembles Orson Welles in his later days, though his wardrobe is gentleman rancher: cardigans, collared shirts, turquoise-studded bolo tie, black cowboy boots. He never goes anywhere without wedging a Stetson on his head.

These days, Hughes is helping Sherpas in Nepal set up wireless Internet connections, including one for a cybercafe at the Mount Everest base camp. Soon climbers will check e-mail at 18,000 feet before trying to reach the top of the world."...

[stuperfied]

Great post, a little long but the ending is good.

[marclaurens]

This is a very interesting topic.

Is the internet destined to become a wireless peer to peer system.

It seems inevitable to me. The whole thing was started with
the priniple of making the system as decentralised as possible
to enable military communication in any event but is not really all that secure. Datacentres and telephone exchanges are probably the most sensitive and suseptable to attack.



with enough users a peer to peer network would be very difficult to disrupt wouldnt it?

Of course we probably havent created the design of peer to peer that could operate efficiently but with the research and interest expanding it is only a matter of time maybe.

maybe we will simply augment and adapt the current system
with peer to peer wireless.

[stuperfied]

A few people here seem to be missing the fact that not everyone can or will be able to afford wireless and in making it a wireless network the diss-advantaged would be shut out making it an exclusive club for the rich. If this is your idea of progress then I would want nothing to do with it. Please assure me that you have the best interests of the whole information population in mind and not just your own.

[marclaurens]

stuperfied

my post was a general comment about future trends, i personally think that the setting up of a wireless network by a few number of parties interested in sharing securely is unrealistic. my point was related to an observation that in my opinion a wireless is an obvious trend . under current technological scheme of things wireless internet for anything less than the minority is not possible , but this surely is the way with all technology. In the not to distant future wireless internet would be no different to access to a cellphone network.

I mentioned augmentation , what I mean by this is adding to existing infastructure.

my interest in the point was related to the value of peer to peer wireless in the long term offering longterm decentralised stability to the internet, which probably would bring improved access, network durablity and stabilty for all.

regards

[stuperfied]

Thankyou for understanding my concerns but you must understand that whilst your last post did tip the scales with my concerns there have been other posts which are suggestive of a particular bias towards wireless.

My post was not intended as a personal attack but as a jult to one's mind to insure that the needs of the information population as a whole are addressed.

I do agree with your ideas about using wireless as a decentralised main support structure but only in a situation which would make it impossible for capitolisation on any such implementation as oposed to the current services available.

[Bytronix]

Here's another method of data transmission to think about using... Powerline. Presently it is at around 14mb/s with about a 1000 foot range up to but not passing everything on one side of your nearest transformer. Down side? AC Surge Supressors/Filters/Transformers & other quirky/Unusual wiring may limit transmission. Possible security issues if not configured correctly. Up side? According to following article speeds may reach 100 mb/s in 2004. Can cover an entire apartment building/complex (yes, it goes past the fuse box - and meters from what I've read so far - stops at the nearest transformer or 1000 feet whichever comes first). Something to think about though, if all the power companies start to pick up on this method of data transmission, you could theoretically (and actually in some places already) get rid of your cable tv and phone line getting all services - catv, phone, internet, power through a single wire - your power line. Have yet to see a circumstance though where you can get it all on one bill. The standard is called homeplug. It however (as far as I know) was not designed for power companies, but rather the end users. I no nada about data transmission on mid and high tension power lines. just the low (110v/220v) tension grade.

Another thought as well, could mix/daisy chain homeplug and 802.11g (wireless to get by transformers) for an almost endless connection. In 2004/5 the slow end of the chain might be wireless at 54mb/s per channel if homeplug actually does reach it's 100mb/s goal.

Here's an address...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,648075,00.asp

There's more out there as well, you'll just have to find them. I'm not digging them up now.

-Mike B.

[Versacity]

P2P wireless has good things and bad things. It is limited in range and the Props are expensive.

[Monyak]

-------------Quoted by HomePlug-----------
Here's another method of data transmission to think about using... Powerline. Presently it is at around 14mb/s with about a 1000 foot range up to but not passing everything on one side of your nearest transformer.
-------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...Cool, but what about repeaters for the extensions? Creating Wireless is not that big of a deal. You simple need radio transmitters and/or microwave.

It is easy to create for a LAN.

Check this page out for info
http://www.sbwireless.net/SBWireless%20Files/faqs_page2.htm

Breezecom (alvarian) sells the equiptment

[Malakai1911]

I skimmed the 5 pages, so here goes.

First, what was reccomended was a new internet. Fine.

Then, p2p was brought into it (yeah! we can invent our own internet by creating a new p2p client!!).
LOL, no.



My suggestion? Get alot of volunteers with 802.11g routers to mesh together. You could even host your own websites in DMZ :)

More interesting would be the question of how requests could be most efficiently routed through the boxes. Not to mention the need to block out 802.11b clients from "backbone" boxes (routers chained to carry data over lengthy spans of countryside), as many 'g' routers get slooooow when a 'b' card connects to it.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by stuperfied
A few people here seem to be missing the fact that not everyone can or will be able to afford wireless and in making it a wireless network the diss-advantaged would be shut out making it an exclusive club for the rich.
How much do you pay for Internet access? Verizon charges about $39.99/month for DSL, and AOL about $22.95/month. mWave is offering a D-Link 11Mbps 802.11b USB NIC (http://direct.mwave.com/mwave/doSearch.hmx?bop=and&scriteria=d-link+802.11b+usb&UID=&CID=&Back=&n=1) for $44.87. If you can not pay for Internet access one or two months, the savings will be enough to buy a cheap NIC you can use anywhere.

Of course, finding an access point or operating one is another matter, but I don't think wireless NICs themselves are out of the price range of the average Internet user at all.

[Monyak]

Internet is not that difficult to start, but you do need the following:

Bandwith
Cisco Router that can handle more than 10 mega
BGP (You need to broadcast / requires AS Numbers of at least 2 backbones)
Unix/Linux Servers (You need the protocols & DNS)
Frame Relay/ATM/Props

You can split the bandwith between P2P users. If everybody had a router, that would be great cause then multi-proxies could be set up.

It doesnt matter how you serve your internet, via wireless or land, but you are always going to need the above basics to do internet. P2P is only good for users who have internet.

You can use P2P for a webserver. ESV is already doing that.

[endersgame21]

I also skimmed through the last 5 pages and a new internet only for p2p sounds plausible and would be revolutionary but it is not likely, at least not in the forseeable future. The only possible way something like this would be created is if p2p was completely shutdown which is also not very likely. It would be worth it to create something like that now but everybody is just too lazy to set something like this up when what we have works fine. You also have to keep in mind that you would still need to keep the current internet unless you only pay for internet to soley download stuff. But most of us use the internet to research or visit sites like this one and we wouldn't be able to do that with the new internet or at least it wouldn't be like it is now. There are some sites you won't be able to visit.

[cpugeniusmv]

P2P is a part of the internet. The intenet is just a connection between the millions of computers around the world, you might say P2P is another 'layer' of the internet. Kind of like e-mail, newsgroups, and the like. What this is suggesting is that we create are own massive 'LAN' like those in many homes today specifically for p2p, owned by us. well, at least i think so...i haven't read much of this thread....maybe i should :shy

[Krell]

darkdragon is most likey an imposter, I can't believe you fell for that, and wasted all that time. Especially since I will be deleting his posts.

[cpugeniusmv]

Originally posted by Krell
darkdragon is most likey an imposter, I can't believe you fell for that, and wasted all that time. Especially since I will be deleting his posts. ]
eh, no biggie...just killing time before school.

[Krell]

I guess I just hate to see good talent go to waste, buy you some coffee man?

Have a good one.

[[NK]Mutant]

Man, this thread keeps going and going and going and going... Like that little energizer bunny...

[Krell]

It was drudged up again by one of our aliases, I deleted their posts.

[Monyak]

Like I said in my previous post, there is a fine difference between P2P (which is nothing more than a multi threaded server/host network) and becoming an Internet Service Provider and providing internet connection/local loop/routing, etc.

An internet service provider is your connection directly (or indirectly via local loop) into your ISP's router/server and then on to the backbone and internet appartus.

To do internet, you need to take into account local loop connections (how are people going to connect to the props - via cable, wireless, telephone, etc)

What is your router/servers connection to other internet providers (again you need at least 2 other providers who have an AS number) - This requires a local loop as well to connect to your providers.

The internet works in a hierarchy level. You have companies like UUNET (who has their own local loops and bandwith) who sale real bandwith to providers who then sale it down the line and bounce it off of their routers/ports.

Years ago, you would purchase the UUNET via a phone company or one of their distributors because they only dealt with big quantity bandwith.

Besides, there is no ISP today who is making money out of bandwith. The prices are to competitive. All of the ISP's are making the money in extra value packs, hosting, etc.

I have been in the internet business for a while. Its simple if you have the means, but your not going to make any money out of it.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by Monyak
Like I said in my previous post, there is a fine difference between P2P (which is nothing more than a multi threaded server/host network) and becoming an Internet Service Provider and providing internet connection/local loop/routing, etc.
This new network could simply use an existing P2P program. But if I was to create a network from scratch using TCP/IP, I would want it to fully support multicasting (http://zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8130). A separate, private, disconnected from the Internet network with multicasting, high bandwidth, long range, and high participation would be revolutionary.

An internet service provider is your connection directly (or indirectly via local loop) into your ISP's router/server and then on to the backbone and internet appartus.
Seems that this could be easily done with wireless. Each host links up to more than one of their peers via line of sight (if necessary), forming a sort of mesh network.

To do internet, you need to take into account local loop connections (how are people going to connect to the props - via cable, wireless, telephone, etc)
My vote is for 802.11b/g wireless. The ether is free - not so for cable TV cable, copper telephone pairs, ISDN, and so on.

What is your router/servers connection to other internet providers (again you need at least 2 other providers who have an AS number) - This requires a local loop as well to connect to your providers.
[AS = autonomous system] This new network could assign its own AS numbers, or not. Efficiently would be paramount but convenience is even more important. Most nodes would most likely be using residential-targetted home routers like from Linksys or D-Link, which have no provisions for AS numbers.

The internet works in a hierarchy level. You have companies like UUNET (who has their own local loops and bandwith) who sale real bandwith to providers who then sale it down the line and bounce it off of their routers/ports.
This wouldn't work well for a community wireless network as far as I can see. A mesh model would be far superior.

I have been in the internet business for a while. Its simple if you have the means, but your not going to make any money out of it.
Then, would you like to help "us" (whoever wishes to start this new network, whomever that is - myself, at least) with this grassroots effort of building a network? You won't make any money off it, just the satisfaction and complacence of helping a new network with free bandwidth get its feet off the ground.

I used to operate a wireless access point at my house for some time, but long ago removed it because I rarely use my laptop anymore (I am convinced, laptops suck). But when I saw this thread, I dusted off the old SMC Barricade and plugged it in my Linksys. Its up now at roughly 34º01'59''N, 117º04'40''W. If you are near this area and want a link up or to become a user private message me and I'll give you an exact (GPS) location and more information. I might not have much of interest (I don't download movies, etc.) but its up to the users to provide the content. The AP is an 11Mbps 802.11b, which is faster than most Internet connections of people here. My Internet link is significantly slower (768/128kbps DSL) and I hope to be able to hook up with other wireless users at 11Mbps.

Maybe its a good idea to summarize information about each AP. This way we could get an idea of who is on the network, what nodes exist where, where to connect, and so on. I'll start:


Owner: shellreef
Approximate Location: 34º01'59''N, 117º04'40''W Yucaipa, CA
Wireless Technology: 11Mbps 2.4GHz 802.11b
Network SID: nachonetwork (i know its dumb...I'll change it later)
Channel: 6
Peers: none - pm me if interested
Client IP Address: 10.0.1.x
Routers: 10.0.1.1/10.0.0.10 (SMC Barricade wireless), 10.0.0.1 (Linksys 8-port router, links to DSL)
Servers: 10.0.0.2


Ok, who wants to become the 2nd node?

[metale]

Originally posted by wessman
Rickio:

I haven't used BBS's in a long time, but I understand what you're saying here. We need to (re)educate people on these non-internet networks and set up a task force to think about using wireless as the connection point.

That is the future of P2P, in my opinion. :sw

Totally agreed!

[shellreef]

Originally posted by metale
Originally posted by wessman
Rickio:

I haven't used BBS's in a long time, but I understand what you're saying here. We need to (re)educate people on these non-internet networks and set up a task force to think about using wireless as the connection point.

That is the future of P2P, in my opinion. :sw
Totally agreed!
(Italics mine).

I beg to differ. We shouldn't only think about using wireless, we should actually do it. We have to actually make it happen. So, who wants to become the 2nd node?

[Bytronix]

Packet radio (a long time ago) used to average around 1200bps. About the time when 1200bps modems were standard. About how fast does it go nowadays? Any reason why one can't get a 10mbs connection via packet radio? Probably just legal stuff. If so, shouldn't there be a bit more fighting going on to make "super high speed" packet radio legal? Or is there already some sort of equivalent? IE: What would happen if one took a linksys 802.11a/b/g access point and modified it to work over ham radio? Would it even be possible?

-Mike B.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by Bytronix
Packet radio (a long time ago) used to average around 1200bps. About the time when 1200bps modems were standard. About how fast does it go nowadays? Any reason why one can't get a 10mbs connection via packet radio? Probably just legal stuff. If so, shouldn't there be a bit more fighting going on to make "super high speed" packet radio legal?
High Speed Packet Radio (http://hydra.carleton.ca/articles/hispeed.html) says equipment for 9600bps packet radio is available ($80 (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/F9600.html)), which is hardly sufficient, as well as expensive at about $68 per kilobyte/sec. 19.2kbps speeds can be achived, and in fact are used in third-world countries (Bolivia?). But all these are slower than a standard dial-up modem. The cheapest 56k packet radio kit I could find costs a total of $160 - the Ottawa PI2 (http://www.ampr.torun.pl/packet/hispeed/pi2/orderform.html). 56k dial-up modems are much cheaper.

The Ottawa PI2 can run up to speeds of 500kbps, or 61KB/s. Approximately DSL speeds. Only one packet radio card I've found can run in the megabit range - the Gracilis (http://www.paccomm.com/gracilis.html) PackeTwin ($229) and PackeTen ($1595). Its possible to get T1 (1.536 Mbps) speeds. Finally, a 10GHz packet radio system has been designed, which runs at 2Mbps.

What is the advantage of packet radio over 802.11 wireless technologies? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Packet-radio users may have to register (I'm not sure, but I see handles all over amateur radio sites) with a governmental body. The hardware is prohibitedly expensive. Hardly anyone uses it. Why, Bytronix, do you think packet radio would be better than 802.11b/g/a?

Or is there already some sort of equivalent?
IE: What would happen if one took a linksys 802.11a/b/g access point and modified it to work over ham radio? Would it even be possible?
I don't see much point in this. Maybe, you think packet radio is superior because of its range. Well, the only reason it has the kind of range it has is because of its low frequencies. Low frequencies = Low bandwidth = Long range. If you run at 10GHz, you'll probably get even shorter range at the same power than 2.4GHz (disclaimer: I'm not a microwave engineer). Compare:

Fastest packet radio available: 10GHz @ 2Mbps (Higher Frequency = Shorter Range)
802.11b: 2.4GHz @ 11Mbps (Lower Frequency = Longer Range)
802.11a: 5.0GHz @ 54Mbps
802.11g: 2.4GHz @ 54Mbps

I could be wrong, but it looks to me that packet radio, at least in its current incarnation, is the worst in all respects. The only advantage I can see that it may have is that 10GHz might be regulated by the FCC for Ham usage and you may be able to broadcast at high power. The 2.4GHz frequency on the other hand has limited power output, but its possible to go several miles with a directional antenna.

802.11* is cheap, and only getting cheaper. As 802.11g has been released, its sales have soured and 802.11b sales have declined. It can only get cheaper. 802.11a never really took off, but there are dual-speed cards that can run at 802.11g and 802.11b speeds on the 2.4GHz spectrum. Contrast this to packet radio's multitude of incompatiable speeds and frequencies.

Plenty of people (http://netstumbler.com/nation.php) already have 802.11b or 802.11g installed. Its inexpensive; if one can save up their Internet bills for a couple months they can afford a wireless card. And perhaps best of all, its fast.

That said, does anyone have a wireless network AP and would like to set it up for public access for our own Internet? If we get enough participates running access points, near enough to each other (at most several miles), it will be possible to stitch them together, forming a private network disconnected from the Internet, at megabit speeds. Who wants to help?

[Bytronix]

I had actually thought that some advancement in packet radio technology might actually be useful. Other then that, I probably will be setting up a public 802.11 a/b/g access point. But I'm waiting for 802.11g to go final/standard. Presently 802.11g is still "draft" and I don't want to end up with a potentially 50% comatible product once the protocol goes "final/standard" etc.
-Mike B.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by Bytronix
[...] I'm waiting for 802.11g to go final/standard. Presently 802.11g is still "draft" and I don't want to end up with a potentially 50% comatible product once the protocol goes "final/standard" etc.
Excellent, but according to this article (http://www.80211-planet.com/columns/article.php/1380571):
The 802.11g standard, the hotly anticipated follow up to the 802.11b and 802.11a specifications that is now wending its way through an IEEE Task Group, appears to have reached a point in its maturity in which some chipmakers are ready to start stamping out silicon.

"A lot of companies are forging ahead with products," says John Allen, senior manager and director of marketing and communications at Intersil Corp., a wireless networking chip manufacturer. "Anything that needs to be done [to incorporate changes made to the specification] can be done with software updates and firmware changes."

(Emphasis mine.)

[zaphodiv]

>This new network could assign its own AS numbers
You need a much more comprehensive solution than that.
This is not a flame I'm pointing out some realitys.

You network is going to be broken into lots of little islands
by geography and someone who has a ten mile hilltop to hilltop
link to a friend is not going to put up with most of his
bandwidth being used to relay traffic between valleys.
Countrys are very very big compared to the range of 802.11

There is absoloutly no way any ISP will BGP peer with a load
of wireless freaks trying to route between their network
and the internet over whatever cable and adsl connections
they happen to have. IP addresses are not portable between
backbone providers, they have to have a street address to
give to law enforcement, ISP's generally hate people sharing
out their connections to their neighbours.

Just using BGM within a wireless network is probably a non
starter as well from both a technical and organisational
point of view. In a city, high up nodes might be able to
contact 50 other nodes. To BGP that will look like you
have 50 routes from that node, mostly with poor quality of
service and constantly appearing and dissapering as busy local
nodes transmitt over the top of distance nodes they can't hear.

From an administrative point of view it's unmanageable.
How does a random person joining the network get a
unique ip and figure out which nearby machine are in the same
house and therefore should organise themselves into a subnet
so they appear in network neighbourhood?
How do you get clueless windows users to configure packet
forwarding and routing? Every node has to act as a relay when
it can.

>Maybe its a good idea to summarize information about each AP
Consume.net beat you to this years ago. They have a nice
node database on the web theat even shows maps.

This slashdot comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=55553&cid=5413926)
has some relervant ideas.

>Packet radio [...]About how fast does it go nowadays?
Usually zero bits per second because almost all the users have
ditched it in favour of the internet.

56Kbit/sec packet modem kits are cheap but you need somone at
the other end to transmit to. If you use it on amateur radio
frequencys you have to pass an exam and you are subject to the
regulations ie you can't use it for internet access/pron/warez,
you can't relay traffic for non-hams.

To transmitt data at high speed you need radio bandwidth. The military
and the broadcasters are not going to give up any of the usfull
frequencys below 1GHz that go for long distances. That means you
have to use the ISM bands at 2.4GHz and up. The range is as far
as you can see with a pair of binoculars in the direction your
antenna is pointing.

You can do 512K half duplex with a pair of automatic door
sensor heads over a few miles but a tree in the way or
putting your hand in front of it will block the signal.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by zaphodiv
You network is going to be broken into lots of little islands
by geography and someone who has a ten mile hilltop to hilltop
link to a friend is not going to put up with most of his
bandwidth being used to relay traffic between valleys.
Well, I know I would. Look at the success of projects such as SETI@Home and d.net - people are voluntarily giving up their CPU processing power for a cause. Why wouldn't they do the same for bandwidth?

There is absoloutly no way any ISP will BGP peer with a load
of wireless freaks [...]
I wouldn't peer with them, either. ISPs can do their own thing, and we'll do ours.

Just using BGM [BGP?] within a wireless network is probably a non
starter as well from both a technical and organisational
point of view. In a city, high up nodes might be able to
contact 50 other nodes. To BGP that will look like you
have 50 routes from that node, mostly with poor quality of
service and constantly appearing and dissapering as busy local
nodes transmitt over the top of distance nodes they can't hear.
Is BGP really necessary, at least initially?

From an administrative point of view it's unmanageable.
How does a random person joining the network get a
unique ip and figure out which nearby machine are in the same
house and therefore should organise themselves into a subnet
so they appear in network neighbourhood?
Random people joining the network may use a local DHCP server provided by access points to obtain an IP address and other network configuration information. From what I can tell, "Network Neighborhood" is a Windows-ism and only relevant to file sharing via SMB/CIFS. I wouldn't worry about it.

How do you get clueless windows users to configure packet
forwarding and routing? Every node has to act as a relay when
it can.
Not all nodes have to act as relays. Only access points are required to relay (to other relays). Random roaming clients could connect to a nearby access point using DHCP and explore the network from there.


>Maybe its a good idea to summarize information about each AP
Consume.net beat you to this years ago. They have a nice
node database on the web theat even shows maps.
Thanks for the link - ConsumeTheNet is exactly what I'm proposing. I'll consider joining... I encourage everyone else that has the proper equipment to join.

To transmitt data at high speed you need radio bandwidth. The military
and the broadcasters are not going to give up any of the usfull
frequencys below 1GHz that go for long distances. That means you
have to use the ISM bands at 2.4GHz and up. The range is as far
as you can see with a pair of binoculars in the direction your
antenna is pointing.
"High speed" is relative. 802.11b is 11Mbps. 802.11g and 802.11a can potentially run at 54Mbps. Since the ether is shared, the total bandwidth is split between upload/download, but 5.5Mbps or 27Mbps shared between a few users is still significantly faster than the average Internet subscriber's connection.

You can do 512K half duplex with a pair of automatic door
sensor heads over a few miles but a tree in the way or
putting your hand in front of it will block the signal.
512Kbps or 512K/s? Either way, 512K is relatively high bandwidth. Compared to 56Kbps or ISDN. Trees are, for the most part, stationary and can be avoided by pointing the signal above or between the trees.

Thanks for the reply, at least. I don't have all the answers, but I do think a "new Internet", distinct from this Internet, is possible and will eventually come about--its going to take work and devotion, though. Wireless is only gaining popularity. The latest issue of Wired included a special Unwired supplemental issue. Non-profit organizations are going wireless. Police departments are also. Prices are falling. Its only a matter of time.

[Monyak]

Its more than just a pain in the ass. I have no idea how you plan to do the BGP, ratios, and regarding backbone, I'm really lost. I mean what other ISP will peer with you?

Problem with anything wireless is that if it aint in eyes distant, it aint gonna work.

P2P is great because it allows users to use eachothers bandwith (if configured correctly) to do configurations and whatever, but I really doubt that you can build a www via P2P.

Good luck

[Bytronix]

Anyone wanna burry some cable?

Wires are cheap. Why is it that only the utilities & large service providers can burry cables? What exactly does it take for one to burry their own cables through a neighborhood? I imagine if you got permission from all the local neighbors and promised them free access to your newly burried fiber optic cables in excange for permission from them to burry the cables you could gradually get alot of burried cable added on to this "free" network. It is going to be free right?

Just a thought.
-Mike B.

[Monyak]

Its not exactly wires, rather either copper or fiber. In the long run, it is more cost effective to run fiber.

The problem is getting permission from the FCC. Many companies have invested billions (raised on Wall Street) only to receive a big fuck you from the FCC.

Years ago, it was possible to purchase a local loop connection from the US to Japan (Dark Fiber), however times have changed. Today, they dont sell them anymore.

Rather today, you rent space within the local loop, say for example 155 mega bytes. Nobody will sell you the line.

That is one of the reasons that many of the ISP's (smaller and mediocre size) are all going broke.

They purchase Megabytes, but also have to pay the transportation fee's for the inbound/outbound.

[shellreef]

Originally posted by Monyak
Years ago, it was possible to purchase a local loop connection from the US to Japan (Dark Fiber), however times have changed. Today, they dont sell them anymore.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still possible to purchase bare copper wires, ran by the phone company? (They call it a "dry pair" or something). You can run your own signal on these. DSL runs a digital signal over copper wires, and although ISPs only offer slow speeds (768Kbps/128Kbps, etc.), it is capable of bandwidth up to 11Mbps, maybe higher.

I'm still set on using wireless though - the air is free, the radio waves are unlicensed, and you can do anything you want with it. Sure there are difficulties, but its free.

[at.morris]

lol- i think you are all getting a bit carried away! keep your feet on the ground, seriously - laying copper wires? Im fairly sure that the radio waves are licensed aswell. Keep it simple, like Virtual Private Networks. I cant imagine any government allowing such a scheme for long!

[Krell]

This is a MUTE point.

There is already far more fiber ran underground, and inter-continentally than will be utilized any time soon.


And shellreef - I cant believe you even made that statement.

The air is NOT free, the radio waves are NOT unlicensed, and you can NOT do anything you want with it.

Your assumptions are in the same grain as the original absurdity of this thread.

[.::BeatFactory::.]

Infrared signals are free. Infrared on the top of everyones house ... Oo0h0ohhohhoh :black

[matstao]

Originally posted by Krell
This is a MUTE point.

There is already far more fiber ran underground, and inter-continentally than will be utilized any time soon.


And shellreef - I cant believe you even made that statement.

The air is NOT free, the radio waves are NOT unlicensed, and you can NOT do anything you want with it.

Your assumptions are in the same grain as the original absurdity of this thread.

Krell, as usual, brings things back down to Earth. The brainstorming of this thread is quite positive, but the chances of many of it's suggestions becoming reality is less so.

Time Warner, AT&T, the FCC, & whatever initials own the rest of the cable & air/frequencies would have to be consulted or by-passed for many of the above systems to work. Success in either of those two paths seems very unlikely to me.

I think the answer lies in somehow manipulating the network they have created.

[sappyshrew]

:mellow Remember:
a) America's overall population density is miniscule compared with Europe and Japan, especially away from the Los Angeles and New York population centers. Lower population density = fewer nodes = patchier coverage. Setting up "local" urban nets will be difficult, but much easier than connecting those nets, partly because of b). Forward to b).
b) You're working on a project built without "big pipes." The Internet has lots of big pipes (big network lines like the one that ran "3500 times faster than a cable modem" in the news awhile ago) operating to cover the large distances. Latency is reduced by shunting heavy traffic onto the fiber mainlines of the Internet. Young'uns, ask your (great??? jeez...) grandparents about the highway system prior to the Interstate system. You got held up in every little burg in a zig-zaggy, low-speed line from Chicago to El Paso, not just five or six big cities connected by direct pathways. It took a long time to move around that way. Popularity-based caching (something like Freenet has) would be absolutely essential to facilitate decently responsive download requests.
c) crypto's fundamental problem is key delivery. If files are pre-encrypted in this system, then either everyone has a key or only your friends (contacts, whatever...I guess I could be a nerd and call them trusted parties...nah, screw the jurisprudent crap) do. The former system is vulnerable to scanning by a third party; the latter is vulnerable to most of the vulnerabilities of IRC trading. If files are encrypted on-the-fly, network caching as described at the end of b) is impossible because the sitting copies couldn't feasibly be linked to an encryption key. Either way, you've got serious key delivery issues to think out on a network like this.
d) Introducing individual ownership of "nodes" could open node-holders to a new set of possible legal problems all revolving around ownership and conscious misbehavior.
e) Despite the tremendous amount of crap that was injected into the public consciousness by the movie "Enemy of the State," it remains true that wireless connections are traceable, both through software and through signal analysis. If node operators are vulnerable to stronger legal challenges, enforcement may become a tenable thing. The time it takes to get the network started will be a period of extreme vulnerability; until enough people subscribe to the idea to utilize common usage as a defense, those key early adopters are praying that nobody takes up an initiative to start prosecuting operators.

That much said, I don't want to necessarily throw water on the parade here. The idea of a real independent wireless Internet fascinates me, for reasons beyond filesha