I honestly kinda want net neutrality to be killed. If it's gonna be as bad as people say it is, it might get people off their asses and start looking for alternatives. Maybe from this we'll start to see mesh nets take off in a big way. The foundation for the tech is already there (cjdns), I feel like we just need that final push to really flesh it out
I too look forward to our information superhighway being controlled by godlike corporations.
Did you even read what I said? lol
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918353]Did you even read what I said? lol[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it was a dumb thought. Letting it pass is going to be a way harder fight back to normalcy than never letting it happen in the first place.
Do you know what a mesh net is? Have you heard of hyperboria, or cjdns?
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918365]Do you know what a mesh net is? Have you heard of hyperboria, or cjdns?[/QUOTE]
I think the first is used for fishing, the second is the old name for the Borealis (well actually it was Hyperborea) from HL2, and I am guessing the last is Crazy Jesus's Dental Navigation Service?
Okay I guess it was my bad to assume that most people on this forum knew about mesh nets. The idea is that you have a bunch of [URL="https://www.simplewifi.com/"]high powered, long-distance antennas[/URL] that you'd install on top of your house and have them point at each other, and then use [URL="https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns"]the cjdns network protocol[/URL] for routing. It requires no central coordination. The main issue is that the main network (called Hyperboria) is not nearly dense enough to be useful, afaik the best one is in NYC ([URL]https://nycmesh.net/[/URL]). I also heard that routing does not scale very well, but I'm sure that will be figured out at some point. The tech is 99% there already. I'm sure if net neutrality is killed there will be a ton more people interested in this project (thus more development resources will be put into it)
I also found this video on /r/darknetplan that I think best captures what this potential future would look like, the internet there is so shitty that they have found it necessary to set up their own network using yagi antennas. AFAIK it's not an actual mesh net that connects to hyperboria, but is nonetheless interesting:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI[/media]
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918407]Okay I guess it was my bad to assume that most people on this forum knew about mesh nets. The idea is that you have a bunch of [URL="https://www.simplewifi.com/"]high powered, long-distance antennas[/URL] that you'd install on top of your house and have them point at each other, and then use [URL="https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns"]the cjdns network protocol[/URL] for routing. It requires no central coordination. The main issue is that the network is not nearly dense enough to be useful, afaik the best one is in NYC ([URL]https://nycmesh.net/[/URL]). I also heard that routing does not scale very well, but I'm sure that will be figured out at some point. The tech is 99% there already. I'm sure if net neutrality is killed there will be a ton more people interested in this project (thus more development resources will be put into it)
I also found this video on /r/darknetplan that I think best captures what this potential future would look like, the internet there is so shitty that they have found it necessary to set up their own network using yagi antennas. AFAIK it's not an actual mesh net that connects to hyperboria, but is nonetheless interesting:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI[/media][/QUOTE]
The success of this all banks on that the telecomm companies won't do their damnedest to impede their progress, and I guarantee they have a lot more money to throw at it then these people do.
I mean that's kind of like saying Bitcoin/BitTorrent will never take off because the big banks and the entertainment industry have money/power
The existing massive infrastructure for the Internet is not worth abandoning for a tiny niche market that won't see full usage within our lifetimes. That's just a dumbfuck defeatist attitude.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52918431]The existing massive infrastructure for the Internet is not worth abandoning for a tiny niche market that won't see full usage within our lifetimes. That's just a dumbfuck defeatist attitude.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty ironic statement right there, don't you think? You call my statement "dumbfuck" and "defeatist", yet here you are with nothing of substance to counter my claim. [B]The tech is here today and it works, the only issue is a social one because nobody gives a fuck about it[/B]. Just look at the hyperboria heatmap in NYC:
[IMG]https://nycmesh.net/assets/images/heatmap1500.jpg[/IMG]
That's just [I]16 people[/I] hosting nodes. Imagine the scale it would reach if there was an actual need for it.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918423]I mean that's kind of like saying Bitcoin/BitTorrent will never take off because the big banks and the entertainment industry have money/power[/QUOTE]
No, it's like saying Bitcoin/BitTorrent will never take off because the big banks and entertainment industry are willing and capable of not only sabotaging them but ripping them out of the market.
Much like they're doing here.
Ever hear of Ham radio? Note how it has a license requirement where at its inception no such license was required? Note who that license is granted by. Note that operating a Ham radio without a license is illegal; note that using a Ham radio [U]for commercial purposes[/U] is illegal. I wonder why people need a license which you have to pay for and why it has to be noncommercial? Hmmmmmcommercialradiostationsmmmm.
Now replace 'Ham radio' with 'mesh net'.
Until this directly and noticeably affects people, I don't think it'll bother anyone enough to cause a massive outrage. A lot of well-deserved protests, but not the overwhelming negative response on a national level it deserves. By the time the effects show and people start getting up in arms, it'll be too late.
We're going to lose this fight. The internet is all theirs to cut up and sell piecemeal now, and there's nothing we can do about it. :surrender:
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52918471]No, it's like saying Bitcoin/BitTorrent will never take off because the big banks and entertainment industry are willing and capable of not only sabotaging them but ripping them out of the market.
Much like they're doing here.
Ever hear of Ham radio? Note how it has a license requirement where at its inception no such license was required? Note who that license is granted by. Note that operating a Ham radio without a license is illegal; note that using a Ham radio [U]for commercial purposes[/U] is illegal. I wonder why people need a license which you have to pay for and why it has to be noncommercial? Hmmmmmcommercialradiostationsmmmm.
Now replace 'Ham radio' with 'mesh net'.[/QUOTE]
The HAM radio bit is an interesting point, but you forget that that these are WiFi antennas, not some makeshift protocol. Long-range WiFi is already regulated.
I'm having a hard time understanding the second part of your post. Do you think this needs to be commercial? Because it doesn't, all that needs to happen is everyone puts a few antennas on their roof. There pretty cheap ones out today that go 10+ miles. [URL]https://simplewifi.com[/URL] I'm sure that you can build one that goes much further.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918407]I also found this video on /r/darknetplan that I think best captures what this potential future would look like, the internet there is so shitty that they have found it necessary to set up their own network using yagi antennas. AFAIK it's not an actual mesh net that connects to hyperboria, but is nonetheless interesting:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI[/media][/QUOTE]
This is not the future I want, mediocre long range Wifi internet that all tunnels back to one ISP.
This video is a solution for areas where ISP don't give a shit.
You don't want this future as those networks would not stand a chance compared to proper networks ISP have.
I mean, unless you just browse here and don't care about weather affected connection with poor ping and packet loss.
Also the example in the video does not replace an ISP, the church has the exit node to the internet they ordered, its just a mesh WiFi network, well slightly more fancy but at its core its just that.
At this point you can not replace an ISP as you can not just tap into the big top level ISP networks that actually connect our world.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918407]That's just [I]16 people[/I] hosting nodes. Imagine the scale it would reach if there was an actual need for it.[/QUOTE]
Stuff would crawl to a halt if everybody would use it. Power users would clog the bandwidth, massive WiFi networks would probably not hold under the load.
Mesh internet is simply not viable for a global scale and is only useful to get basic internet to places where its otherwise not possible or for people who can not afford it.
Playing action games or anything else that requires low latency is a pain over those things and again as mentioned before, at this time any of those mesh networks are simply glorified WiFi networks, they all have regular exit nodes to a regular ISP.
They don't change the core problem with an ISP, which should be just regulated by laws such as net neutrality.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918483]The HAM radio bit is an interesting point, but you forget that that these are WiFi antennas, not some makeshift protocol. Long-range WiFi is already regulated.
Also, why do you think this needs to be commercial? All that needs to happen is everyone puts a few antennas on their roof. There pretty cheap ones out today that go 10+ miles. [url]https://simplewifi.com[/url] I'm sure that you can build one that goes much further.[/QUOTE]
I brought up the commercial part to demonstrate that if the FCC feels like it wants to butt into something it does; that it does so especially when money is involved. You forget that the FCC can absolutely, tomorrow, declare your meshnet technology to require stringent FCC licensing and vetting by NSA Agents due to 'national security' concerns just as Ham radio was. Those few antennas going up on roofs today could be beacons directing NSA agents on whose houses to raid for violations of the 'Protect America's Internet Borders Regulation' tomorrow.
It isn't that it's commercial, necessarily, it's that it's a threat to ISPs during a time where the FCC is going whole-hog on 'don't you even dare get in the way of ISPs'. In so many words: It's not that your network is for profit - it's that it's potentially hurting the profits of ISPs, much like Ham radio.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52918486]This is not the future I want, mediocre long range Wifi internet that all tunnels back to one ISP.
This video is a solution for areas where ISP don't give a shit.
You don't want this future as those networks would not stand a chance compared to proper networks ISP have.
I mean, unless you just browse here and don't care about weather affected connection with poor ping and packet loss.
Also the example in the video does not replace an ISP, the church has the exit node to the internet they ordered, its just a mesh WiFi network, well slightly more fancy but at its core its just that.
At this point you can not replace an ISP as you can not just tap into the big top level ISP networks that actually connect our world.
Stuff would crawl to a halt if everybody would use it. Power users would clog the bandwidth, massive WiFi networks would probably not hold under the load.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. Like I said, it isn't completely fleshed out yet. There isn't any need for it! cjdns has only one maintainer and he's just doing it for shits and giggles. And yeah, I agree, long range WiFi is kind of shitty for a meshnet but [I]at least it works[/I]. I'm sure once there is an actual need for this tech, there will be more engineering effort put into it to make it better.
I really don't understand the backlash here. Here I provide a real, practical solution to this net neutrality problem yet everyone is shooting me down because it isn't 100% bulletproof and perfect? lol
Rome wasn't built in a day. The internet will probably be shitty for a few years before this tech takes off in a substantial way.
[quote=zoiragi]I really don't understand the backlash here. Here I provide a real, practical solution to this net neutrality problem yet everyone is shooting me down because it isn't 100% bulletproof and perfect? lol
Rome wasn't built in a day. The internet will probably be shitty for a few years before this tech takes off in a substantial way.[/quote]
Reason for backlash: "Just let the internet die guys. My technology here is totally getting ready for primetime right now, will be ready for mass deployment when we need it, is super-easy to use and setup and everybody can use it, and it absolutely won't just die with a whimper when the FCC just looks over at it and says 'banned'. We also def. won't have a billion competing standards, network uptime will be great, everybody will agree on what exit and entry nodes to support, and ISPs will totes not try to detect who's running a meshnet and block access through those nodes to any sort of service. We also can [I]absolutely[/I] trust people to not abuse the meshnet to intercept people's information to steal their identities, bank accounts, etc. through packet interception, storage, and retransmission by simply setting up a transmitter and saying 'hey I'm a node on the meshnet, connect through me'."
In sum your idea isn't 'not 100% bulletproof'. It's a sheet of cloth backed by your faith in its ability to stop a bullet. You are asking people to ditch their kevlar for your sheet of cloth and saying 'but it's the same'. It's not the same.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918496]Well, yeah. Like I said, it isn't completely fleshed out yet. There isn't any need for it! cjdns has only one maintainer and he's just doing it for shits and giggles. And yeah, I agree, long range WiFi is kind of shitty for a meshnet but [i]at least it works[/i]. I'm sure once there is an actual need for this tech, there will be more engineering effort put into it to make it better.
I really don't understand the backlash here. Here I provide a real, practical solution to this net neutrality problem yet everyone is shooting me down because it isn't 100% bulletproof and perfect? lol[/QUOTE]
It is not the question of "fleshed out", it will always have this flaw and as I edited, it will never get to a global scale.
Unless people start putting land fiber lines on their own then it will always just be a solution for areas where its otherwise not available.
Your solution is a solution for poor regions with next to no regular interner access, your solution is not a solution for net neutrality as you will always have a ISP somewhere at this time.
Thinking that this will work on a global scale "if people would have a need for it" is just silly and naive, getting this even outside of a single city is already near impossible.
Either way, this does not replace your ISP and comes nowhere close to touching top level ISP.
Also as a note, [url]https://freifunk.net/en/[/url] exists here in Germany, even in my city, its crap. At best its nice to check emails but for anything more its just too slow or has bad connection.
Should also be noted that the network here is not in a poor region, it goes through all the city center and has multiple exit nodes, its still pretty bad.
The backlash is simply because its not a real or practical solution and just getting rid of net neutrality to cause chaos until people magically rebuild the internet (in the US!) is just as stupid.
Frankly I don't see the FCC being under enough pressure to stop. It seems like people keep comparing ea's lootbox ordeal to net neutrality, that if we stopped ea than we can stop the fcc, but really the fcc is a whole other beast.
Might as well get used to and start improving meshnets in the future. I just don't know how intercontinental communication would work though.
I think comparing Net Neutrality to people protesting Battlefront 2 loot boxes is dumb. Disney isn't going to come down on the FFC for getting bad press. There isn't a bottom line we can hurt by canceling preorders . In fact Ajit's going to make a tone of money when this does pass and it doesn't matter if everyone in the US is against it. Unless the whole Trumps administration gets replaced in the next few days and a new FCC chairman is appointed there isn't much we can do at this point.
[quote=shrinkme]Might as well get used to and start improving meshnets in the future.[/quote]
Stop trying to make meshnets happen. It's not going to happen. If you want people to adopt it, it needs to be commercial-ready: It is not in any way shape or form commercial ready. Also, the moment it would become commercial ready the FCC will simply declare them illegal to set up without an approved, expensive, license. Boom, there goes your meshnet that you 'got used to'.
Edit:
[quote=dark soul]Unless the whole Trumps administration gets replaced in the next few days and a new FCC chairman is appointed there isn't much we can do at this point.[/quote]
There is exactly one lever to pull here: Threaten to pull the plug on your ISP if they don't tell said FCC chairman to stop. The demand for this to occur is coming from the ISPs - or at least Pai is stating that he's doing it 'for them'. Only way to rob him of that is to get the ISPs to come out and say 'yeah, our users are just going to quit using the internet if you do that'. Of course, these days, that's like asking people to 'stop driving or riding in cars'. So you really only have one option: Massive, unfettered, unrelenting, full-throated protest. Get everyone coming out against it. Celebrities, business owners, dog walkers. Make YouTube [I]swamped[/I] with nothing but black screen'd videos subtitled with 'brought to you by the FCC' with a link to a protest page. Demonstrations outside the FCC building. Billboards everywhere with protest imagery. Constant radio ads on every station. Unending calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails to representatives at every level (city, county, district, state, region). Demand every business you know to make a statement about it or lose your business.
If the roar against this becomes loud enough, I doubt even Pai would have the balls to push it through anyway - knowing that it'll just get repealed, he'll be replaced, and he'll not only be black-sheep'd out of the comm industry but out of the public eye. If Pai sees this as a cash grab the only thing you could do to dissuade him is to make it too expensive to keep going.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52918502][I]saving vertical space[/I][/QUOTE]
It doesn't need to scale globally? It just needs to scale to the contiguous United States. Hell, maybe it only needs to scale to a single state or metropolitan area. If, for example, the entire Los Angeles county built a working meshnet I'm sure it would inspire other areas to follow suit.
Re: poor regions, remote regions; Why don't you think long-range antennas will fix this?
Re: German meshnet; Yeah, I mean, the NYC meshnet is pretty shitty too lol. It's going to get better though, that's how it always plays out.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52918497]-saving vertical space-[/QUOTE]
I really don't want to respond to this but I guess I have to. Not only is this a bunch of hyperbole, but a lot of what you are saying is flat out wrong. For example, MiTM attacks are impossible on cjdns, all traffic is encrypted. All you're basically saying is "you're dumb and wrong" and backing it up with absolutely nothing, which just shits up this discussion. That kind of shit isn't gonna change my mind. If you want to prove me wrong then do what Mitsuma is doing, he's the only one here who is backing up his arguments with facts.
[quote=zoiragi]If you want to prove me wrong then do what Mitsuma is doing, he's the only one here who is backing up his arguments with facts.[/quote]
If you want to prove that this won't be 'here today gone tomorrow' with the FCC, exactly as it was with Ham, by all means. By all means state that my evidence that the FCC has jurisdiction over this and could literally kill meshnets tomorrow if they felt like it is 'flat out wrong' and 'isn't backed up with facts'.
Post your proof the FCC has no jurisdiction and couldn't unilaterally declare it. You don't want to respond to that claim directly because it's devastating to your case. You know it, I know it, so let's just agree to drop it because it's a half-baked solution which'll get immediately shot out of the sky if it even so much as smells like a threat to ISPs - which is [I]exactly[/I] what it would be if it even came close to 'replacing the existing internet infrastructure'. You also have [U]zero[/U] evidence, nor could you, to state that cjdns is 'definitely what we're going to use' or what's going to become popular.
Also, quick debunk: It doesn't just need to cover the whole US. It needs to [I]redundantly[/I] cover the whole US.
Edit: One final note: "MiTM attacks are impossible on cjdns, all traffic is encrypted" stating that anything that is encrypted 'simply can't be intercepted and unencrypted' shows how shallow your experience with network security is. Everything has vulnerabilities. Everything. The question is not whether it's possible - it's whether someone will find the way to do it and whether that thing will be (first of all: even discovered by those running the system in any short period of time and then) properly patched across meshnets throughout the entirety of the US before it spooks enough people off it that the integrity of the net is harmed. Nothing is impossible in network security - things can only be very very very very difficult to breach until proven otherwise.
You put an airgapped server in a faraday cage 10 miles underground and dare the intelligence agencies of the world to hack it, prepare to be amazed to see what a toaster (or secretary) can do to your network's security - if you even ever notice that that happened to begin with.
Zoiragi, you're arguing throwing out a perfectly good and fair system that's established GLOBALLY for a hardly used/developed "network"
it's like everyone throwing away cars and replacing them with 4 legged mechs
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;52918544]Zoiragi, you're arguing throwing out a perfectly good and fair system that's established GLOBALLY for a hardly used/developed "network"
it's like everyone throwing away cars and replacing them with 4 legged mechs[/QUOTE]
woahwoahwoah, I'd totally trade in a motorcycle for a sweet robo horse [t]https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/005/767/165/large/lennart-franken-strider-03.jpg?1493641598[/t]
It's more like switching out round wheels for triangular ones, saying the roads will change to support them.
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;52918544]Zoiragi, you're arguing throwing out a perfectly good and fair system that's established GLOBALLY for a hardly used/developed "network"
it's like everyone throwing away cars and replacing them with 4 legged mechs[/QUOTE]
Why is everyone here taking what I said in my first post literally? How many "kinda"s and "maybe"s do I have to throw in to emphasize that I don't [i]actually[/i] want net neutrality killed? I'm just saying, there's a real possibility that mesh networks can save the Internet.
[QUOTE=kyle877;52918552]It's more like switching out round wheels for triangular ones, saying the roads will change to support them.[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile ignoring that the DoT will likely just say 'those wheels are banned now because they're harming the roads we're maintaining'.
Edit:
[quote=zoiragi]I'm just saying, there's a real possibility that mesh networks can save the Internet.[/quote]
I'm just saying that that possibility is moot so long as the FCC can just simply say 'no' (which it has done before, has the full authority to do now, and is being presently run by a man who absolutely would say that) and then it saved nothing. Focus your energy into a more productive endeavor.
Edit 2: Also, throwing tepid insults onto my profile doesn't do anything - the thread you're responding to is here, not on my user profile.
[QUOTE=zoiragi;52918407]Okay I guess it was my bad to assume that most people on this forum knew about mesh nets. The idea is that you have a bunch of [URL="https://www.simplewifi.com/"]high powered, long-distance antennas[/URL] that you'd install on top of your house and have them point at each other, and then use [URL="https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns"]the cjdns network protocol[/URL] for routing. It requires no central coordination. The main issue is that the main network (called Hyperboria) is not nearly dense enough to be useful, afaik the best one is in NYC ([URL]https://nycmesh.net/[/URL]). I also heard that routing does not scale very well, but I'm sure that will be figured out at some point. The tech is 99% there already. I'm sure if net neutrality is killed there will be a ton more people interested in this project (thus more development resources will be put into it)
I also found this video on /r/darknetplan that I think best captures what this potential future would look like, the internet there is so shitty that they have found it necessary to set up their own network using yagi antennas. AFAIK it's not an actual mesh net that connects to hyperboria, but is nonetheless interesting:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI[/media][/QUOTE]
I'll be honest, I think that's really cool, but I'd rather it stays a niche hobbyist thing rather than a necessity
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
