Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

We have a lot of very smart people here on the forums, and I'm curious as to what they think of the possibility of something like this...

The way I understand the internet working is it is basically just a giant network. Computers on it are connected by things that can easily be identified. Take me, for example. I use a microwave connection to a receiving tower, which is connected by line to a trunk, which is connected to a major hub. When I go to a website, it goes from that hub to another hub along the way, until it connects to the server that stores the data, and that data is sent back to me. Just a giant network.

The role of my ISP is to provide me access to that hub in some way, shape, or form. They do it by being connected to I believe Time Warner. So I am basically paying my ISP for them to have the infrastructure present to connect to Time Warner. They pay time warner for having the infrastructure that connects 2 different hubs (or more). The server at the other end pays their ISP for the infrastructure to connect up in a similar manner.

So, the bottom line is that the money that flows into and out of a ISP is all about infrastructure. ISPs are nice targets to slap with lawsuits and subpoenas for the elimination of piracy and other concerns. They are also a convenient target for regulated censorship.
So, at first glance this looks like they got everyone who uses the internet by the balls, because ISPs are the only way to get to the data that is transferred. The question I propose is, do they have to be?

Consider this, a network where instead of the data being sent to a centralized location designed to be sent fast (a information superhighway) the data is sent to another computer via wireless connections (information back-roads)
Basically taking wireless routers to the extreme, where an entire neighborhood could be connected up, and a connection at the edge could be connected to a neighborhood a little ways down as well.

It seems to me that this wouldn't be hard to do, and that if something similar to how tor networks appear to work, with information bouncing from computer to computer until it reaches where it should, it seems that it is plausible that the entire internet could work via this system. There would be problems of course at edges of cities and stuff, where distances ensure that wireless routers as they are currently found wouldn't have the range to reach the neighbors, but I think that could be overcome as well.

I suspect that such a thing would be technologically feasible. What do you guys think?

[existent]

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

Hopefully, before too long ISP's will be required to share their infrastructure, at which point competition will kick in.

[Dakk]

There's also the grid computing network using by the LHC which is also supposed to make most of the future's internet, since it can store and transmit huge ammounts of data.

[Kogan Loloklam]

No, not an Extranet. An extranet is a private network that extends to the internet. More like if a company ran it's intranet out to the private homes and businesses of the people in the community, and some of them were also connected to a different intranet at the same time. The connection of the entire system, all connected via basically physical links (or in this case, wireless links that function in a similar manner) that is accessible to the public and allows sharing of data.

Basically what I am talking about is allowing WANs to be spontaneously created and connect to a Global network (GAN), the plausibility of the development of such technology in such a way that it could give the middle finger to ISPs and governmental regulation.

(Edit: Fixed a link.)

[existent]

after re-reading, I think I understand better now.

You're saying you want a de-centralized, global wireles connection.

[Kogan Loloklam]

after re-reading, I think I understand better now.

You're saying you want a de-centralized, global wireles connection.

Yes, I'd like to know opinions on the plausability of being able to create one with our current technology. Let's say that the ACTA went into effect and is exactly as bad as everyone is saying it was. Could a rich company given a lot of luck develop a few pieces of technology incorporated with some software that is similar to what we currently have now actually be capable of cutting ISPs out of the equation if they got the people who own the servers on board? (Edit: And a significant portion of the population)

I think so, but I've got no knowledge in this area.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You overlook the fact that whether or not that's feasible, it requires a very large number of people to carry out, and would probably have complete shit for quality. You're also overlooking the fact that the majority of the population will either be apathetic about concerns of censorship, or actively support it, given that (in the US at least) it's generally billed as "FITAN TERRISTS AND DER KIDDIE PRONS!".

[Kogan Loloklam]

You overlook the fact that whether or not that's feasible, it requires a very large number of people to carry out, and would probably have complete shit for quality. You're also overlooking the fact that the majority of the population will either be apathetic about concerns of censorship, or actively support it, given that (in the US at least) it's generally billed as "FITAN TERRISTS AND DER KIDDIE PRONS!".

Nah, it's kiddie porn, mafia, and the horrible pirates that bankrupt the music industry.

I have no clue as to why the music industry thinks that we care that they will be bankrupt, but I never claimed rich people in the USA were smarter than the poor people in it.

(Edit: Also, I think the "free internet access" without popups could overcome the apathy, at least until they experienced the horrible speed and latency.)

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You overlook the fact that whether or not that's feasible, it requires a very large number of people to carry out, and would probably have complete shit for quality. You're also overlooking the fact that the majority of the population will either be apathetic about concerns of censorship, or actively support it, given that (in the US at least) it's generally billed as "FITAN TERRISTS AND DER KIDDIE PRONS!".

Nah, it's kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, kiddie porn, and occasionally mafiaTERRISTS, and the horrible pirates that bankrupt the music industryALSO TERRISTS SOMEHOW.

Fixed for accuracy.

I have no clue as to why the music industry thinks that we care that they will be bankrupt, but I never claimed rich people in the USA were smarter than the poor people in it.

They're not going bankrupt, the rate at which their profits increase has gotten smaller as they moved away from the "selling people CD's of all the music they had on tape and vinyl" model to the "trying to sell people mp3s of all the music they had on CD's that they already ripped to their computers as mp3s" model, which, while still obscenely profitable, is slightly less obscenely profitable. The movie industry, which cries much the same thing, has in the same period seen the rate at which their profits increase fly through the roof. But that doesn't really fall all the way to the common man, who hears tales of gloom and doom from "trustworthy" sources, since the movie industry quite literally is the media. They also both have enough money to bribe congress into caring with gigantic piles of hookers and blow.

(Edit: Also, I think the "free internet access" without popups could overcome the apathy, at least until they experienced the horrible speed and latency.)

Someone still has to pay to connect a city wide relay to a fiber backbone, and I doubt they'd be willing to fork over enough to get the bandwidth to service a city out of the kindness of their hearts. There's also already pretty bad latency between computers and wireless routers, just imagine what it would be like for it to have to travel through dozens of router-to-router connections to reach a proper line, during which time it has the potential to be lost, sniffed, distorted, or changed maliciously by a third party.

[Tack]

Plus where would all of the information go?


Though it'd kinda be cool that the closer you got to google- the faster your search speed was.


And I believe that whole cities could probably hook up through TCP/IP, seeing as we already have cable networks for internet around the place.

[nenjin]

Well this thread will make for an interesting search result in Google.

Infrastructure. That's the big issue. And the adoption rate of the necessary infrastructure. Since it's on a user basis, every user has to have a device capable of doing it to some extent, and those with weaker devices would be compensated for by those that have better ones. Even if an entire city is wired, it would still rely on users outside the city to ultimately connect to the rest of the network. (And the city would of course charge you an access and maintenance fee, since they're regulating that network.)

So the question becomes, what would the cost be to the user for a mobile wireless device that not only connects them, but can support P2P connections moving through them?

In today's technology: more than the average, possibly unemployed user could afford. And I'm only considering America. For this to be viable world-wide, we'd effectively need mobile wireless points that could be produced at the cost of today's el-cheapo cellphone. And then you face bottleneck issues, where the adoption rate is low so the wireless coverage isn't adequate, or where a disproportionate amount of traffic is pushed on a small number of connections. So you'd want to have redundancy and back up points...which takes you BACK to a solution closer to what we have now; networks maintained by others that we pay an access fee to use. 

Current wireless signal strength in some formats on big installations can extend up to 30 km, but usually much less so there are no errors. I doubt the average user could pack that kind of tech into their budget unless it becomes very cheap...so we'd probably end up with weaker devices but use much more of them.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Okay, looking at software like freenet we have a system where Peer to Peer connections can be created and the data requested. Such requests go through multiple computers until they all send bits of what is needed (I think that's how it works anyway)

Could we flash a currently existing wireless router to use software like this if we were to create some kind of software that would allow transfer between LANs connected like this?

I've seen antennas that say they double the range for wireless with 20$. There are 2 wireless connections in range of my house right now, 3 on good days. This is about typical for any point in most neighborhoods I have ever taken a laptop in (when I worked out in Alabama and had to send data back to the office, I'd drive into neighborhoods and send my data out through random people's open connections. Naughty, but always possible in any random neighborhood as long as I was willing to drive a block or two slowly to find an open one)
The big problem I think would be transferring that data between cities, but it is my understanding that you can make wireless routers into wireless repeaters
Does that change things any?

[Nikov]

I'm not sure why you'd want to get around regulated internet except for software piracy and kiddy porn, but whatever creates an anonymous network for communications between rebel freedom-fighters in a future dystopia, I'll support.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I'm not sure why you'd want to get around regulated internet except for software piracy and kiddy porn, but whatever creates an anonymous network for communications between rebel freedom-fighters in a future dystopia, I'll support.

Thank you for so perfectly proving my point about the population being sold censorship as "FITAN TERRISTS (CUZ DOWNLAODING FREE MUSIC IS TERRISM BY SOME REASONING) AND KIDDIE PRONS".

[Kogan Loloklam]

I'm not sure why you'd want to get around regulated internet except for software piracy and kiddy porn, but whatever creates an anonymous network for communications between rebel freedom-fighters in a future dystopia, I'll support.

Thank you for so perfectly proving my point about the population being sold censorship as "FITAN TERRISTS (CUZ DOWNLAODING FREE MUSIC IS TERRISM BY SOME REASONING) AND KIDDIE PRONS".

I'm telling you, it's Mafia and Kiddie porn!

What kind of American associates money laundering with Bin Ladin? We aren't going after oil, we are going after those nasty ponzi schemes!

And the music industry. Them nasty pirates are taking the gold-plated pacifiers out of the drug-hazed rap stars' mouths.