11–20 of 36 posts
Failing that, even without connecting the hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of square miles between cities, I think there is still great potential political, economic and recreational value in decentralized Metropolitan Area Networks, despite the fact that they won't supplant the Internet.
I'd like to note that every single item listed in this is a technical barrier. There are no political barriers, there are no wealth or resource barriers. RF is free to use on the spectrum we need it to work on (ok, until that's illegal). It's that it's a hard, hard problem to solve and it hasn't been solved yet. Do not let that stop anyone from continuing to do work on this: maybe it will get solved.
I generally agree, but I tried to shed some light on the fundamental physics/math behind why building such a network is impractical. In any case, it might one day be possible, but I think a better use of resources (especially for non- and semi-technical people) is to contribute to the social movement around Internet free speech and to build real-world political networks.
I personally figure if people just accept the low speeds of HF instead of expecting full Hulu streaming for everyone, a lot of the problems will be immediately mitigated, but that's unlikely- if only because HF gear is not nearly as cheap and ubiquitous as WiFI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree, but I tried to shed some light on the fundamental physics/math behind why building such a network is impractical. In any case, it might one day be possible, but I think a better use of resources (especially for non- and semi-technical people) is to contribute to the social movement around Internet free speech and to build real-world political networks.
To me the damning evidence is that these problems still haven't been solved for decades even with a fair amount of work by professionals. Solutions probably exist, but will a decentralized group of redditors really be the ones who solve them? I personally figure if people just accept the low speeds of HF instead of expecting full Hulu streaming for everyone, a lot of the problems will be immediately mitigated, but th…
http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Main_Pag...
1: Know exactly where every transmitter is. This means they can find you in meatspace even more easily than they can on the hard-wired internet.
2: Listen in on your transmissions without all of the legal issues associated with wiretapping. To make sure they can do so, they would probably need to pass a law prohibiting the use of many types of cryptography on unlicensed RF transmissions. Such a law would be much easier to sell to the general public "because the terrorists could be using it to coordinate attacks." If you break this law, expect a knock on your door almost instantly because of #1, above.
When you combine #1 and #2, busting "pirates" becomes trivially easy: somebody sees a "suspicious" file in your transmissions, localizes your transmitter, and a few minutes later you get a knock on your door.
There's other stuff, like injecting false traffic, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A directional antenna or two with some kind of actuator might help. A couple of cantennas that could aim themselves could solve a lot of problems. But there's still a lot of problems left. Ultimately, you either get really poor bandwidth, or can only have static assets (like movie files, which don't need to change over time and can be cached by someone nearby with a few big hard drives).
Directional antennas don't help create a "mesh", since they (by definition) only connect stations in a direct line with each other -- a mesh is supposed to connect to multiple other stations, so that if one goes offline, a route can be found through another. A directional antenna will only (typically) connect to one other node.
One thing the article didn't mention, which I've been considering in regards to this problem: an RF-based internet alternative would be prone to all sorts of other forms of government interference/monitoring. The U.S. government already has serious resources at its disposal for the purpose of intercepting or jamming RF transmissions. For "intercepting," this includes high-power decryption capabilities, and for "jammi…
One thing the article didn't mention, which I've been considering in regards to this problem: an RF-based internet alternative would be prone to all sorts of other forms of government interference/monitoring. The U.S. government already has serious resources at its disposal for the purpose of intercepting or jamming RF transmissions. For "intercepting," this includes high-power decryption capabilities, and for "jammi…
Just to clarify: are you saying with your point #2 that the government can break any encryption currently in wide use with 802.11 networks and all popular VPN solutions? Or are you just saying that they can physically listen to encrypted transmissions? I was under the impression that encryption scales in complexity pretty much infinitely, so long as you don't care about encryption/decryption speeds.
Point: it tends to be these very gov't lackeys that think just because the signal is in the air that it can be intercepted, decoded, decrypted and its plaintext content recorded.
OK, plan B. First, we quantum-entangle a few billion pairs of particles... Failing that, even without connecting the hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of square miles between cities, I think there is still great potential political, economic and recreational value in decentralized Metropolitan Area Networks, despite the fact that they won't supplant the Internet.
One thing the article didn't mention, which I've been considering in regards to this problem: an RF-based internet alternative would be prone to all sorts of other forms of government interference/monitoring. The U.S. government already has serious resources at its disposal for the purpose of intercepting or jamming RF transmissions. For "intercepting," this includes high-power decryption capabilities, and for "jammi…
Just to clarify: are you saying with your point #2 that the government can break any encryption currently in wide use with 802.11 networks and all popular VPN solutions? Or are you just saying that they can physically listen to encrypted transmissions? I was under the impression that encryption scales in complexity pretty much infinitely, so long as you don't care about encryption/decryption speeds.
As to what NSA, et al are currently capable of, I honestly have no idea, but I'm willing to bet some of their capabilities would be surprising (in both directions, depending on which specific capability you were to look at).
This is a good article grounded in actual experience. As the former operator of the w8lvn packet radio bbs, i can heartily relate to you haven’t lived until you’ve hunted down transient connectivity problems resulting from RF weirdness in urban areas. And he details real-world experience like "omnidirectional antennas suck". Essentially, physics is not on your side here.
A lot of smart computer folks that don't have the theoretical or practical experience with RF to understand the issues at hand. But I'm nice enough to point them in the correct direction while resisting the tendency to sigh or giggle at some of the statements I hear.