@DeusQain, I’m not sure what point you’re actually trying to make, but let me just say this: If you’ve solved the drone problem, think that local co-op models can scale to something nationwide, and that an alternate Internet is viable, then go right ahead and build one with the OP. Heck, I’ll even throw in a few bucks on the Kickstarter and donate the first Pringles can. An ‘alternet’ would be great.
@level1
The point I’m trying to make, is your money argument is moot. That’s not the real issue with the how and why it will or won’t work.
The finance perspective that I was originally referencing, I was merely pointing out that the numbers you were referencing were inaccurate.
You talk about all that money like it’s unreachable, but other than they are wrong, that money comes from the consumers that would have to be convinced to invest into what is basically referenced here:
Taking control of the local loop market is a more likely scenario.
This has already been done in several cities in the US. What has basically become a ISP co-op that is effectively owned by the communities that spawned them.
They link up to the backbone (tier 1) providers, and they currently are not attempting to hold their communities hostage in the same way that companies like Comcast (XFinity) and Spectrum (Formerly Time Warner) have done.
1 Like
Exactly what I’m interesting in, thank you Oxbird.
I read that and have ruminated on it. And I find it good. Yeah, I can’t argue that and wouldn’t if I could. Cos that would be silly. For me the idea is one of desperation and not caring about “serving” the needs of the content consumers and instead it would be more akin to the old bulletin boards of yore. I’m not an apocalypse junkie/fool, but I also don’t trust our country anymore as an altruistic medium for the care of its carbon based, supposedly intelligent, lifeforms. We’re now living in a country that imho has become a corporate oligarchy, no longer a democracy. A lot of things are being excused from our usable feature set; privacy, and its communication systems, civil rights, egalitarianism… etc etc. So, for me a communication network that depends on the input of the neighbor, is just smart. You can’t fight the power on facebook.
That would be far too complex and expensive and I don’t think it’s necessary right now.
It might be possible to build a small scale “Internet” but not for anything complex that covers millions of people.
@Filekutter, just so that everyone is clear — you are talking about a completely independent alternate network. One that is physically separate to the current Internet, so that it doesn’t come under the legal jurisdiction of Ajit Pai or any of the other corrupt individuals in Washington.
That implicitly means that you are not talking about merely replacing local loop/community on-ramps to the existing Internet. Replacing local access providers is merely a bandaid that slows the cancer because Washington would still be able to exert its corrupt influence further upstream.
You’re talking about a completely new network that is legally shielded from Washington and thus immune to crony capitalism.
Correct/incorrect?
Let’s keep the political discussion to a very careful minimum. The last time we had an Ajit Pai thread people started making death threats.
I understand people don’t like the current situation (I am one of those people) but all you can do about it is vote when you get the opportunity and write to them when the complaint service comes back online. Threats of any kind are unacceptable here.
Now that’s out of the way, I would like to quickly address a couple points that I believe you would have elaborated on to the same point.
Anything built in the US is inherently subject to whatever sort of capitalism you want to describe the US economy as.
Unless you refuse to trade, and build everything from scratch, you’re taking part in it.
You’re also under the jurisdiction of the Federal government by operating in the United States. This means you cannot be shielded from Washington, unless you manage to pay off whoever the ruling party of the hour is.
I know I’m being a bit pessimistic here, but I don’t want people to get the idea that we can do whatever we want, just because it is operated by private individuals instead of a legal entity.
Now a critique on this, short and sweet.
I will not use a service like this unless I can access a mirror of a number of services. I need to be able to access L1T, Stack Overflow, Microsoft’s services (office365, outlook, Azure) AWS, GCP, Linode, and a number of other random services.
I simply do not think this is a logical project without gateways to the internet.
That said, I do support the research to see if we can come to a viable solution.
1 Like
If the network is privately owned and operated, and does not make use of a public carrier or spectrum, then the FCC has no jurisdiction whatsoever. That was a concern voiced by the OP. No-one is talking about any other laws. No-one is talking about anarchy.
That’s the drone problem. Gotta have the content there to get bums on seats to pay for it all. But creators have little/no reason to generate ‘exclusive’ content for a network with a minuscule population. (And it has to be exclusive because otherwise folks will just consume it where they already are — on the Internet.) Catch-22.
Monopolies are bad. Monopolies are always abused. ‘The Internet’ has a monopoly on global communications. That’s bad. That’s being abused. Having ‘an alternative’ is in the best interests of ‘the people’. It would give them a way to protect themselves from the abuse. Exploring ways to give people that option is, I guess, the whole point of this thread.
1 Like
the government will get involved when you have to interact with their infrastructure such as installing a run of fiber underneath a road or in the back easement of a neighborhood and definitely if you are installing onto utility poles. And one does not simply install your own poles.
1 Like
Yup, There isn’t much that can be done on a terrestrial level at this juncture.
We either slowly take over the existing infrastructure, or we start launching satellites.
Ham radio is always a third option, just not for inter-continental communication.
You’re significantly limited by bandwidth of CB. Have fun spending a month downloading a 2GB file.
I agree. This is why I think this idea is doomed from the start…
Not to mention the fact that people are getting all worked up over nothing with this FCC/internet shit.
By that logic “Planes” have a monopoly on air travel. Do we need to start a Zeppelin air travel service?
It’s not that monopolies are abused, but that they are abusive by nature.
Step 1: snuff out competition
Step 2: raise prices
Step 3: repeat step 2
Again, subject to regulation. (not that I think a satellite network wouldn’t be cool)
it is when you get to HF bands
1 Like
Not quite where I was going with that. The Internet is hardware controlled by people… and it’s the people that control it that are the problem — not the hardware. We don’t need a Zeppelin air travel service, but I think a lot of folks would like an air service with the FAA and — especially — the TSA out of the picture entirely. Of course, some folks like being molested at airports, so there isn’t 100% consensus on the latter. 
In a more general sense, lots of folk would like free (as in freedom, not as in beer) access to airspace and air travel — something that would protect them from irradiation/molestation in the process.
Correct.
So true !
Shortwave is open source air.
I’m all kinds of WITH … this person!
When you are NOT invested in a matrix of distribution and perceptions of responsibility, and when your needs are dictated by a sense of displacement, you don’t need the extremes of social amusement because you are now concerned about social survival. I don’t give a rat’s behind about facethebook, or youtube, or sending gigabyte files of silly programs that only put polygons on your monitor. I’m interested in people being able to communicate freely, without cost, and without regulation, period. I know it can be done with the publicly available hardware for a home network and a bloody pringles can. This is important. Worrying about costs and the gov’t is counter productive and/or just fatalism which I refuse to allow into such a space if it ever blossomed. This is not a corporate entity, nor is it a business. Its just using what we have laying around to create a system of connected antennas so we can communicate without interference. And let’s not even forget that once something is fun, or used, the gov’t invariably will infiltrate it and judge it and etc etc. So, it must be open and all ways… physically, mentally, and uhhh… lycrically!
It isn’t necessary to make an argument about govt. They are convenient targets, but they have always moved rather slowly.
The real argument should be the technology. The aging protocols that run the internet. The BGP protocol is brittle and hijacking traffic happens daily, most of the time on purpose by some deep state crap, but sometimes a fat finger really screws things up. And we’re still using IPv4 despite decades of IPv6 investments.
How reliable is your connection? I’ve got some serious bandwidth these days, but there is always some service or another that is unavailable. Will Metcalfe be correct after all? Will it all come crashing down?
Unfortunately, I think Stratechery is right, the value of the Internet is greater in aggregate, fostering ever larger corporate mergers. I don’t see a bottom up reinvention of the Internet working unless some kind of economic disaster happens (and with the earth burning up, it might).