Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly Media Asks: Is It Time To Build A New Internet? (oreilly.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article from O'Reilly Media's VP of content strategy:
It's high time to build the internet that we wanted all along: a network designed to respect privacy, a network designed to be secure, and a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior. And a network with few barriers to entry -- in particular, the certainty of ISP extortion as new services pay to get into the "fast lane." Is it time to start over from scratch, with new protocols that were designed with security, privacy, and maybe even accountability in mind? Is it time to pull the plug on the abusive old internet, with its entrenched monopolistic carriers, its pervasive advertising, and its spam? Could we start over again?
That would be painful, but not impossible... In his deliciously weird novel Someone Comes To Town, Someone Leaves Town, Cory Doctorow writes about an alternative network built from open WiFi access points. It sounds similar to Google's Project Fi, but built and maintained by a hacker underground. Could Doctorow's vision be our future backboneless backbone? A network of completely distributed municipal networks, with long haul segments over some public network, but with low-level protocols designed for security? We'd have to invent some new technology to build that new network, but that's already started.
The article cites the increasing popularity of peer-to-peer functionality everywhere from Bitcoin and Blockchain to the Beaker browser, the Federated Wiki, and even proposals for new file-sharing protocols like IPFS and Upspin. "Can we build a network that can't be monopolized by monopolists? Yes, we can..."
"It's time to build the network we want, and not just curse the network we have."
That would be painful, but not impossible... In his deliciously weird novel Someone Comes To Town, Someone Leaves Town, Cory Doctorow writes about an alternative network built from open WiFi access points. It sounds similar to Google's Project Fi, but built and maintained by a hacker underground. Could Doctorow's vision be our future backboneless backbone? A network of completely distributed municipal networks, with long haul segments over some public network, but with low-level protocols designed for security? We'd have to invent some new technology to build that new network, but that's already started.
The article cites the increasing popularity of peer-to-peer functionality everywhere from Bitcoin and Blockchain to the Beaker browser, the Federated Wiki, and even proposals for new file-sharing protocols like IPFS and Upspin. "Can we build a network that can't be monopolized by monopolists? Yes, we can..."
"It's time to build the network we want, and not just curse the network we have."
With blackjack and hookers!
Does this moron not understand true backbone internet connectivity? Or will wifi somehow handle the problem? Or will Equinix give his dumb ass free termination for his nonexistent fiber?
"a network designed to respect privacy, a network designed to be secure, and a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior."
Privacy, secure and... "controls on behavior"?
"designed with security, privacy, and maybe even accountability in mind?"
Again, it speaks of security, privacy and... accountability?
I'm not arguing against this as I don't understand what is meant. I simply want to understand how privacy can work together with that last thing they keep bringing up.
and a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior.
Who gets to decide what controls are "reasonable"? What kind of "behavior" is to be controlled, and how?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The current internet has almost become worthless.
Festering with ads and malware.
Tracking everything you search for and selling that data to the highest bidder.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
What sort of semi-educated drivel is this shit? Isn't Slashdot supposed to have smart people on it?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Is this an advertisement for O'Reilly? or Cory Doctrow? or both
Sure we can build a new Internet. Where are the long-haul links that connect cities going to come from, though? Let alone the intercontinental links. Or local distribution when you want aggregate bandwidth greater than WiFi provides? The logistical problems with those things are what the current control issues stem from.
And do we really need a new Internet? IPv6 itself seems pretty sane, and it's possible to build new protocols on top of it (in fact if you look for a file named "protocols" (even Windows machines have it) you'll find tons of them listed). Or even just start building application protocols that require the use of IPSec encryption/authentication.
Building new infrastructure doesn't fix the trolling/abuse issues: those are governance and I'm not sure how you fix that kind of issue without adding MORE oversight instead of reducing it as the article suggests.
The other issue is that infrastructure costs big bucks.
- Think interstate haulage, inter-country haulage.
- Wifi uses shared spectrum and just won't scale to the size we need for the most common applications these days. You see this in local free nets now & even in over-subscribed public networks.
- Additionally security requires additional bandwidth and compute. The compute is inexpensive these days, but the article is suggesting lower bandwidth infrastructure: there's going to be a collision of requirements.
The last line of the article shows the depth of ignorance: 56K modems require serious telco infrastructure to terminate the calls: a 56K modem essentially can't be used by hackers unless they terminate to a telco. the best non-telco analogue speed you can expect is 33K.
by the people... so on.. cease fire stand down,, never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to one another, our surroundings & the notion of creation as opposed to destruction... good sports with good spirits prevail.. tears in the sky until the moms can finally stop crying all the time.. thanks
That one provided more government control than the existing Internet, so I stood against it and even paid out of my own pocket in 1999 to testify before a Congressional committee against it.
Now, we don't even have fast access for even many urban areas for the old Internet even after twenty+ years. I still have dial-up at home here in Seattle. The city government gave Comcast a monopoly over most of the city so they have no incentive to add new customers since no one else can complete. The state gave CenturyLink a phone monopoly, and they still don't offer DSL to the entire city. They advertise "up to 1.5 Mbps" for my area, but they can't even get that to work.
DECnet lost out to IP. It should be reconsidered. The network was fairly easily expanded indefinitely where addresses were only bounded by specific specs for the implementation phases. The routing as to first of 1024 addresses where the next 1024 addresses under one of the first 1024, etc. Each node learned some basic weights to give its interfaces based on dynamic results of traffic passing. Could be improved over the last Phase V DECnet spec, based on modern knowledge. The architecture was not limited to address space. Any node could have 1024 sub-nodes to extend it. So no dynamic IP allocation issues. Then redo all the protocols used considering modern processors are very very fast and that human readable traffic is not required. So encrypt everything with very strong encryption. Make everything traceable to its source. If you have the keys. Lots of ways to revamp the Internet with an eye to the future. And instead of tunneling DECnet under IP, have an IP tunnel under DECnet. Or UNnet if you want to be politically correct. Done correctly I can have worldwide satellite offices and netboot a machine in Sweden from a server in Switzerland and do it in a secure encrypted manner. Can't spoof email if it is always signed and can be verified ... Can't spoof domain resolution if everything is verified and secure. Redoing the Internet? Make it secure from the start.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
I have instant access to the world's people and knowledge. But there are ads and Netflix might have to write a check to Comcast (or something equally dire).
So yeah, let's scrap it in favor of a bunch of stuff that's barely more than an idea.
Otherwise you'll have Esperanto, IBM Microchannel, Modula 2 programming language. Oh's that's nice.
Internet is too big to fail...
ATT, Comcast, etc. will all say they won't be able to deliver excellent customer service when they lose the ability to bully people
NSA will say real Internet privacy is a threat to national security
Haters will say this hurts their ability to loudly and obnoxiously express their first amendment rights to people who want to be left alone
Religious fanatics will say God created the Internet the way it was supposed to be and we are sinners for messing with it
Ok let's do this. Whose stock should I buy? What? Don't tell me it was just academic
and work from there.
What a stupid fucking idiot question for a tech publisher.
"Should we toss out a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure?"
But will it sell a Cory Doctorow book? Surely a trillion dollars could be thrown aside for the greater, common interest by having a Cory Dotorow plotline come to fruition? I hope Cory has more great ideas.
"Should we get rid of the atmosphere? Huh guys? Cory Doctorow's latest book describes a planet with no atmosphere. What do you think? Pretty neat, huh?"
ISP's will want to change per device like cable boxes
.
Unless the on-ramp problem is solved, everything else is little more than mental masturbation.
Basic utilities like electricity, water, sewer, and Internet, are things that every home needs to have access to, and therefore these things are prime candidates for sensible nationalization. I think it's safe to say that the paradigm of "regulated" utilities managed for profit has proved to be an utter failure.
... that if we do the MPAA, telecoms, ISPs, and media companies will be sending out their lobbyists to make sure they own 100% of before the bill is even finished. Also the NSA and CIA will want backdoors and own all the private keys.
Russia and China will make their own internet where they will be owned by their own special dirty interest groups and government agency.
Yeah great job. As crappy as what we have now at least DNS with ICAAN and much of what we have is somewhat decentralized even if the it reaks of American rule for many international readers.
The problem is not evil ISPs. It is EVIL LOBBYING by ALL governments and special interests that is the root of the problem. The USA is a bad 1st world country where it's citizens vote on evolution, abortition, in over representated districts in rural areas to help Republican votes count more and feels giving money == free speech. Go try that with a judge folks and say your honor here is free speech and hand him $100 and see how long you get before being thrown in prison!
Yet when a company does it it is their GOD GIVEN right.
Still compared to Russia, China, and India the US is still a God send but even the EU is a little dirty.
http://saveie6.com/
The first building blocks on today's internet were put in place by very few in academia who built the equipment and setup an initial fairly simple point to point connection.
;)
Over time more very basic protocols and capabilities and academic users were added.
And then it was let loose, to the creativity, innovation of many and the chaotic growth happened which led to today's Internet and the Web.
There is no chance the powers that be and the corporations could ever design a replacement. The complexity and demands from stake holders could never lead to a successful project.
Just my 2 cents
the two are fundamentally incompatible. Privacy only matters when powerful organizations (basically government & mega corps) are abusing it. Accountability requires consequences that are enforced. Meaning no anonymity since if you're anonymous punishment can't be enforced.
Sorry O'Reilly, but there are no simple answers to the complex problems caused by global telecom network open to all commers. It's either going to be a hodge podge of solutions tailored to solve specific problems, a broken chaotic mess or locked down by the ruling class. I'm for the first option.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Instead of your imaginary "packets too fast" message let's consider the "packets too big" message which actually exists in both IPv4 and IPv6.
Now http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_ICMPv6PacketTooBigMessages.htm that has a few fundamental flaws in IPv4 of which one was fixed by IPv6 and one was not. The flaw which was not fixed in IPv6 is the same flaw your proposal would have -- too damn many routers out there block ALL network discovery-related traffic including all ICMP messages because organizations are scared that outsiders may learn about internal network structure.
You cannot propose a defense against attackers which depends on people being well behaved.
There are definitely smart people out there who are thinking about it. I know about some efforts to do it within some very limited but highly critical domains. (Think critical infrastructure, like electric power transmission and similar.)
Of course you'll never replace the incumbent commercial Internet. You won't boil the ocean either. But in the limited domains I'm talking about, the total number of really essential endpoints can be like 1e4 or even less. Compare to the Internet at whatever it is, probably nearly 1e10 by now. It's not crazy to think about replacing the networking.
Why do it? Simple: security. What aspect of security is most critical? Accountability. Until you can receive highly trustworthy remote control signals and telemetry data from, say, grid partners, you really can't say anything with high confidence about how the grid is being managed, or even about the integrity of your assets and processes.
So what's needed? Here's a few things: 1) A new networking stack. The IP suite, as astoundingly successful as it has been, is hopeless broken for industrial security. Too many holes, too much surface. 2) A new OS (!). The networking stack is too deeply interwoven with existing kernels. The new OS will be some flavor of Linux, but with the networking broken out somehow. 3) New protocols for establishing accountability. This one is pretty fuzzy at the moment, but a core requirement. 4) New apps, or at least rewritten ones. Remember, we're not talking about a billion endpoints. This will take years but it's at least conceivably possible. 5) Fighting the brutal, determined, and hyper-funded attacks of incumbent tech and automation vendors. This is the tough one, but remember the old saying: "First they laugh..."
Yes I know that critical infrastructure is shot through with automation systems built on way-back, unpatched Windows versions. That's not changing within the capital replacement cycle, which can be 40-60 years! But that doesn't mean that gateway networking devices can't be replaced in front of the automation networking.
I'm wearing my asbestos underwear, so flame away. All I can say is: keep an open mind and stay tuned.
All I want to know is.. with this new internet, how will porn be affected, and what will happen to keyboard cat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ
But how would I crowdfund that?
Trump approves. APK Hosts File Engine is the best tool available for making the internet great again. I can only hope our dear leader can give him a cabinet position for cyber security so all great Americans can be great again.
Open any O'Reilly book to any page, and you will see editing and writing errors.
proposing building a replacement for the Internet from wifi devices shows that they don't understand networking, or radios, or how bandwidth works (for both wired and wireless devices)
you are not going to replace wired devices with wireless devices, it's a nice dream, but wires will always support more users and more reliable access.
And then there's the problem that building a new network without having access to the existing Internet is going to mean that you aren't going to be able to reach the things that you want to reach. If such a network had enough backing, you may get facebook, youtube, netflix, and a few other big names on it. But they are the ones who most want to control you. You will not get the millions of tiny websites that have the most useful content to go to the hassle of setting up connections to another network.
Look how poorly the "IPv6 transition" is going, (once you get away from the big names), that's trivial compared to what would be needed for a replacement Internet.
This isn't going to stop people from trying though. There is the "Internet2" project connecting schools, and there are no end of projects trying to create mesh networks that automatically connect and adapt to devices appearing and disappearing. None of them can handle any noticeable load before they start collapsing. There are solid physics reasons for this. It's not just a lack of software or the evil vendors preventing this from working.
David Lang
Seems everyone wants internet for free or some really low cost, so who is going to finance a whole new internet? Who is going to manage it?
I've considered this problem and the baggage it entails and come to the conclusion that stationary terrestrial networks are entirely too easy for an entity (e.g. government) to simply shut down or fundamentally break. Therefore, the remaining solution is to use a large number of LEO satellites. In order to satisfy the bandwidth and power requirements, I think a network of tiny satellites with superconductive ICs doing routing are the solution. Instead of IP addresses, you would have a UUID and geographic coordinates. It's not 100% anonymous and you would want to encrypt your connection to prevent hijacking and spying. It would be exceedingly difficult to be (legally) coerced into modifying the network, especially if you don't physically operate within the nation making the demands.
In order to fund such a network, you could charge money for special transponders that exceed an arbitrary upload rate limit but doing so exposes a company to legal manipulation. If you're just wicked rich, you could just not bother with making money off it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
...to complex social problems will never work. The internet it the way it is because nobody's applying reasonable restraints on the big IT companies. Political solutions are more likely to be effective but that's where the big IT companies are spending their money to make sure that never happens.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
What government is going to allow it to travel through their territory without meddling?
Not the US, Not most of Europe, Not Russia (Which just passed a bill essentially outlawing Tor/I2P), not East Asia, Not most of Oceania, not at least half of Africa (those stories that definitely governments against it). The only possible place MIGHT be some parts of South America (Anyone in the know, know? I am pretty sure Venezuela is against it, don't know if Brazil is..)
The 'surveillance state' is not limited by national borders, it is a globalist movement pretending it is intended to help the populace while really working towards quashing dissenters, both domestically and internationally.
The only two ways I have determined this would be done, without lots of 'weak links' risking their freedom or their lives to help support the network, is via satellite links, or via 3000ft+ radio towers on barges anchored in the high seas with directional antennas/dishes providing access to 'line of sight' rebels near enough to sea borders to gain a connection, and either similiar units providing backhaul through the high seas, or hundreds of smaller towers relaying only a few dozen to hundred miles each scattered through the ocean within transmission distance of at least 3 others, so no single navy could knock out the whole region's network at once. Besides being costly and a logistical nightmare, the sheer manpower to put this project together would be difficult.
As the mesh networking push in the US, Germany and other 'norminally free' countries should indicate: pulling this off without running afoul of the law or government pressure against you will be difficult, and the alternatives are both costly and requiring of full time staff and resources on the level of a nation state or large corporation. Both of whole are who these plans are trying to circumvent.
Privacy and accountability are mutually exclusive ideals. Finding a happy medium between them can only be done through patterns of use. You can't build one into the network without destroying the other.
No.
Check out Guifie . It's a free, open and neutral network where the nodes are contributed by individuals, and companies. It's been running since 2004 and has over 33,000 nodes with another 16,000 planned. It's still mostly a local regional project. But still a damn cool socio-economic experiment.
We'll only get part of it if point to point quantum links ever became a thing.
The only other way to decentralize the grid is to decentralize the grid. Make sure houses and neighborhoods have their own star networks and can survive mutually if the backbone is severed.
Isn't PiedPiper already doing this?
The Internet is almost perfect. Restoring the Internet to a network of PEERS would make it perfect. Currently most credible path forward is continued deployment of IPv6.
Remainder of authors concerns can be fully addressed by a robust implementation of RFC3514.
Half of the trouble we face today with the internet doesn't require a new *physical* network. We need instead to prefer standard protocols, and stop centralizing information with big companies. That means run your email address from your own domain instead of using gmail for everything. Don't use Facebook to login to everything. Share pictures with friends over email. Put your public thoughts on your own blog instead of tweeting them. If people are interested in following you, they will use your RSS or Atom feed.
Everything these big companies are doing to mine your data and overwhelm you with useless information are inferior (but more convenient!) replacements for the standard decentralized protocols we already had.
Unfortunately, having a few monopolies control the wires is the cheapest most efficient way to build a network. Mesh networks are just not enough to span planet earth. We are only going to address the neutrality issue with appropriate regulation. As-is, the regulation stifles competition rather than promoting it.
You sound like the kind of person that nobody at the office likes.
& ransomware. That's where most of it's non-trivial value comes from. It's difficult to trace (impossible if you are careful not to link your name to your wallet) hence the popularity. Take away that anonymity and the value crashes.
Also if censorship could solve the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's very difficult to censor people when you don't know who they are, where they're coming from, etc. They can just throw bots at you until you break. And that's before we talk about plain 'ole hackers breaking into systems and doing nefarious things.
Finally I think you're getting at viruses at the end of your post (Microsoft makes OS software, not networking hardware, so I can't imagine you mean anything else). Most viruses are people double clicking on things carelessly.
Again, the problems we're trying to solve are complex. They'll require complex solutions. Making your own internet with ( Blackjack and Hookers ) isn't the answer. It's too simplistic.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ascribes the actions of the people using the internet to the internet itself
Is it time to build a new community that better understands why those questions aren't likely to have available answers, and why we can't achieve ideals without awareness of function?
it won't have the throughput necessary to facilitate the current needs of internet users.
Oh yeah? Well I don't work in an office, because I don't have a job, smartass.
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
1. CompuServers
2. AOnline
That sounds about right.
"If you want a perfect society, you need perfect people."
- Shirow Masamune, Appleseed
I don't think the internet's design should have to be unnecessarily complicated just because an amoral minority will use it to get what they want while stomping on everyone else's usage. But I'm a SubGenius, so by any reasonable standards I'm considered insane.
We already know that we need something different. And we've learned a lot from IPv4, but we IPv6 is *not* a new *architecture*, it's fundamentally the same with tweaks to things like the size of addresses. The National Science Foundation made some large grants some years back to encourage the exploration of new architectures -- one of the promising ones was Content Centric Networking, an idea promoted by Van Jacobson (a name that should be familiar to anyone who knows anything about networking). It's continuing under the auspices of the Named Data Networking project, and CICN on fd.io. The original papers on CCNx make interesting reading... check them out.
Do. Not. Want.
That reminds me of the underground Internet in Cuba called "StreetNet".
Vox: Castro hates the internet, so Cubans created their own.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
because such local internet schemes have been tried and maybe some are still running.
people prefer the real internet though.
ALL "MESH" NETWORK TRIALS, DREAMS AND HOPES have failed though. I mean such a scheme kind of works to a limited size to distribute warez within a city but that;s about it.
furthermore.. uhh.. that would be moving back like 15 years in many areas where net neutrality has improved. russia for example had for a long time schemes where transfer within the city were free but outside internet access cost more. our university had such a system too(transfer limits on outside access, so we ran an extremely WASTEful inner sharing network. they busted the dc one so eh, the result was just 90% of inside bandwidth being used by a decentralized system..).
and were the internet to cease function for whatever reason, such local networks would pop in mere weeks because the hardware is there. why would you want though if you have the choice to use the real internet?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What a stupid idea; why not eliminate house addresses too, and at night you just sleep anywhere because you don't know which house is yours, and why not smear everybody's data across the entire internet and store everything everywhere at once.
"I don't have your data here. It's in Bill's house, and Fred's house."
"Hey, what the hell you doing with my data in your house, Fred?"
Content Centric Networking, you say. More like Celebrity Centric Networking, and you're enamoured with Van Jacobson because you think some of his fame will rub off onto you when you drop his name. You don't care how incredibly stupid his ideas are. He's famous so he must be right, right?
Bitcoin was supposed to be anonymous and look at the unmaskings. Look at the thefts. Same with ToR. Whatever tech a new internet will be built on doesn't exist yet.
Hush, the psych majors are getting excellent data from this.
Break up the last mile monopolies and oligopolies into transmission and routing companies. Comcast Coax and AT&T twisted pair only carry layer 2 traffic terminated at a CO or somewhere. Transmission Comcast and AT&T charge ISPs to co-locate or they could build out those facilities to go somewhere else. Layer 3 Comcast and AT&T companies would have to compete with all the startups. Where is Judge Greene when you need him?
The Federated Wiki(s) is a piece of shit. Ward Cunningham lost his marbles in it and with it. It's a fractured copy of fractures.
A user run network, based on wifi links.
http://guifi.net/
33.500 nodes so far, and growing.
I don't think we need a tosser like Cory Doctorow deciding what that is.
You were on the right track with "privacy" and "security".
Then you lost it at "reasonable controls on behavior".
Why? Because "reasonable" is an entirely arbitrary value that's different for everyone. See "reasonable gun control laws".
So what YOU might find "reasonable", others might find oppressive.
And who's to say that abuse of the "reasonable behavior" systems couldn't be used to deprive someone of innocent of equal access/footing?
And I'm sorry, but trying to rely on something "built by hackers" on top of "open wifi access points" is idiotic.
This is TOR, and it's already a shitty alternative that's totally compromised.
The type of network being talked about pretty much needs to be a ground-up implementation.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You been in a coma for a decade?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Respect" = such a vague word, could mean very little, or very much. An potentially abusive placeholder word, with no inherent meaning.
"Secure" = such a vague word, could mean very little, or very much. An potentially abusive placeholder word, with no inherent meaning.
"Behaviour" = such a vague word, could mean very little, or very much. An potentially abusive placeholder word, with no inherent meaning.
'Behaviour' would be the UK spelling variant of the word 'behavior.'
If you can't build and rely on security and have functional rules and laws for actors, this idea of "respect" isn't worth shit.
If you can't have privacy built on security and laws, none are worth shit. But you would still need privacy and security.
"a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior"
Well, this sounds to me to be double speak for 'power', not at all the idea of having control which was alluded to in the quotation above. As if wanting to have a policeman walking around, but without laws nor any police department.
If the motivation itself for having a design of all things internet is to have meaning, then you will want the infrastructure to be robust and secure, so as to have its functionality not become broken, nor allow the security aspect to be undermined by any politics at all. This would having entail having net neutrality as a literal guarantee of unbiased operation, but also requiring operators that are independent and thus not being subject to be pressure fir being controlled or subverted.
A militarized internet is not worth shit, because you can't trust it.
A police state like internet like today, where everyone is a suspect, is a militarized internet, and thus not worth shit, because the police state don't trust you.
[sarcasm] Cue a fascist managed internet. "Do as we say!", "You are with us or you are against us!"[/sarcasm]
Living on this planet in my own country which I consider to be a terrorist organization, have my life having no future, because there is no way for me to trust society when it is run that horribly as I would claim it is being run.
This applies.
https://xkcd.com/927/
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior.
That would give too much of an opening for SOCJUS purges due to redefining "reasonable".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The unfortunate problem is that any kind of uncontrolled Internet 2.0 is essentially the difference between logging roads and highways.
We all paid for the highways, but wear is subject to taxes and greed of politicians. Then you have things like speed limits and vehicle weights limiting things further. Where as the proposed system is basically peer to peer logging roads where there are no signs, no speed limits, and no maintenance. Wash out one day? Too bad for you.
What would metaphorically solve all the problems is for there to be a untouchable storage system, located on the moon or some Lagrange point satellite or space station where it is not only beyond the touch of law, but beyond the touch of criminals and censorship. Everyone can use it, but nobody can erase content from it without the private key.
They don't need a better mouse trap.
But both have pitfalls surrounding hop count, neither allows 'authenticated' node routing (basically source based routing hints so at least one hop a packet takes will be through a 'trusted' node , hopefully reducing the effect a sybil attack would have on deanonymizing your traffic (since the trusted node could delay/rewrap traffic being sent through it.)
HOWEVER, none of this matters if the processors in the majority of nodes are compromised, like they should be assumed to be today. If adversaries potentially have backdoors into the memory of your system, like Intel ME and the TrustZone/PSP implementations, then encryption is irrevelant since someone could come in and steal the keys. And to anyone who says that 'hardware memory page encryption' takes care of that: Not if the management engine is considered more privileged than the CPU and is considered 'trusted/supervisor' access level to the per-cpu or per-process keyring. That memory stuff might help in other circumstances, but it does NOT provide the sort of trustworthy security that it is being marketed as, just like DRM never provided user-beneficial security features like IT was marketed as.
Before you can 'take back' the network, you need to 'take back' the hardware, otherwise you are building your transportation network on wet silt, and when the next rain comes through (political unrest or government overreach) you will find the basis of your security and anonymity washed away by it!
Unlike the times when we started with just an internet, having the new internet doesn't mean the internet's going to go away. Difference this time is that all the smartTVs, Smart Cities surveillance, smart meters, smart home assistance junk devices, modern vehicles (such as Telsla sending questionable invasive call-home data), **STILL** would connect to the current internet infrastructure without any means of disabling them.
There are no off-switches and no regulations to stop this garbage with the government actually welcoming all this.
As soon as you connect your computer to the new internet, your computer could still have a means of connecting to the old network behind the scenes (due to Intel management engine, that has your wifi credentials from your OS settings) and immediately removes your anonymity.
Still need a lot of work to get your privacy back, but a new internet would be a start...
The existing internet is more than perfect enough. The problem lies with surveillance from major corporations which I don't consider as a problem, considering the fact that there are so many idiotic people in this world looking to harm the innocent people. Its the need to stop such idiotic acts from taking place again like the 9/11 and recent isis attacks.
It's not the Internet that's the problem, but people who have no idea what it is and how it works.
TL;DR: Take a moment to understand what it is, and realise we already have what we want.
I'm very interested in a potential new internet.
But these things are contradictory:
- respect privacy
- impose reasonable controls on behavior
- few barriers to entry (net neutrality)
'resonable' is in the eye of the beholder, so you need a central authority to make that happen.
I think we'd be better of if people grow up and learn to take or ignore criticism.
Bullies always find a way to manipulate the central authority.
I don't know about net neutrality, the biggest problem with it is if you get a government to step in.
So far the internet has been run on profit pretty well and there's no real net neutrality.
Companies like Google place servers in ISP data centers to speed up their websites.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
We are ready had an Internet we wanted, until money grabbing companies started the spam business, the Ads business, Viral writers, Script Kiddies and the general uneducated public who things it's ok to be spiteful and nasty via the anonymity of a keyboard all arrived
Have you been sleeping under a log?
The entire brilliant new thing about deep learning is that you can build an entire machine translation system from fucking randomized matrices, all the way up, where no-one got to decide anything.
Hand-crafted rule-based systems present thousands of opportunities for power-mad silverbacks to dicker to their own advantage (see Swamp, The).
But with deep learning, you bootstrap the system with massive artefacts extracted from the real world (the training corpus) and even if you wanted to dicker with the artefact, we've got barely the first clue about how to tilt the artefact—bear in mind that it's very, very big, with a low center of gravity—so that the machine learning algorithms respond in a desired, predictable, stable way (that isn't entirely upended by the next trivial dicker).
Wake up and smell the bacon. Gradient is out there, and mankind no longer sits at the top of a micro-manageable food chain.
This has always been true in small corners of human affairs. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who invented the calculus. For the most part, the calculus is a Platonic good.
Networks can lie across a fairly wide swath of the Platonic–political spectrum.
We kind of lucked out with the Internet. ARPANET desired a certain form of resistant against politics (i.e. the backbone coup) that aligned with the individual's preference against being controlled (they didn't foresee, I don't think, how soon social media would become a larger stakeholder than the Pentagon, or more of the ribbon-breasted control freaks would have popped out of the ARPA-oversight woodwork).
If our explicit goal is to tilt way over to the Platonic side, it's not like we have a huge number of dials to bicker about, anyway.
Resource management requires some kind of accounting system which identifies endpoints (bandwidth is neither infinite nor free when push comes to shove). I don't know whether our anonymous micro-currencies are up to the job yet, at such enormous scale.
How does one respond to a DOS attack on a fully onion-routed fabric? Sounds like a tough problem. If it's not onion-routed, there's clearly a small privacy leak that could be exploited by nation-state agencies.
Real problems.
If this ends up becoming a voluntary network (you can join your node if you want to), then like all good libertarian systems, the primary vote is conducted by the pitter-patter of many feet.
In such a world, when the technical committee gathers together, they are going to look around the table to see whether the assembled group has the competence and credibility to prevail in a vote of the feet—because otherwise they're just squandering their time and reputation to get involved in the first place.
So there's you final answer. At the outside boundary condition, we all decide.
Internal to this, Newton will either decide to work alongside Leibniz (good idea if he wishes to succeed) or not. So, yeah, if your amygdala is so inclined, there will likely be a spot of Alpha Geek Mean Girls during the voyage, that you can happily point to forever after as responsible for any lingering imperfections of Internet 2.0.
That's the ultimate in couch-compatible issue trackers: 999 valuable reforms all blocking on "solve human nature". Congratulations, you are now the proud owner of a labyrinthine saddle point that stretches as far as the eye can see in 200 fucking dimensions.
If it weren't for the giant "who decides" monolith erected at consensus centroid of Saddleplane Peak Perplexity, no two people wandering alone in that vast undulating outback would ever meet up to exchange bile.
Well, sure nice to see a human face every so often. Best of luck to you. Me, I'm heading thataway ...
"It's high time to build the internet that we wanted all along: a network designed to respect privacy, a network designed to be secure, and a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior."
There's nothing wrong with the Internet that needs fixing. And if you want privacy then use end-to-end encryption instead of relying on Facebook/Google/Microsoft to keep all your data safe in the cloud. And just who exactly is going to impose controls on behavior?
Of case No, as always.
A new internet, without data mining and advertising.
The wild and free internet we knew and loved was the product not only of technology but of a lucky technological, sociological and legal framework that we will never see again, ever. We not only had the tech, but neither corporations nor governments were prepared to deal with the new phenomenon. They took a long time to react and a longer time to make up their minds. I remember the attempts of the mainstream media to demonize the net and attack the "online community" every way they could with growing hysteria, as soon as they saw their authority and power undermined. We smiled. We thought we won. But power is power, and it struck back inch by inch, reclaiming all of its territory and some. Within 20 years the revolution was squashed and the net brought to heel, turned from the last great hope for freedom into the most powerful and invasive tool for oppression ever. We will never take them by surprise again. They have laws in place and the determination to enforce them. It's over. Any attempt to build a new network outside their influence will be crushed.
we're all about diversity these days, we need just as many village idiots as we have sages
Never going to happen.
There will always be someone willing to sell your data.
Law enforcement will always require the ability to trace you.
Big brother is watching and he likes what he sees
the world for the taking when he's ready to squeeze.
Human systems are intriguing. Every group system ever devised by man has always been made to work in ways it wasn't intended to be used by the actors in the system. Every creator of such a system always starts out with a vision. They put constraints and controls in place to attempt to force the system to work the way they envisioned and do these systems ever ultimately look like what the creator envisioned? NEVER. NOT ONCE. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Humans have a very odd desire to want to feel in control of things that they are not in control of and never will be in control of. There are those of us that got over this years ago and there are those of us still attempting to control that which cannot be controlled. To quote Wesley Snipes in Blade: "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill."
We'll make great pets
I think we can all agree that most of what we use today is historically grown and more than just a little messy/haphazard. I don't know if we need to rebuild the entire internet - TCP/IP seems to be doing fine AFAICT - but a larger portion of its key services need a redo IMHO.
- DNS needs a redo, that's for sure. Whom am I paying 2 Euros a month just for an entry anyway? Namecoin uses the blockchain for naming, and that is the way to go. A state-of-the-art DNS replacement would use that and some central registration authority where you can get a batch of tokens to register/claim the domains of your choosing and be done with it once and for all.
- E-Mail. Well, being just about the oldest service ever and still in existance. It shows at every corner. Replacement desperately needed. Default built-in hard crypto signing, enveloping, all on top of a new DNS (see above). That would make spam go away in an instant and finally make E-Mail private. Add in referer prohibition, proper threading, echo-pooling and standardized non-prorpietary attachments and rendering standards and add everything else that Usenet offers that might be useful and Facebook would finally be obsolete. Facebook only exists because E-Mail is shite and FB actually is a better version of E-Mail for most people. I can't really blame them.
- Web needs a redo. True thing. The Web has outgrown HTML roughly 20 years ago. HTML / CSS today are just about unmanagable and have grown into humongous monsters and still fall short in building a neat current-day Web experience. Well-built Flash apps from 1999 still outpace and outperform websites from today - this is a problem, as it causes significant bloat in the HTML/CSS/JS department with no real performance gains. To the contrary, sites continue to bloat and ever increase in demand with no real improvement for the user. Not good.
- Offline. We need a net that takes offline into account more. This is IMHO the internets biggest downfall alltogether. Fidonet and the likes had and still have the advantage here. It would have to be something on top of TCP/IP but below the application protocols and services, AFAICT. But it's desperately needed. Especially with todays webpages clocking in at above 2MB in size on average. Insane. This allways-online thing was crazy back then and it still is today. Bandwidth is scarce and nobody needs to be online all the time. Why don't we have services that take this into account? Ok, we have (had) Usenet and E-Mail, but Web? Not really. A web replacement should take offline into account right from the get-go.
My 2 eurocents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
There's something like this, decentralized, but still using the current protocols running in Spain called guifi.net, it's a mesh network of wireless links between Access Points with about 32k nodes currently.
A presidential speech just before launching a 4th of July assult against the aliens hovering above evey major city.
Does this moron not understand true backbone internet connectivity? Or will wifi somehow handle the problem?
Mod the AC's insight up, folks.
I've been dealing with a bit of this lately, with people who have discovered just enough about networking to make fools out of themselves. Had a self appointed expert pull one of these mesh network idiocies at a meeting, and pronounce it as the replacement for everything on the intertoobz. Got pretty belligerent about it as well, when presented with the truth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your ads are dangerous. Why you may ask? Because you're worse than a regular advertising company! You keep a dossier on people, tracking all their posts, trying to find out their Internet history and keep records, you've been known since the 90s on the Internet as someone who contacts people's ISPs if you have sufficient details, you contact their web hosting providers, people's companies where they work to make a scene because they dared to disagree with you on the Internet.
You ironically are the antithesis of safety online, you harass, provoke, stalk and it often starts with one of your advertisements. You have people tell you to go away and leave them alone, but you continue to pursue them, make legal threats etc. until you are satisfied. You are one of he few advertisers out there that I can actually point at and show that you are using information gathered against other people!
In summary, the most dangerous advertisements people need to be weary of is yours, APK. Your adblocking solution does nothing to stop them either.
You only have it because the only things you do on the internet is spam slash dot and visit moose cock websites.
Privacy.
Security.
Behavior control.
Pick two.
From this article just learned about the BEAKER project Simply loVe it!!!!!!! Can't wait to get home so I can start playing with this awesome technology. I agree it is time to take back the internet from Facebook, Ibm, twitter verizon, at&t , Comcast and others that would shackle us all.
Pick one, I lean toward the first myself. An accountable internet would be useful to a few thousand governments and corporations which pretend to represent the interests of billions. An anonymous internet would actually be in the interest of billions of people, including the idiots foolish enough to drink the koolaid of those governments and corporations.
Skynet
OK...
/. posts and attribute mine to me would be the equivalent of a massively extended brute force crack... This works for individual web sites, but maybe not for access sessions.
I think this is a topic that we can deconstruct and conclude that the answer is "it depends". Suppose that I want the ability to write posts to slashdot anonymously. However, slashdot need to have the ability to call me out if I post something that is defamatory or illegal [in the UK certain statements can be construed to incite religious hatred, which is now illegal, for example].
So what this needs is a mechanism by which I can post to slashdot, but that when I do, my "identity" is different every single time. If we can design a mechanism by which it is impossible for slashdot [or any other site] to aggregate all of my actions over time and attribute them to me, but can take a single action of mine and attribute it] then we are close to our goals.
If we define the problem in this way, then perhaps we are moving towards something that works a bit like a cryptographic one-time-pad. For any single instance [of me posting something to slashdot] you have the ability to perform a computationally complex action that can be used to determine that I was the originator, but the only way to aggregate all
To safely anonymise access sessions, we would need some form of abstraction integrated directly with the routing protocol, again such that it might be possible to deconstruct a single "session" [or maybe even trace a single given packet would be better] but not have the ability to do more than that because the protocol itself imposes a degree of abstraction and chaos.
The more I tihnk aobut it, the more I tihnk we could do it [basically scale TOR to work for the entire net, with refinements. Unfortunately, I think that legislation would be passed that would outlaw it before it could be finished...
I've been doing networking for 29 years, and it is not unusual to experience people without a clue talking about how to do this or that in a manner that exposed their cluelessness to knowledgeable individuals, but sounded insightful to others. I've noticed that this behavior is more general; people seem to assume that what they only know from the outside must be easy, while what they know in more detail (especially if it's their vocation) is hard. As a consultant, I learned to listen to their ideas, pull out the nuggets of their needs, and (if necessary) educate them on aspects that were not as easy as they thought. I did not act in as disciplined a manner all the time.
Assuming that the technical challenges could be overcome, this isn't a technical problem. It's a social one. And that social issue will simply carry over to the new network. For those old enough to remember, the internet wasn't always like this. It was pretty darn good.
But then it became commercialized, and an expoitable resource.
And then everyone and their goldfish could access the internet, resulting in every douche-nozzle having an easy and low cost venue to causing mischief.
What we have right now is an internet where the commercial interests control the pipes, and the network itself is more or less anarchy. Net neutrality laws can help with the former, until the gov't becomes a toady to those same commercial interests (like exactly what has happened in the US), but there is nothing that we can do about the latter because people will *always* come up with a way to get around anything the 'good guys' come up with. The only way to fix it would be to impose a draconian sense of order that would make China rubs their hands with glee.
Look everyone it is retard APK posting his retardedness multiple times for all to see how much of a retard he is.
Go on APK show everyone how much of a retard you are with you next post.
Is it hard being so mentally retarded that you make a jar of mayonnaise look smart?
Look, I realize some of you aren't on Internet 3, and don't have access to basic 40 Gbps ports campus-wide, or 100 Gbps ports at specific locations, but we left you behind.
You were too annoying, to be quite frank.
And no matter how much you knock, we're not at home, and you're not coming in.
To those of you in the First World, you know how good it is.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Not to sound too much like a grammar geek; but if the new Internet connects and bidirectionally inter-operates with the old Internet, then it becomes part of the old Internet. I understand that they are perhaps simply referring to an new protocol stack, but calling that a "new Internet" is kind of misleading. Unless, of course, then don't plan on inter-operating with the old one. In that case, the project is probably doomed as they are many decades behind of collecting content and function.
Seems like the new technologies are crafted with some little add-on tweak to benefit the creator/early adopter, which inevitable breaks the new technology. If creators weren't so damn greedy, build something where no one person/group gets an advantage, might actually work.
If only so creimer can continue making $20k/year because he spent all him time studying the current internets where he only makes $20k/year.
What happened to, or what is the status of, Internet2? That high speed network available to just universities & research institutions?
About the long hauls, can't the physical infrasturcture simply be reused, w/ the control logic at the various termination points being modified as needed? IPv6 seems to be a good starting point, although I'd change it to make the internet more hierarchic, so that routing becomes more logical rather than a lookup of routing tables. To achieve that, I'd make the global prefix completely routable on 64 bits, and have the lower half of the address split b/w the subnet address and the host address. Autoconfiguration would still be around, but there would be no need to keep it at 64-bits, since uniqueness is in any case not guaranteed. No subnet of any imaginable type will have anything even close to 4 billion, so having subnet sizes of >32 bits are meaningless. It also allows for more structure in subnet addressing, rather than have to buy /16 or /24 or /32 from the RIRs.
It's time for an internet that has security and auto optimization built-in. Human interaction in packet flow and traffic prioritization should be eliminated shifting our priority to actual content and hardware.
Because Internet2 is already taken. Fortunately, internet3.com is on sale.
Sorry, but you guys are too late. We have been working on Internet 3 for several years now. It's features include
MESH Network
NO DNS requirments to avoid government controls
NO DHCP requirements to avoid government controls
Full automatic P2P encryption
Complete Anonymity
No forced tracking. Its optional.
Any attempt by a corporation or government to seize control to be subject to a measured response.
Your opinion doesn't trump mine.
Why do you want a network where your ISPs that want to throttle your bandwidth and censor what you can see, and track everything you do so they can sell it for THEIR profit, and control you? Then you have the gull to talk about "reasonable privacy". Who decides what is reasonable?
If I want a truly private conversation we will go into another room completely far away and cutoff from everybody.
You liberals all want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want big corporations to be in control, but you want big corporations to be in control over your internet.
-nomsg
This time lets leave out the pr0n.
It means it's a great idea... but possibly not.
I'm not being indecisive!
Did this guy just watch the last season of Silicon Valley?
Whatever happen to Internet v2 that was announced like 20 years ago?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I've been doing networking for 29 years, and it is not unusual to experience people without a clue talking about how to do this or that in a manner that exposed their cluelessness to knowledgeable individuals, but sounded insightful to others. I've noticed that this behavior is more general; people seem to assume that what they only know from the outside must be easy, while what they know in more detail (especially if it's their vocation) is hard. As a consultant, I learned to listen to their ideas, pull out the nuggets of their needs, and (if necessary) educate them on aspects that were not as easy as they thought. I did not act in as disciplined a manner all the time.
Imagine if you would, mountainous terrain - think the Ridge and valley geology in Pennsylvania. Now imagine an emergency system consisting of a mesh network of consumer part 15 devices in an ad-hoc network to provide communications between widely separated stations. I serve as a technical advisor because I have experience in digital, networking, and RF matters. The latest tool that came in to speak to us got more and more frustrated by my questions, and eventually started yelling and calling me an idiot and that I wasn't paying attention.
I think he was dumbfounded when I asked how his system was going to connect to the internet when the internet was down...... "It's a network, stupid - that's the internet." And he seemed a little shocked when I asked about how any appreciable distance would be covered.
I let him rant for a few minutes, thanked him for his time, and afterward circulated the word to those attending....... "No".
This system he was proposing wouldn't work for so many reasons that it was difficult not to laugh.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - more coming in part #2... apk
"When the internet was down" ?
Pardon me if I ask for some clarification on what that means?
"and a network designed to impose reasonable controls on behavior".
Fuck that shit right there. Let people be free, as bad as that is, is also as good as that is.
What's "reasonable" ? and who the fuck gets to decide that? Fuck those people.
http://imgur.com/gallery/soiBX
"When the internet was down" ?
Pardon me if I ask for some clarification on what that means?
This is for communications when the wheels fall off. Widespread power outages, no cellular comms, and other parts of the infrastructure going down. Doesn't happen often, but every so often, yes, people are without internet access. Hope I didn't upset the kids too much! 8^)
But my overall point which is probably lost on people because it is hard to believe, was that this guy thought that simply setting up an ad-hoc mesh network, that the users were going to have the world wide web. No backbone connection, just a bunch of computers sitting all alone were going to have "the internet" Like they could communicate around the world on the internet at the same time they were disconnected from it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Bitcoin is not supposed to be anonymous, only decentralized. All of the data is public data. Just make a graph, connect the dots, and find out who move how much to whom.
I have a sincere question. Could WiMAX or some other radio solution carry the final mile of traffic? the reason I ask is because Level3 and other backbone carriers aren't the problem. The cable and phone companies are the problem and getting easements to use the existing terrestrial infrastructure to compete with them isn't really feasible.
Some DOES have to be done. There shouldn't be ANY discussion of competitive throttling and other nastiness at this stage in history and there is.
Every rule has more than one consequence.
Okay, but your question is poorly phrased then. "The Internet is down" implies there's no Internet to connect to, rather than your uplink connection being down.
So essentially you were asking, "how is it going to connect to the Internet without a connection to the Internet?"
It was intended to be anonymous, or at least "private."
The original Bitcoin paper describes it thus:
"The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is
similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were."
Okay, but your question is poorly phrased then. "The Internet is down" implies there's no Internet to connect to, rather than your uplink connection being down.
So essentially you were asking, "how is it going to connect to the Internet without a connection to the Internet?"
Whenever and however that is. The Internet can go down. The power liines can be out, and your trusty server will not be reachable. At that point, or in any other scenario where you have no connection, where no signal gets to you, no packets, No Wifi because it has no connectino - where the cell phone system's emergency batteries have crapped out after a few hours.
The internet is not functioning for you or anyone in your area, you have no connection nor do they, you cannot connect to the internet because it is not up and running, it is no longer sending packets of data
It is not up then, the internet is for any definition of words or combinations of words, well and truly....
Down.
This is not that difficult of a concept.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, you seem a bit confused.
The Internet is still up and running even while you aren't connected to it...traffic is still flowing between servers and clients. Routers and switches are still humming along.
It's not the Internet that's down, it's your uplink connection that's down.
I don't think that there is a silver bullet RF-based last mile solution that would remove the need to deal with the issue of cable/phone providers and whether they are classified as a utility or otherwise need government regulation to keep the "free market" from steamrolling the general population.
Whether or not RF is suitable as the last mile depends on the number of subscribers and their bandwidth expectations. Guided solutions (wire/cable/optical fiber) have far greater capacity and better reliability than RF solutions in general. Today's wireless could probably easily handle the bandwidth expectations of 15 years ago, but now we want high bandwidth streaming audio/video, low latency game playing, and other applications that go way beyond surfing the web, sending e-mail, etc.
You sir are technically correct, the best kind. But this usage of "anonymous" is about as anonymous as using private mode browsing. Everything you do is still public, which is many times all you need to figure out who is who. There is all kinds of cool graph theory and statistically analysis that can be done. An alumni did a presentation on his team's work using this kind of information to detect money laundering and to find out who was doing it. How you act can say more about who you are than who you claim to be.
This usage of anonymous also assume you don't do anything like non-private money exchanges to convert between bitcoin and "real" money or purchase goods or services in your name. Bitcoin could be anonymous but rarely is in practice. I also question how strong it is against a focused deanonymization attacks like what Freenet attempts to protect against. It's a very hard problem.
I kinda figured it was like that.... I wonder what it would cost to have Level3 piped straight to my house. ;)
Every rule has more than one consequence.
No, you seem a bit confused.
The Internet is still up and running even while you aren't connected to it...traffic is still flowing between servers and clients. Routers and switches are still humming along.
It's not the Internet that's down, it's your uplink connection that's down.
A difference with no distinction, a distinction with no difference. Way beck before you decided to take me on this pointless wordsmithing exercise, a fellow came in to speak to an emergency communications group I act as a technical advisor with about a mesh network of part 15 devices. He thought that all you had to do was create this network and you had access to the entire internet.
And eventually we got here. The nature of disasters is that they tend to come in and destroy infrastructure. Telephone lines go down, Power goes down. It doesn't go down in a neat pre-planned way either. The fact that there is internet access in the rest of the world means nothing to a person in a place with no more access for any reason. It's down.
Now if you want to argue that the internet isn't down for that person, by all means do, have your say. But at this point, you are in the same boat as the dunce who argued that putting up an ad-hoc network automatically had the world wide web as far as I'm concerned, and I'm going to respond to you as I did to him.
Thank you for your input, I'l take that under advisement. Buh-bye!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I agree with the author of blog. We need serious take care about our internet privacy. In our time many people can hack our private data and useful information. For protect my online security I use proxy and port checker service. It is free and convy.