Slashdot Mirror
Motherboard and VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network (vice.com)
In order to preserve net neutrality and the free and open internet, we must end our reliance on monopolistic corporations and build something fundamentally different: internet infrastructure that is locally owned and operated and is dedicated to serving the people who connect to it, writes Jason Koebler, editor-in-chief of Vice's Motherboard news outlet. He writes: The good news is a better internet infrastructure is possible: Small communities, nonprofits, and startup companies around the United States have built networks that rival those built by big companies. Because these networks are built to serve their communities rather than their owners, they are privacy-focused and respect net neutrality ideals. These networks are proofs-of-concept around the country that a better internet is possible. This week, Motherboard and VICE Media are committing to be part of the change we'd like to see. We will build a community network based at our Brooklyn headquarters that will provide internet connections for our neighborhood. We will also connect to the broader NYC Mesh network in order to strengthen a community network that has already decided the status quo isn't good enough. We are in the very early stages of this process and have begun considering dark fiber to light up, hardware to use, and organizations to work with, support, and learn from. To be clear and to answer a few questions I've gotten: This network will be connected to the real internet and will be backed by fiber from an internet exchange. It will not rely on a traditional ISP.
Perhaps he's wondering why somebody would troll a man, before throwing him out of an plane?
" This network will be connected to the real internet and will be backed by fiber from an internet exchange. It will not rely on a traditional ISP."
Good luck building a backbone that doesn't connect to a "traditional ISP." ISP doesn't mean Comcast only.
With Blackjack, and hookers!
#DeleteFacebook
Sounds like a whole load of PR..
"We are in the very early stages of this process and have begun considering dark fiber to light up.."
Dark fiber is now unused fiber?
It will be provided over a community run network.
Richard Hendrix already did this at Pied Piper. Old news.
They should have kept their mouths shut until they had everything ready to go and the nastiest pack of legal attack dogs money can buy hired and hungry for blood.
Ajit Pai and his masters will want to strangle this baby in its cradle.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In all of the blogs, ./ stories and articles that I've read regarding Net Neutrality, I have yet to hear anyone speak about network peering. Here's a scenario: Your ISP is BigCo-A, and the server you want to access is using BigCo-C. BigCo-A and BigCo-C are not directly connected but use BigCo-B as a common peer (to bridge the network gaps). If BigCo-A and BigCo-C decide not to throttle anything, but BigCo-B does, then all that traffic will be throttled regardless of who your ISP is or the ISP of the server host.
Motherboard and VICE are among the biggest lib-sponsored shill organizations out there. This is political grand standing and attempt to remain relevant in a post-Obama era where people are waking up faster than the left can put them back to sleep. Also, these guys ripped many of their articles and content offline as soon as others were called out for fake news... similar to Hillary's email treatment.
ISP are really entrenched, even Google with all of its unlit fiber failed to get last mile. These clowns have no chance.
So the FCC basically de-regulated broadband. So what regulation will Pai use to "strangle this baby?"
People have to remember that what the "Internet" is, is a collection of privately owned networks connected by mutual free data exchange agreement or by paid agreement. So, There is nothing stopping something like this from existing. The "Internet" will exist as long as people with their own networks want to connect to others. I wholly support this sort of thing. At the same time, there is nothing WRONG (in theory) with two private networks paying each other for access to the other. We get into trouble when the end consumer has no real choice in the marketplace to choose which company best serves their needs. Net neutrality would not be an issue if we had a REAL competitive marketplace for the consumer at the last mile. If we had THAT then I could simply choose the ISP that has the least restrictive network rules. As it is now, most people have at most 2 options and in many places just 1.
Isn't this the reason given that they repealed net neutrality, to let the market sort it out? So Pai was right?
This being Motherboard/VICE, will they truly provide unfettered access to a free and open Internet, or will they cave under pressure and block communications that their politics lead them to believe should be blocked? How will they respond when users pirate content? Share child porn? Or even just visit alt-right websites? I don't trust them, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that.
When I start to see a few small minded people believe in non-sense such as this I can only sigh. First, "net nuttering" is not going to be 1/10th as the loony left make it out to be. We didn't have it for the first 15 years of the Internet and in fact it has done nothing in the less than 2 years of existance.
Get another snort in the other nostral and go back to poking your llama.
That's nice.
But how, exactly, do these bastions of Bias-Free Internet propose to carry their customers traffic to and from each other, much less the world-at-large that everyone want to connect to?
That's right, through the backbones of those Other players. You know, the ones who are busily writing the new best-seller, "How to Throttle for Fun and Profit".
Clearly they haven't put a lot of thought to that idea.
Oh, and meshing: I have 480 freifunk nodes within less than 1km around me, yet i cannot mesh with a single one, because they are all use plastic routers with crap antennas. There are only two (!) examples of real meshing within this whole network. Meshing does not work.
It would be interesting to try community fiber, 1Gbps symmetric broadband, for a low monthly cost maybe $30-$40 per month per household.
There's all this "dark fiber" that the federal government subsidized just sitting under our streets. If communities were able to connect the last mile to all that fiber we could bypass the telecoms entirely.
You'd basically pay nothing for internet access then pay for TV and streaming services. Fuck verizon!
This Sig does not Exist.
This is Vice. This magazine is made up of the same people that shout down and silence conservative speakers and throw tantrums on college campuses. Same people, folks.
Why would I trust them to allow this type of speech on their network?
It's explained here
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Socialism" from the bottom up.
If by that you mean free market negociation then yes.... On subject: This exact thing happend years ago in our country (Eastern Eu), which led to very good connection speeds. Unfortunately the big ISPs bought the smaller networks but the net effect is that the high speeds became standard as consumers were demanding them. This is real world what happend, not some theory.
How many streaming Netflix boxes can this proposed 'mesh' or peer-to-peer Network support simultaneously?
These kids have their panties in a wad because they are afraid an ISP might choose to throttle a handful of websites, so their answer is to implement an alternative mesh/peer-to-peer Network that because of it's inherent design effectively throttles ALL traffic?
Brilliant! That will show them what's possible when the 'community' comes together.
Ken
The idea of a public, user-supported, mesh network is a great idea. Combine that with onion-routing, and you could create a lot of freedom that does not exist now. Most large metropolitan areas have population densities large enough to create their own, localized wireless mesh metro-networks. We could essentially usher in an era where the days of home-hosted boards and file-sharing like there were back in the golden days of BBS'ing. Then, a few volunteers could decide to buy Internet pipes from the local monopolies and act as "peering points" to the old, restricted Internet.
This model increases user participation in the hosting and diversity of sites/concentration points of information on the network. New services would pop up for people indexing or analyzing/providing data hosted on these metro networks, since it would be more advantageous for local users to do such collection and analysis than big conglomerates such as Google et.al. Really, this could be the game changer and anti-net-neutrality combined with expensive, restrictive choices in the local markets might just push us back to the days of enthusiast-networking and hosting once again. This would be a catalyst for bringing back the free exchange of information, and it would put large, nation-wide organizations on the ropes trying to manage such a distributed infrastructure.
Sites hosted on the mesh-network would be like the free BBSes, and sites hosted on the old, commercial-based international network would be akin to commercial BBSes. Those volunteers that do peer to the Internet of old would be like those Usenet aggregators with the satellite-dishes in their back yards back in the day. Internet peering points would restrict access by Google, etc. to the local metro networks and allow low-bandwidth, international communications such as uucp, irc, IM, low-bandwidth web, etc. Video sites would be localized and hosted locally, incentivizing local entrepreneurs to start and host their own, professional services further weakening the monopolistic hold companies like Google and Facebook have on the world's exchange of information.
It's like having a BBS with a bridge to the Internet (emails, Fidonet, ...) like we did in the 90's. :)
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
Trump's every move has shaken people away from the teat of Government, and gotten people to start once again thinking about how to allocate their own capital in profitable, innovative ways.
Trump truly is the most American President the US has had in a very long time; he really is making America great again.
The current going rate for global transit (the whole internet, unthrottled, at full speed 247, no caps) is less than $0.15 per Mbps at 10Gbps increments, when you peer at one of the network operator's points of presence. $15 a month for dedicated 100Mbps doesn't break the bank, does it? I'd recommend shunning transit providers that also operate consumer access networks.
No, not sneaking around. These guys:
https://stealth.net/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Local, and they've been putting their own fiber in the ground.
They should consider partnering, if this is more than a publicity stunt.
Disclosure: I have done business with Stealth in the past.
I live in the NYC Metro and am fairly liberal but the thought of having to use Internet via some liberal hack journalist's network is bone chilling.
Watch them twist themselves in to mental knots over "neutrality" when something like TheDailyStormer shows up on their ISP.
Will they stick to their principles and uphold neutrality or will they kick a legal but unpopular site off because it goes against their politics?
So, because there are a limited number of "wired" broadband ISPs in a community, we need to build a "wireless" ISP, ignoring all the wireless ISP that already serve the area?
Communities want prices lower than $10 per GB. From a document published by a nationwide wireless ISP describing its home Internet service: "Overage is billed at $10 for each additional 1GB." In the age of multi-gigabyte operating system updates and movie and game downloads, $10 per GB is seen as prohibitive for a household's primary information and entertainment connection.
Exactly. Personally, I would throw him out of the plane and troll him on the way down.
We've known for a while now that socialist European countries do free markets better than the late-stage capitalism in the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...GOP wants less government generally.
So to "prove those dirty Republicans wrong", 'populist' web groups create a functional substitute ... that doesn't require government to run it or police it.
Hm, I guess that'll show 'em, right?
-Styopa
So.....good luck? But, no thank you. If you succeed from the UKgb, then I'll think about it.
My big black dick. Ask your mother.
There is nothing wrong with people using their government to acquire clout in the free market. In fact, it's only way they can. They don't have the capital needed to play the way the super rich do.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think it is more like the post office charging more for mailing porn magazines then for Home & Garden.
The article is a bit clueless. Comcast and AT&T have quietly bought out the internet backbone companies that actually run the internet. With acquisitions and buy outs; the duopoly of Comcast and AT&T have acquired a majority of the ISP companies that provide connection to the internet for most of the U.S.
Now, they have won a victory in a battle that they have been playing since the mid 1990s making it lawful for an ISP to edit, throttle, and control what their customers can do on the internet.
Even if you can get the capitol to create a new small local ISP company; it is now legal for the duopoly who runs the internet backbone to muck with the ability of a new service provider to provide service. The FTC fines if they are caught are inconsequential compared to the benefits of proving only the big boys can play here.
The big telecom companies first got net neutrality put in as a regulation (1996) by being greedy when they finally got into the internet business. The repeated court challenges to net neutrality got it put into a long winded regulation in 2015. By bribing or bullshitting their way into getting the regulation of the internet tossed out; Comcast and AT&T are daring the public to push for making net neutrality a law instead of a regulation.
We have been dared. Shall we take up the dare and write our Congressional representatives? This might just be one issue that Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian can agree on; giving control of the internet in the U.S. to a corporate Duopoly.
A> Control of the majority of internet access (ISPs)
B> Between the two companies; owning all the backbone provider companies.
That sure sounds like a cartel of two having a monopoly or damned close to me.
C> Can now legally throttle connection speeds, block content, sell information on use of the internet. Will they decline to profit from those, now legal, options?
NRRPT/RCT