4 ms·
I've just spent some time browsing this article and some of the sites it links to, and I have to say that they all are doing a _terrible_ job of communicating t
by fernly 9y ago
I've just spent some time browsing this article and some of the sites it links to, and I have to say that they all are doing a _terrible_ job of communicating to both the general audience that might be supportive _users_ of a local mesh, and to the moderately technical audience that might be interested in actually helping create one.
As a knowledgeable internet consumer, I come to it with the general question, "What would such a mesh network do for me?" to which the only answer seems to be, "It gives me the fascinating task of buying a router and flashing its firmware and writing its config file, all based on sketchy jargon-filled docs."
Supposing I do that, and in the highly unlikely outcome that I don't screw it up, I will then have -- what, exactly? Besides a nonstandard router?
Supposing there existed a libremesh network in my city. Not impossible. How would I know? Could I use it to access internet content?
Another crucial question not answered is, how is a local mesh supposed in any way to be a circumvention of the traffic-shaping that we all fear the telecoms will do, now they aren't common carriers? Yeah, to the extent that a whole neighborhood is meshed up, you could have free and unfettered exchange of email and FTP among all your neighbors.
Yippee.
The content that an internet consumer really wants, and which occupies 99.9% of the bits she consumes, comes from the major sites that are out there on the backbone of the net. Ninety-nine percent of what the edge users of a mesh want to pull from their mesh connections originates far outside the neighborhood. And it has to enter the local mesh from an internet access point that is sourced by one of those big bad telecoms.
A neighborhood mesh looks like a fine way for a neighborhood to organize block parties and garage sales, but it really is just a way to share access to some ports to the same un-neutral internet everyone else uses. Except you've added a random number of local wireless hops to every ping.
- im3w1l 9y agoThanks for asking these important and under-asked questions!
- kevinqiu1 9y agoI am familiar with NYC mesh(https://nycmesh.net/faq/ https://nycmesh.net/faq/), one of the linked networks in the article, and it answers many of your questions. To answer your most salient question(about whether it provides internet connectivity) >We provide internet through peering at an internet exchange point. If you have line-of-sight to this “supernode” in downtown Manhattan you can have a fast, reliable connection with suitable hardware, and replace your ISP.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago> If you have line-of-sight to this “supernode” in downtown Manhattan Isn't the point of mesh networking that you only need line of sight to someone else on the network who has line of sight to someone else (etc) who has line of sight to the supernode?
- dogma1138 9y agoNo, mesh networks can have different tiers the primary supernode network can be fully meshed but the individual clients are not. If we take a standard network for example then all your routers can be meshed for each router the primary backbone switches can also be in another mesh but the edge switches that say connect individual users are not meshed. This would still count as a mesh network despite having 3 tiers with different fault tolerance / handling characteristics for each tier.
- foobiekr 9y agothe implication here is that the net neutrality issue is primarily the last mile ISP. I agree that comcast in particular is going to be a problem, but the assumption that the larger transit carriers will not be NN problems in and of themselves seems quite off.
- toast0 9y agoI don't honestly think transit providers (other than comcast) are going to cause NN problems. They've been doing their thing for a while and have a clear model: the more bandwidth you use, the more you pay (either usage or connection size). Every once in a while, there's a peering dispute about weather Cogent qualifies as a peer. Someone who is connected to a transit provider can likely switch to other providers (or use multiple) much easier than a residential customer. There's also an array of providers that give you virtual presence at major peering points.
- ejanus 9y agoThis is an opportunity for us to innovate and improve on the technology.
- mojomark 9y ago@fernly 100% agree. However, personally, I'm fine with a basic raw network since I can't stand most of the Facebook/Youtube/Linked in crap content anyway. I'd probably pay for legacy internet for the 20years it will likely take for content to migrate and network reliability to mature to the point where I am comfortable cutting the legacy Internet cord. Ideally, all I want is a mesh node that I can buy, plug into a power supply, then have an app (accessed via the legacy internet/mobile network) that displays a map telling me how detached I am from the bulk of other mesh users. If I have limited/no connection, I would gladly knock on commercial/residential doors between myself and the bulk network and offer to buy them a node, to "build a bridge" and improve my connection. The two challenges seem to be reliability and expansion to a global grid without relying on legacy backbones. For the former, resilience will of course improve with increased node density. For the latter I'm sure it will take a well funded, coordinated effort. I would gladly pay an annual tax to a new gov't agency - perhaps an extension of the National Park Service (1), to build and maintain a grid of mesh nodes accross the US, with connections to the legacy GIG backbones. 1.) The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. IMO, the internet is an information landscape, very much tied to our geographical landscape, that should be free and protected just like any river or mountain.