For the most part you are talking network. Which is needed, however the
real control comes with root server oversight. I would agree the
network needs to improve. the U.N. will not own our U.S. Internet
network. They may have some oversight which we can refuse at some time
and just add our own root servers and make a 2nd Internet within the
U.S.
On 2016-08-29 21:45, Steve Litt wrote:
> LOL, I did everything but answer your question, which was "what is the
> problem with using the existing Internet:
>
> 1) In dozens of ways, including the "UN connection", or government
> snooping or corporate snooping or other ways I haven't begun to
> think of, the Internet and/or its associated DNS system could "go
> bad".
>
> 2) The current US Internet horribly underserves a lot of rural
> communities.
>
> 3) In most US locations, connecting to the Internet is an oligopoly,
> with the attendant high prices and lower quality.
>
> It's possible (though challenging), that a network created and
> maintained by private citizens could help all three situations.
>
> SteveT
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:33:38 -0400
> Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>
>> You (Keith) mentioned the UN/DNS connection, and the non-political
>> portion of the thread flowed from possible solutions if the UN thing
>> ever came to pass. Eventually it got to mesh, or peer to peer, or
>> whatever you call it, and one person said he wished the solution's
>> communication points could span a mile. I suggested a laserbeam, and
>> somebody suggested the Ubiquity Networks equipment, and I responded
>> with it being a good idea with some big challenges.
>>
>> SteveT
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:38:44 -0700
>> Keith Smith <techlists@phpcoderusa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What is the problem with using the existing Internet?
>> >
>> >
>> > > No doubt that's fascinating. From a brief read it seems to fit the
>> > > bill quite nicely from a technological viewpoint.
>> > >
>> > > Some potential challenges remain:
>> > >
>> > > A lot of people would be willing to buy a $100 repeater for the
>> > > good of the community, but $999, probably not. Those who purchase
>> > > the $999 would probably resell, and control, etc.
>> > >
>> > > It's proprietary technology, which doesn't cross my eyes too much,
>> > > ASSUMING all proprietorisms are self-contained. What would be a
>> > > problem would be Windows-only control software, or inability to
>> > > connect via normal hardware and software connectors to a machine
>> > > of any random OS.
>> > >
>> > > Then there's the problem that if we ever got this no government,
>> > > no corporation network running, Google or Sprint or Amazon or
>> > > T-mobile or whomever could buy Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and
>> > > install backdoors, listening posts and tollgates to basically
>> > > ruin what we did and use it for their cash cow.
>> > >
>> > > None of the potential problems I stated above should detract from
>> > > investigating Ubiquiti Networks or similar equipment. It's really
>> > > got some potential.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SteveT
>> > >
>> > > Steve Litt
>> > > August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical
>> > > Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition
>> > > http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--
Keith Smith
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)