I here what you are saying. My point is that the other infrastructure
pieces create a check and a balance to the entire system. It is an
internet cold war if you will. If Country XYZ forces the UN to require a
member of ICANN to shut down access to a TLD in the US, Country XYZ and
even the UN has no authority to stop a large cloud service provider from
shutting down access to cloud infrastructure that physically sits in
Country XYZ being used by citizens and corporations of County ZYX as a
response. They have no way to stop hosting companies from dropping TLD
requests coming from certain root servers to their own nameservers or
companies simply blacklisting sites and IP ranges thereby blocking access
to millions of their own citizenry's websites and services.
Worst case if Country XYZ seizes resources of say a hosting provider from
datacenters located in Country XYZ that belong to a US corporation,
everything is encrypted, good luck getting access to it and all they have
done is removed access by there citizenry to their own stuff. There are
many many more possible examples of no-win scenarios that should give pause
to any group assuming they have a real monopoly on the system.
To be sure no one wants to live in that internet world of "mutually assure
404 responses and packet losses" And that's kind of my point. The cost is
too high for everyone.
Besides the dark web already exists it would just get bigger and go more
mainstream.
Having said all of that I believe that the biggest danger for the web is
from regulation and control from within the US. To make the system really
free would require 3 major changes:
1. Pattern the DNS system after the bitcoin model and let anyone be a root
server if they want to. The beauty of this model is that it is not
controlled by any one source government, agency, county, or company. First
one to resolve the address request gets a cut of advertising dollars.
2. DNS would need to change from a simple key:value (domain:IP Address) to
a 3 item tuple such as (domain, UUID, IP Address), now you could have
unlimited versions of the same name domain name deflating the cost of any
domain name. There are a lot of challenges to over come like getting the
correct ip address for the correct example.com but if fixed would really be
cost effective.
3. On the network side you create/sell open routers that not only allow
wifi access for you devices at home but connect to your neighbors open
router and create a public mesh propagating the net through out the
community. Again a lot of issues to resolve but potentially disruptive to
the current system and any monopolies that are taking advantage of being
the gatekeeper.
Solve these three issues and you could clone/extend and an internet network
anywhere at any time.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Keith Smith <
techlists@phpcoderusa.com>
wrote:
>
> 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
>
--
James
*Linkedin <
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-h-dugger/15/64b/74a/>*
---------------------------------------------------
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)