The citizens of Detroit are building their own Internet
popularmechanics.com
popularmechanics.com
The deal was that we paid for their most expensive monthly line item: the T1 circuit. We covered 100% of the T1 yet were allocated only 50% of the bandwidth, if I recall. We recruited enough co-op members to cover that fee before beginning and had a wait-list on Day One.
Our PortMaster was configured to monitor monthly bandwidth consumption per co-op member. We accommodated spikes in traffic of individual members, but if the aggregate went above some threshold, the co-op would pay more to Speakeasy. The intent here was that our overage fees would help pay for a second T1.
We also had some co-location hosts in their rack, which was around the corner from the coffee machine in those days.
Member fee schedule was proportional to type/speed of connection used and anticipated usage. Beyond that, membership was at cost.
Internally, co-op members would resolve financial details among ourselves, and we sent one payment check per month.
The agreement was fairly balanced. It allowed our members physical access to reboot a piece of co-located equipment, but any maintenance required pulling and removing the machine. (Again, rack was in tight quarters of a coffee shop.)
Since this was mid-1990's, all members supplied their own pair of modems for each side which were mostly 28.8 back then. I think one person was going with ISDN, and maybe another had Telebit Trailblazer 56k.
I'd like to think that upon seeing how this was a benefit to the cafe's financial statements that it gave Mike, Gretchen, Chris, et al the idea to move into the larger ISP space for which they then became known.
Speakeasy also had other co-location hosts in the rack. If I recall, one was for a design firm somehow connected to one of the owners. Maybe there was a game server there, too.
For a bit more historical context on the Seattle Peoples' Internet, I slapped this together: https://play.org/articles/seattle-peoples-internet
I think there is a lot we can do (as programmers) to start supporting mesh-network style Internets. We're at a critical point right now where distributed systems research has turned up some decent consensus algorithms, where there's now a (finally understood) need for a computer network run by the people who use it, and where consumer radio/copper technology is fast enough to start building out reasonably fast networks.
Not by a long shot. We have proof of work and systems that rely on all parties being known and identifiable, and not much else. Proof of work does not scale and the need to identify all parties requires at least some centralization. Beyond that, we also live in an age where the bulk of Internet traffic is video, and thanks to the decades-long effort of the RIAA and MPAA, most video distribution is centralized, so people demand high throughput; and the widespread use of TCP also requires low latency. Mesh networks are still not up to the task despite all the progress.
You want to support mesh networks? Great! I'm with you, but let's not oversell the state of the art. Mesh networks are still experimental and without some centralized coordination (which is a de facto ISP) the performance and reliability really start to become questionable.
Mesh networking technology is old at this point. Application layer software that takes advantage of it's strong suits has yet to be developed. Though there are many ideas of where to start.
As for what you have brought up. In my opinion many-replica content networks, when combined with modern video compression technologies, could solve the issue of video streaming from a no-master and high-latency system.
See for example https://intercoin.org project we're working on. Specifically the Technology link.
Also see https://github.com/Qbix/architecture/wiki/Internet-2.0
As Einstein said, you don't need 100 scientists to sign something is wrong. If they could prove it, you'd only need one.
Same with gossiping a proof that some operation is not valid.
The root problem is that if an ISP starts throttling content, a lot of customers won't have another ISP they can switch to. Something like a mesh network (high-latency, high-bandwidth) would be perfect for what most people want (Netflix, Facebook, etc.). Mesh networks being widely available would force ISPs to provide actual value to their customers.
Maintenance would be a chore, as mentioned in one of the other posts.
But an app that lets people begin to think about how this stuff works -- for instance what the pieces consist of, might hit pay dirt if the whole net neutrality thing gets nasty.
I've also thought about the idea of what people could do if they set up some kind of mesh network in a higher density urban area -- for instance if they could use it to bypass the ISP's while maybe also improving their security and privacy.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjUYOQMuZ4cRyTv1M5X8...
Also I started a Matrix chatroom for discussion around this topic, I'll try to watch it and answer any questions that I can:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjUYOQMuZ4cRyTv1M5X8...
Also I started a Matrix chatroom for discussion around this topic, I'll hang out there and answer any questions that I can:
We ended up going with NetBlazr (http://www.netblazr.com). Worked pretty well.
I remain hopefully optimistic that other potential disruptors, like Starry or municipal broadband, will unseat the incumbents.
Up in Northern Michigan there are areas where there is no telephone service, no cable or Internet. That's because there are too few paying customers thus it isn't cost effective to service the area. In Detroit there are tens of thousands of potential customers but they lack the ability to pay.
The most famous is FDN (http://www.fdn.fr/) which is covering the whole territory, and in the Paris area you have Franciliens.net (http://www.franciliens.net/).
[0] https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/motherboard-dear-future-p...
I am very happy to see communities building their own intranet software!
Why not just say detroiters?
What did you think 'citizen' means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen
> Why not just say detroiters?
Like many people I would guess, I know what a 'citizen' is, and I know what 'Detroit' is, but I wouldn't know what a 'detroiter' was.
For example if I wrote an article about 'Wollybacks building their own internet' would you know what that meant? That's a name for people from where I live.
A member of a state/nation. For example, I am an american citizen, not a new york citizen. Citizen has historical etymological roots to ancient greece and their city-state but the word has changed in meaning in modern times.
> Like many people I would guess, I know what a 'citizen' is
Apparently you don't if you think someone is a citizen of detroit. At least in the US, we are citizens of the nation, not a city. I don't need to get visa or permission to move from NYC to Detroit. I don't have to change citizenship if I move from NYC to Detroit.
> but I wouldn't know what a 'detroiter' was.
So you don't know what a new yorker is?
> That's a name for people from where I live.
Detroit is one of the major cities of the US. Pretty sure everyone knows what detroit is.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here.
The primary definition of a 'citizen' in the main US dictionary is 'an inhabitant of a city or town'.
Etymology rules
As a casual observation, it actually looks like you're the one pushing at the limits of Poe's Law here TBH.
I don't know what a "yorker" is, never mind a new one.
To be fair though, I'm guess you meant one of these two; either a "New Yorker" (citizen of the state of New York), or a "New Yorker" (citizen of the city of New York, New York).
Or would that second one be a "New York, New Yorker?"
-------------------------------------------------------
For example:
The new new New Yorker was new to New York, New York. New New York is known for it's saturation with new New Yorkers. Now I know that would be a bit nuanced, but nevertheless I knew you as a new New Yorker of "The New New York" (New York) would find it relevant. I just didn't know if you knew that yet.
-------------------------------------------------------
Related...?
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
"... is a grammatically correct sentence in American English, often presented as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs through lexical ambiguity and the usage of homophony and homonymy."
"More easily decoded, though semantically equivalent, would be:
Buffalo from Buffalo... whom other buffalo from Buffalo bully... [themselves] bully buffalo from Buffalo."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...)
You’re willing to argue with what is almost the American dictionary of record? I’d think one would have to roll a 20 against Giant Balls of Pedantry to pull that off.