The only solution is for Congress to pass these regulations and enshrine net neutrality as a fundamental principle of internet regulation.
Actually, lol at just passing laws, Congress didn't do anything but name post offices the past year.
The only regulation we are going to get in the next decade is anything that can do an end-run around congress.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network>
The instability of the network requires a bit different approach to networking in general:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking>
In short: you can do email, with high probability, but more often than not can forget about VoIP.
There are a lot of options, each with their advantages in different situations. It's not so clear cut. It can be fast or it can be slow. It can be stable or not. It very much depends on the particular network protocol and setup.
I agree that right now it's not going to happen, no matter how many different efforts there are out there. For it to really happen I think we would have to come up with a plan that would actually work, in terms of creating a massive world-wide mesh network. There would have to be a lot of consideration for things like security, DDoS mitigation, speed, standards and upgradeability.
If developing a viable mesh network for the task weren't tough enough, there would also have to be a plan for migration which is really the hard part. Getting everybody in the world moved over to a new network would be nothing short of a miracle.
Would you accept return to text-only communication, not always instantaneous?
If so, mesh nets are there for us.
Also, did you see this (one of many interesting efforts): http://openlibernet.org/faq.html
All that said, even if we just had a functioning alternative (even if it were significantly slower), it would give us options when we need uncensored, unregulated communication. It's better than having absolutely no options when your government oversteps its bounds.
Speaking of which, a nice incentive. I see FAQ expresses everything that should be told, in an honest way. Good read for someone who wants to know about mesh networks.
I would also love something like it to become commonplace. But as it is not a viable alternative to the Internet and does not add anything while the system has not went mad... I don't see it happening any soon.
I don't think this is true, at least not using Wikipedia definition of "mesh network".
Mesh Networks are where each node relays data to other nodes, with data "hopping" from node to node.
That does not happen on cell networks. Each phone relays data to a cell tower, but thats it. There's no "hopping" from phone to phone, or from tower to tower. (Your phone might move between towers, taking a phone call from one tower to another as you drive, but there's never more than one "hop". Your phone call never jumps through three cell towers before hitting backhaul, for instance.)
For the same reason that having a few Wifi hotspots backhauled in a building isn't a "mesh network", a cell phone network is also not a "mesh network".
The cell phone is answered. So, it goes from switch O (the caller) to switch A (where your cell phone is associated with). Eventually, you'll move out of range of towers for switch A, and come into range of towers for switch B. But because the phone network is circuit switched, you can't just create a circuit from O to B. No, what happens is that A forms a connection to B, so now the call is going O -> A -> B. Talk long enough, and eventually, your call may end up going O -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F.
So while it's true that your call doesn't go through multiple towers, it does go through multiple switches (as long as you are talking on the cell phone, and the cell phone is moving).
I'm happy to get 100 kbits/talker in that scenario with todays FHSS technology, 500 meters/hop, 1 watt power, 200 kHz channel width and 20 MHz of spectrum in the ISM band.
Of course, the advantage of Mesh Networks is they require little in the way of infrastructure, and scale up into the millions of nodes, with 50 million active node networks practical. But high data rates are not one of the properties of such networks.
a new circuit is established from O to B,
O tells A to tell the handset to move over to B-owned network infrastructure,
the handset roams over to B,
O drops the circuit to A.
This is a special case of Inter-MSC Handover, and you can read the spec at https://archive.org/stream/etsi_ts_123_009_v03.03.00/ts_1230...
The relevant section is Sec. 7.3.2, "Description of the subsequent handover procedure ii): MSC-B to MSC-B'".
(They call your "O" by "A", your "A" by "B", and your "C" by "B'" (B prime). And an MSC is a Mobile Switching Center that usually handles about half a city's worth of towers.)
Or the instructor I had taught us outdated information.