Rupert Murdoch: “Internet Will Soon Be Over”

[ATT]

Perhaps this 'darknet' will be another alternative ?

@cap

Well, the problem with any 'darknet' is that it still depends on the existing Internet, which is still controlled by Telcos and Governments.

The so called 'backbone', 'pipes', top-level domain name servers and routers that decide from second to second the path a 'packet' takes to reach it's destination, these can be controlled by substituting replacement records to TLD DNS databases and allowing the new records to propagate to all lower-level DNS servers, thus redirecting (or limiting/stopping) traffic and disrupting connectivity (this also provides a 'global' way to monitor traffic both from and to various sites that are under surveillance).

The Internet -is- the DNS system and the routers that subscribe to it.

On the other hand, wireless p2p (which would still benefit from redundant relay 'hubs' for any meaningful level of widespread interaction) would be under the direct control of the individuals using the system and wouldn't use the existing Internet, nor TELCO 'pipes' nor it's DNS servers/routers.

As with any network, it's efficacy would be dependent on the level of participation - no way around that (save tonnes of money to develop and implement a wholly private network...).

Understand, when I say 'wireless', I don't mean it in the WiFi sense, I'm talking about private secure traffic over packet-radio - in the old days ('60s & '70s) we used FSK and converter-comparators run through crypto devices to send and receive secure traffic worldwide over a network like this. Today, technology makes everything much easier to implement, so it is quite possible to do this on a global scale, but it does still require technically competent participation (and some degree of participatory 'will').
.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Thanks ATT...not being that technically advanced, I thought maybe darknet was 'under the radar.

Its reassuring that people like you have the know how to get around privacy breaches by corrupt authorities.

Regards...

[ATT]

Wow, Bulletin Board Systems.  Haven't seen a running one in quite a while.

Yeah, there's an active sub-culture out there that runs the old console-mode BBS services (can't imagine why) over both dial-up and telnet - search for 'telnet bbs'.

(Remember, the Teletype 33 is where ASCII comes from.

I guess. In 1968 we were running out-of-date KSR and ASR-28 Teletypes, perforators and paper-tape to send and receive data over wireless networks. At that time, we were using a 7-bit code plus one 'stop bit'. ASCII was still going through changes but I remember we had both upper and lower case capability by that time, so I guess we were up-to-date.

I can't imagine trying ASM on a pentium in the lousy enviroment provided by windows.  (*nix, maybe...)  For a small driver, sure, but an entire BBS app

You know, I wouldn't ever attempt to write a major app from scratch in asm, either. Matter of fact you don't ever need to, just write it in C++, set your C++ compiler to generate assembly (/FA for MS compilers), compile the app, and then assemble the resulting *.asm code in MASM. You end up with a smaller, faster executable (or you could just compress it in UPX if 'small' is your thing).

asm is still very much with us, but doesn't occupy the status it did in the DOS days when machines were slow, memory was segmented and Mike Abrash's routines overcame the slow hardware platform with fast assembler code (so we all wanted to 'be like Mike').

Telenet system as part of the backbone

Yeah well, telnet isn't really part of the backbone, telnet is actually just another TCP/IP 'protocol' like rlogin, smtp, pop3, http, etc.. Anybody can run a telnet server, anybody can run a telnet client (Windows has one built-in).

I seem to remember the FSK and related encryption methods always caused me headaches when they were in vogue.

I think things are better today - digital transmission allows for compression and multiplexing, no noise floor, more bang for your bandwidth. FSK isn't related to any encryption methods, last I checked.

ASR28->[CRYPTO]->FSK->XMTR->CPLR->ANT

Hams, don't chide me here...  If you guys still exist

Hams still exist but numbers are diminishing and all licenses (tech through xtra) are now 'no code'.

I'm not sure how one could implement a Wireless P2P system, with the amount of traffic that exists

I'm not either, but there's a lot better technology to work with now than we had in 1968, I'm sure a bunch of smart guys and gals could leverage a good bit of that tech to pull off a private 'extranet' that doesn't depend on telco 'pipes'.

Actually, the main problem isn't the technology, per se, it's the fact that any 'network' is a 'group' and that group needs to be connected to each other in some way in order to communicate. Right now, the main 'connections' are: phone lines, cable, satellite and wireless (WiFi and wireless WANs).

Turns out, the folks that own the 'connections' are telcos and governments. If they ever wanted to 'shut down' comms, they have the power, because they own the 'pipes'.

What's left? Roll your own net, over the air. Problem: establishing any network requires a lot of participation. Over the air networking is expensive, requires more gear, takes some know-how.

Most importantly, it takes a fair number of people being involved to provide the relays, hubs and connection points across a wide area, so it looks like that possibility is pretty remote.
.

[ATT]

IS there any available band that allows digital transmission without major licensing?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Maybe.

Now, if one were going to attempt to build an over-the air network, one consideration might be to first have look at what's available 'off the shelf' and build on that.

Along those lines, it might be possible to leverage GMRS (with some outboard modification to allow for two-way digital traffic).

it does require a license, but it's a simple 'pay your money - get a ticket' type of thing, no test, good for 5 years.

Altogether, between the FRS and GMRS allocation, there's 22 'channels'. Each of these has 38 'privacy codes', which are actually sub-channels, so there are (22 x 38)=[836] available channels to operate on, in reality.

Rather than step-on the shared FRS channels, staying in the GMRS-only allocations would be advisable.

GMRS is FM, 467MHZ, allows up to 50W, can modify your gear, supports relays, is duplex, requires sending station ID every 15 min (morse or voice), other restrictions as per FCC part-15.

Just off the top of my head, I'd think a workaround for broken-streams (stop and go traffic) would be some sort of aggregator that would allow for reconstitution of packets (intrinsic duplex operation is a big 'plus', in this case), which is normal, anyway, in a tcp/ip sense.

So, I would start with looking at this possibility, first. There'll be plenty of 'creative' hardware and software creation for you to get into to provide outboard support, but this might provide a tangible starting-point.

Look at it this way: In order to 'unplug' from the current system, all a group needs is 'a Pipe of one's own', everything else can, essentially, remain the same (along with additional security, of course).

If you can get the 'pipe' up and running, you've got your network.
.

[Overmind]

The internet is the last stand...the only place where you can still be free. They are already trying to conquer it. Google filters billions of key word combos and will not display the filtered results by any means. This is only the start of it.

IPV6 already has traffic shaping, control and security so everything will be directly filtered with no additional tools or equipment necessary.