| ▲ | M_bara 4 hours ago |
| OTOH, third world or dictatorships won’t blink when it comes to turning off an entire country - example is Tanzania in the recent election.. are there solutions for communication when international links are cut? A lan like solution scaled to cities or an entire country that is disconnected from the rest of the world? |
|
| ▲ | Pifanjr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You can receive data over radio waves, which would be pretty hard to block country-wide I think. Sending data would be a bit trickier without being caught. |
| |
| ▲ | saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | this does require quite some expertise. as u noted sending can be triangulated. Also because this sending issue, it wouldnt really be an internet since only few parties would have the resources for mobile or ship-based transmitting systems that are harder to pin down or stop |
|
|
| ▲ | setopt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > are there solutions for communication when international links are cut? How far can you scale wireless mesh nets? |
| |
| ▲ | kmacdough an hour ago | parent [-] | | In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP. It's already a self-building network. The hard part is how you incentivise transit nodes. Currently that's what ISPs and backbones provide. They are incentivised to interconnect because that's their core business model. So a truly decentralized Internet requires a decentralized incentive system. This would enable circumvention, but it's also pretty easy to triangulate radio signals, so it's fairly easy for a belligerent organization to track that someone is sending something. | | |
| ▲ | solyin an hour ago | parent [-] | | > In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP. I'm sorry, that just wrong. Gupta-Kumar capacity scaling law (2000) says that as you add participants, each participant gets less bandwidth, until it becomes impractical. Imagine a room with 10 people talking in it. Easy. Now imagine 10,000. Hard to have a conversation if it's still all ad-hoc. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | teiferer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > are there solutions for communication when international links are cut There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases. A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest. |
|
| ▲ | brightball 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is essentially the case for Starlink |
| |
| ▲ | dachris 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the one hand, yes. That's why possession of a starlink terminal can get you killed in Iran. On the other hand, Ukrainians are finding out that someone else is in control of that starlink infra. | |
| ▲ | saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | i don't think anyone with enough money for shootin clusters of sattelites into orbit will be a free open internet builder. ofc thats an assumption. This network of sattelites would also need to join in and coordinate with other stuff up there, as far as i can tell its pretty crowded and theres collision risks etc. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | root_axis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except Starlink won't hesitate to censor you as well as the Ukrainians are discovering. | | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s only censorship when a democratic government does it. When an unelected businessman with no oversight and more power than most counties does it isles just property rights. |
|
|
