[p2p-research] Mesh - Not for profit Cooperative + "Megabytes" Currency

[Gael Van Weyenbergh]

The simplest way I see this is to apply the couch surfing model to the
sharing of internet connections. Then there is maybe no need for a currency
and the risk of abuse can be reduced by mutual good practices as
participating members are equally vulnerable. In fact, my underlying concern
is to avoid being totally dependent on regular ISPs. The development of a
parallel mesh of interconnected mobile devices sounds more appealing. It
could be used at a city-level for file sharing, grid computing or as a place
where needs can match offers with the exchange of community currencies.

Gael


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> A couple points:
>
>
>    1. The connections to the internet are not *free* because "access
>    points" are assumed to be connected to the www, which requires someone to
>    pay.
>    2. The currency might be great for enabling those who offer an "access
>    point" credit for use on other "access points"
>    3. Most "organized" mesh nets do not encourage a charge of any kind for
>    roaming users.  Example: http://guifi.net/directori .  This might just
>    be a new class of networks, though.  See FreeTheNet below, which does charge
>    as a cooperative.
>    4. An alternative currency for access is great, and innovative, but
>    exchanging that currency for "cash" may not be desirable as it is not
>    standard procedure for mesh nets.  Good idea, though.  It needs to be a
>    platform, though.  A platform should be usable, copyable, and extendable.
>     Hypothetically, extensions should be usable by others on the platform
>    copies.  Walk away complete is the tag line.
>    5. Most protocols that happen over the internet can happen between
>    machines and a configuration package for local services discovery could be
>    very interesting.  Usually local networks are useless except for file
>    sharing, and the services are less than ideal in many cases.
>    6. The local package for service discovery could be handled/built in a
>    way that was "network ambivalant", as a package that worked on the internet
>    or a local network.  Example: keeping a list of media files you are looking
>    for and using a collection of programs that search here or there to find you
>    sources.
>    7. OLPC already does mesh networking in a way significantly similar to
>    what you describe http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details .
>     This is not typical for the configuration of wireless network cards in
>    machines, though it is possible (for some part, at least)
>    8. The Meraki company made a mistake and raised the price of their
>    hardware so Open-Mesh took over the "higher purpose" of providing BATMAN and
>    ROBIN pre-flashed nodes and extenders
>    https://www.open-mesh.com/store/categories.php?category=Lowest%252dCost-Mesh .  FreeTheNet uses Accton routers from OpenMesh, see below.
>    9. Changing settings to allow and encourage local services discovery
>    can be dangerous.  As a networking professional I will say that 95% of
>    people are using default settings on their machine, and these make it almost
>    impossible to easily discover local services with changing configurations,
>    and that is potentially dangerous.  No more dangerous than using the
>    internet, I suppose, but the exploits don't come through the browser,
>    necessarily.  See the wifi iphone hack.  The issue is perhaps only different
>    in that local network bandwidth is much higher, and so a hole in security
>    can be exploited very quickly with big packages.
>    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/technology/23iphone.html
>    10. You don't need to do anything new to accomplish your vision of
>    extending the range of a local network across your city.  Just copy what
>    http://guifi.net/directori is doing and use Open-Mesh routers.  It's
>    getting easier, apparently.  I worked on http://freethenet.ca/ in 2007
>    when it was just some guys hacking hardware and figuring out the business
>    model.  It was a pain because the first Meraki products were just coming out
>    and the team had to write and rewrite the code for the coordinated uplink,
>    which allowed the routers to be flashed remotely.  Now it's a coop.  Yay!
>     So you can copy them too!  Check out their bylaws here:
>    http://www.vonic.ca/about FreeTheNet and Vonic use a custom DogOnRails
>    app for network management, under development in a different form during my
>    time.  This is for tracking memberships, I am sure, over the network and
>    between access points.  It's also needed because the FreeTheNet model
>    through Vonic calls for underwriting extending mesh deep into residential
>    areas to supply home connections over a shared network.  A special purpose
>    monitoring and optimization software is useful for that kind of thing.
>    11. You won't escape governance and I don't know how to conceive of a
>    local mesh in such a way.  It still uses hardware made by the machine, and
>    it still has to connect to the www, at least for now, through ISP
>    connections.  Someone has to pay for that.  Using local mesh for file
>    traffic several limits what files are available.  It would take a small city
>    to duplicate the power of a Google server farm used to cache partial copies
>    of the internet, and that farm would be optimized for the task, unlike a
>    city-res-mesh.
>
> Alex
> http://alexrollin.com
> http://p2pfoundation.net/User:GoodRollin
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
> dante at ecobytes.net> wrote:
> > Exactly Sepp!
> > A mixture of meraki and fon approaches, although I Ideally imagine that
> > people could configure their own routers
> > (if they can add protocols , such as with a linksys router, or unless
> > partnerships are created with various existing internet providers who
> offer
> > a router with their service as to add a mesh protocol)
> >
> > Or if they can add a module that easily turns their mobile phone or
> laptop
> > into a mobile relay node.
> >
> > Easiest would be to start experimenting on university campuses, including
> by
> > enabling the meshed laptops and phones to share files ,potentially using
> > bittorrent over mesh? With a high density,I wonder if it reduces
> bottlenecks
> > and increases file sharing speeds? At the same time increasing the
> quality
> > of the reach of connectivity over a campus.
> >
> > I guess this is where is connects with the one laptop per child project.
> >
> > It could also be used by students to enable shared processing power of
> their
> > devices,over mesh,to support some of their projects. (especially for
> hungry
> > for processing tasks? Video editing? )
> >
> > Eventually processing power over mesh could also warn credits?
> >
> > Just brainstorming as I m walking back and writing on my phone...
> >
> > What motivates me most,personally,is to have an.emergent autonomous local
> > mesh,which can guarantee autonomy of control from governments and
> internet
> > providers for local data exchanges,and serve as backbone for local
> > information systems that support local economics.
> >
> > Perhaps there can be a mobile mesh protocol that can be proposed to run
> with
> > various mobile applications.
> >
> > Perhaps that one way of doing it,in a granular and emergent way... ?
> >
> > In that case,where does one start?
> >
> > Using open hardware and old pc' to contribute to existing meshes, and
> find
> > existing tools to easily enable compatibility between Batman and mobile
> mesh
> > protocols,
> >
> > Using an easy to install module for android and iPhone's?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I guess its still a dream...
> > Perhaps the time is not ripe yet?
> >
> > Still need to wait till 10 dollar open hardware ,with wifi and pre
> installed
> > (and configurable) open source software enabling mesh protocols?
> >
> > Or is the current 30 to 50 dollar node making it viable in high density
> > areas,especially if some form of revenue can be created?
> >
> > Just thinking loud up late at night ,after a small sip :)
> >
> > Perhaps easiest to start by investing in our own mesh of routers...
> starting
> > with the meraki approach... building on existing communities of local
> mesh
> > enthusiasts...
> >
> > On 18 Jul 2010 22:49, "Sepp Hasslberger" <sepp at lastrega.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dante,
> > what you are saying is actually the business model of FON. You install
> one
> > of their low-cost wireless modems permitting other "foneros" who happen
> to
> > be close by, to use your connection via WiFi, and in exchange you get to
> use
> > the connections of others who also have installed a "la fonera" FON
> modem.
> > They are making those wireless modems available at a low price, but the
> > technology is not as advanced as it should be. The reach is definitely
> too
> > short to be really useful, and the FON wireless access points don't make
> a
> > network, they don't talk to each other. The model of FON is sharing your
> > connection and getting access in a similar way from others.
> > Meraki, I believe, is different, in that their modems actually do form an
> > ad-hoc network by talking to each other. They are also using cheap
> wireless
> > modems that extend, to some degree, the area of coverage of one or more
> > single "real" internet connections to a group of users. Meraki is
> > commercial, just like FON. They were trying to roll out a network over
> San
> > Francisco, but have scaled back their expectations, I believe. None of
> those
> > two have really had a great growth or a breakthrough.
> > There is also an open source Meraki, so to speak, which is, I believe,
> > called Open Mesh. If I remember correctly, they concentrate on
> B.A.T.M.A.N.
> > which is a routing protocol that allows mesh networks to form. They work
> by
> > changing the flash memory of certain compatible commercially available
> > routers.
> > The big problem, for now, seems to be the lack of a proper hardware
> platform
> > to base the network on, that is widely available. That would be the thing
> to
> > concentrate on. Meraki and FON have hardware, but their drawback is lack
> of
> > wide reach (WiFi goes only about 30 meters distance in good conditions,
> less
> > if you have walls to contend with), and the fact that they are
> commercial,
> > meaning they would like to have the whole world converge on themselves,
> and
> > it doesn't seem to work that way.
> > Until we have proper hardware to ensure connectivity, that is widely
> > available and that is open to be configured like we want, there is really
> no
> > way people will jump unto the mesh networking scene, if only because
> there
> > is a lack of opportunity, i.e. they don't know HOW to do it.
> > Kind regards
> > Sepp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18/lug/10, at 19:11, Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Sepp.
> >>
> >> Good point.
> >> Yes, I h...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100719/72022a2f/attachment.html>