Very quickly in Australia if it is using an unauthorised frequency.
In Australia they clamp down even on equipment that causes minor interference to another person’s consumer radio/tv gear, anywhere in Australia. If anyone was to use an otherwise allocated frequency for networking, then they would have to expect a knock on the door at some stage.
Radio waves are like a beacon (guess what - that what radio beacons use), and they will lead any detection van right to your antenna. They don’t care what the signal is AM, FM, SSB, or ???, its the EMR coming from the antenna at an otherwise allocated frequency.
Said neighbours would have to agree that a mesh net would be of value. That is they’d need to be educated on it and understand it and what it could do for them.
Fiber mesh would be a bit obvious. You’re either talking running something along the phone lines or just running a cable from house to house. Either way it’s a cord of some kind. That means drilling holes in the walls and the like. Again that can present complications of it’s own if say you’re renting and not owning the house.
LAN is local not mobile. You leave the house your mesh doesn’t come with you. So it would need to be augmented with wifi anyway.
I think you’re kind of missing the point as the widespread use of SDR would transcend mesh networking. Yes that is one application of the tech but there are many more.
Who are the “others” one is to be considering? Just because one isn’t considering the individual or group you would prefer doesn’t mean they aren’t considering someone. Your arguement is reminiscent of that of those defending copyright or any other status quo establishment.
No not in respect to TX of any kind, anyone “dumping” on frequencies required for say emergency services is an IDIOT, and not considering others (the sick, those in need of assistance) and nothing like
EVERYBODY. Everyone has the right to have their radio/tv usable. To be able to have police, ambulance, construction workers, and the 1000’s of other things the frequency spectrum is used for, to be free of people dumping their stuff where ever they want because they “can”
What if people used your front lawn as a “dumping ground” or “thoroughfare” or “set up shop” or “toilet” or “build a warehouse” ? that is what it like, not the “status quo establishment” But rather everyone sharing the limited resource that the frequency spectrum is. Just like we have a system to share land, rivers etc. Not perfect but workable
You cannot just “copy” the spectrum to elsewhere like what copyright infringement is, there is only one and it can only be divided up so much. We have to have to way to work out how The how we currently use may not be the best way, but at least it allows the spectrum to be divided up and not trashed upon.
If you want to decide which frequencies go where then propose an alternative and if it is workable and better than what most countries employ then maybe it will be adopted. Until then we would be best to keep the MESH networks legal in their frequency use
And by the logic of them hurting themselves because they’d eventually need to use those emergency services you’d be right, they are idiots. However one could also argue the emergency services are idiots for not securing their channels of communication properly in the first place so they couldn’t get dumped on.
You mean a privilage don’t you? A right is something you are born with. A privilage is something you are granted by some kind of authority figure. How is having radio/tv an inherient or inalienable right? Especially when in order to have it as you describe it needs to be provided by some kind of authority figure, ergo it becomes a privilage not a right.
People already do that. It’s called noise, air and water pollution. Are you now going to argue that transmitting into used spectra is equivilant to a form of pollution and therefore people have a right to “clean” spectra? In which case I would ask what is your view on all the OTHER kinds of pollution out there? Shouldn’t your position carry over? And what are you planning to do about all of that? Is this the new environmental movement forming? People have a RIGHT to a cleaner better earth and so we’re going to enforce that on others. Sounds like Agenda 21 to me.
No you can’t and yes people may or may not transmit into used segments of spectra but that really isn’t the point. The point is they may READ used segments of spectra and then RECORD them and in turn UPLOAD that to the network, perhaps even using a different radio frequency. Such a method would not mess up anyone’s lawn so to speak but it WOULD still be revolutionary to society. Imagine your boss is having an affair with his secrery and you listen in on his cell phone conversation with your SDR then record all the juicy details, upload it to the network for safe keeping and then blackmail him later for a raise. Or what happens when criminals start listening to police scanner frequencies and organizing around them? Or what happens if one were to listen to a U.S. military communications channel (assuming you could get it decrypted and do it without being detected) and livestream it and someone in North Korea or the Middle East tuned in? Think about it. You don’t have to deficate on someone’s lawn in order to cause major havok with the system. So much of the system is based on making sure that Auntie Jane doesn’t know what Billy Bob is up to with Susie Rae if you get my drift.
I’m not proposing that I decide which frequencies go where. I’m saying that with tech available that allows anyone to transceive no one can decide which frequency goes where. It becomes decentralized and therefore requeres a decentralized system.
If you TX on their frequency then no encryption will allow them to even transmit reliability. It seems that you may not realise just how radio comms work. If I transmit on a frequency then no one else can reasonably use their gear within range of my transmitter. If I set up say Time Division Multiplexing then I can have a system where many can co-operate and use the one frequency but one at a time. But then if somebody else transmits their music at that frequency then all that co-operation means nothing as they cannot use that frequency. Share and co-operate childhood 101
that is plain wrong, I listen to my radio and it is not a privilege. And if anyone uses that frequency for a “joy-ride” or mesh or whatever while I am listening to the cricket then watch out for the pitch forks and radio detection equipment.
No but it is something millions upon millions believe they have a right to listen to or watch.
We live in this world and want to share physical material things, which the spectrum is, and there has to be a mechanism to decide how that is shared. Share and co-operate childhood 101
Why do you think people complain about pollution. Seriously really that is a weak reason to pollute even more.
Yes it is the only point I am complaining about. Re-read my posts. I have NEVER said people cannot listen. Please disagree with what I said. And you wanted to USE, ie transmit on any frequency as a right. Share and co-operate childhood 101
Serious those analogies are just sound bytes trying to attempt to support transmitting however because you can.
Before you claim that you had better propose a system that can possibly make that work. I can tell you now, if you make a limited resource like the spectrum a free for all it will be a shambles, because there is no such thing as a decentralised frequency spectrum that has any remote possibility of working, it would be who could have the highest power transmitter to drown anyone else who wanted to use their frequency. Might rules, no sharing.
I agree that the current system is not the best and while it started off as simply a way to share the spectrum between those who could transmit with reasonable power, it has grown in good and bad ways, but does include plenty of space for the topic’s need of MESH networking. Lets keep legal and maybe discuss elsewhere ways to remove the control of the spectrum to the wider community to control. Even then I expect that a lot of common sense has gone into the majority of the spectrum allocation. Maybe you should seek out a couple of HAM operators near you and discuss these things. We were the originators of the original meshing experiments more than a decade ago.
I am signing off this train of thought. In the end of it all, we have to remain legal otherwise the networks will be shut down by the might of the oppressors.
The preverbial public bathroom problem where you need to get in and are waiting for the last guy to get off the pot? Yes I get it.
Aren’t you kind of defeating your own argument here. If radio detection is decentralized and available to all then isn’t community empathy self enforcing? People generally behave in a civilized fashion not because there’s some authority figure with a big stick but because they empathize with one another. But even if there is one that needs a whack as you point out you can break out the detectors and find them. If one is listening to the radio and it ends up going haywire and you start hearing a data stream or random show tunes you turn on your radio detection, find the culprit, that’ll probably be somewhere in your local area and round him up. Either just simply tell him he’s interfering with your signal and ask him to stop, if he refuses give him a good thump or report him to your favorite authority figure or enforcer guy. If everyone agrees that x water body is for drinking it’s stupid to piss in it if for no other reason than it’ll incite the mob to come after you with torches and pitch forks. Same would apply to spectra. However this bit of common sense does not require an authority to “decide” for anyone what or where the watering hole will be but rather a bit of local consensus concerning public channels. Public being the range of given radio signals. Think about it for a minute. What do I care if a spectrum I use for my radio show is used half way across the planet. It’s out of range of my transmitter. I only care about filling spectra and interference therefo within a given geographical area. I would propose we decentralize these consensi to the local, or even neighbourhood level.
You read what I SAID. I originally pointed out that even being able to receive would be revolutionary, I said it twice in fact. And I pointed out that one would need to transmit in order to create a mesh network. Ergo in order to have a mesh network we’d need to decentralize the ability to receieve and transmit. And in being able to do so one WOULD be able to violate air space. Law means nothing unless you can enforce it. It doesn’t matter if millions around the world BELIEVE they have a right to uninterrupted spectra. It doesn’t matter one little bit anymore than corporations and businessmen BELIEVE they have a right to their copyrights and trademarks. If they can’t adapt to the evolving tech they’re in for a cold dose of reality. And while radio detectors ARE available most people don’t go around carrying them in their pockets. So the radio industry would have one of two options: Encrypt their channels or otherwise defend their broadcasts. Or build radios that can detect competing broadcasts. Yes I know the public bathroom problem. Well sometimes that’s why it’s best to use a bathroom that people don’t usually use (obscure radio frequency) or to just hold it until you’re home (digital wifi radio).
And why do you think that my not proposing an alternative system of some kind will somehow negate the fact that the ability to transmit and receive radio via SDRs will allow anyone to decide which frequency goes where and thus demand a decentralized system? You seem to think that by demanding me to propose a better system you are protecting the status quo. This simply isn’t the case. If the tech exists then it will be decentralized and people will use it. And people being what they are some will use it indiscriminately. AND some will use it inappropriately whether you’re ready for it or not, whether you have laws to prohibit or not.
I agree for the purposes of building a mesh network it should be used legally, if for no other reason than it would cause a lot less hassel. Has any thought gone into using old TV spectrum frequencies, you know the one’s that were used for old analog channels that are now no longer in use but have incredible range?
Whatever you say about “self-enforcement” sounds to me like the wet dream of someone who prefers not to deal with society. “isn´t community empathy self enforcing”? No, it´s not - humans are not computers and they don´t act like algorithms. Also, it´s interesting to see your idea of “authority”:
Appears pretty naive to me. People don´t “generally” act civilized. Actually “civilized” means they are following a certain codex, but there is not ONE codex. People act out of self-interest and whenever they act socially they do it precisely BECAUSE of a certain authority. Not my opinion, rather yours:
You don´t disagree with authority. You actually embrace it. Only that you prefer the authority of the strongest over the authority of codified law.
(Let me guess: you are living in a town or city in a anonymous flat/appartment and not in a village?)
Even assuming what you say is true, and I certainly am not qualified to debate you on this, you speak as if the radio frequency thing is the only type of regulation that the public sector mafia enforces, as suppose to said regulation being one of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of regulations built from the ground up to wreck technological progress from anyone who hasn’t paid the public sector gang and their buddies a bajillion dollars, ala how a hurricane can randomly kill a serial killer in it’s sea of carnage. It is this other type of regulation, regulations that no body but the public sector mafia and their corporate buddies care about, that I believe the mesh network crowd can easily sidestep by focusing on countries with less funded governments due to people having less ability to care about enforcing predatory regulation.
I was replying to a post that stated that enforcement would require a central authority and therefore pointed out that it would not. You then turn around and somehow infer that because I can reason that a central authority is not nessesary that I somehow believe that people require an authority to be good people in the first place. If this was true we would not see things like random acts of kindness or charity where people just help one another out of the goodness of their heart without any possibility of reperation whatsoever. Nor would we see people acting good to one another without some kind of supervisionary body enforcing this behavior. By and large people in a community do not need an authority telling them NOT to kill or steal from each other each other. They just don’t do it because it’s the human thing to (or not to) do.
You’re kidding right? This is a joke? Authority is a religion. It’s a belief in a superhuman deity that gives one person rights over another person that it’s somehow right or moral to exert force over another where it would otherwise not be. There is no such thing as “the authority of codified law.” All law is is a piece of paper. You either have a voluntary agreement spelled out on paper or you have a set of rules again written out on paper. But in either case it’s not the script that has power it’s the voluntary agreement, the will of the participants or the force used to coerce participation that gives power to the document. Law means absolutely NOTHING! Zilch, zip, nada, unless people either agree or it’s enforced. I can say I am master of the universe and you all must bow down to me but odds are you’d laugh in my face, unless I had a fleet of starships or something and could arbitrarily blow up planets at will thus giving force to my threat and meaning to my title OR I had somehow pursuaded you respect and honor me and voluntarily give me that title and to follow me. But no codified law by itself has zero meaning. The only real debate about power that has any meaning is between voluntary or involuntary. The rest is just paperwork and people organizing themselves as they desire. And as I have made clear on many occassions I’d opt for a voluntary society.
Your whole argumentation is based on the idea that there is something like a “natural” moral of reciprocal kindness (“by and large”, of course ;)) - yes, that´s pretty naive since it is flawed by empiricism. There are dozens of experiments and examples proving how people change their moral behaviour whenever they feel unobserved or don´t care about others. I actually worked in environmental care and saw what people are capable to dump when noone sees it. They do it because they don´t (want to) see the consequences or because it´s cheaper to them - that´s also why even nations poisen the ocean, pollute the air and deforresting huge areas. Also, acts of kindness are not “random”, they are quite rational and even though people prefer to think of themselve as “selfless”, particularly extraverted charity is often much closer to selfishness. Yes, people often follow an categorical imparative (which is btw an authoritative practice), but in general they steal and kill whenever they feel it´s right without considering that this would make them less human. It doesn´t. Humans are killers and lovers.
Not at all, you are just not getting it.
Law and authority have anything to do with each other, you´re mixing things up, probably because you misunderstand what else authority can be.I recommend to read “Discipline and Punish” by Michel Foucault to get a better understanding that authority goes well beyond law enforcement. It doesn´t really matter if the police comes after you when you pissed into public water supply or the mob or an metaphysical being - all are authoritative figures. You prefer mob rule over police, that´s your choice, but still an appraisal of authority (in this case: authority of the club).
Also, there is no “voluntary society”. Society always implies the existence of a common codex. There is only voluntary joining and leaving of societies. However whenever you are tied to space, even if you leave, this doesn´t mean you are uneffected by a society, since when you are within the spatial realm of a society, even after leaving it may question and challenge your personal codex. If you´d been grown up in a small village, you´d know how little law means in certain areas and why this doesn´t necessarily lead into a society of happy and free people.
Coming back to topic: I agree with @neo that the frequency spectrum is a precious resource and “fair use” affords an arrangement between the people who may access the ressource, that is: regulation. How people come to the arrangement is irrelevant as long as participation is possible. But it is needed, because people WILL exploit it - and I don´t say this because I believe that people are evil, but because common practice tells us.
In my wildest dreams, SAFE network, and FreedomBox, are both available around the same time. I understand that there will be some redundancies, but I hope to run a SAFE node on my FreedomBox someday soon.
Key words there “When they don’t care about others.” Yes when the bonds of empathy and attatchment are frayed or severed altogether then humans can become downright vile it is true. However this is not to say that human beings don’t care. They just don’t care about EVERYBODY universily most of the time. But you don’t need to get people to care about EVERYONE. You want someone in the U.S. to care about starving children in Africa? Get them to develop a relationship with a starving child in Africa. It’s actually counter productive and degrades empathy to try and get people to identify with whole and very large groups. HOWEVER if you can get them to identify and bond with a single individual then the issues faced by that single individual, and therefore by the entire group, become very important to them. An act of “kindness” that is done because you’re supposed to do it and if you don’t do it there will be social or legal repercussions is not kindness, it’s duty.
All are people with power attempting to exert their will over me using coercion and violence and therefore I don’t see much difference between them. “Authority” = the use of force by a party to exert one’s will. Do I believe might makes right? No but we aren’t really discussing right and wrong here are we?
[quote=“Artiscience, post:31, topic:4931”]
If you´d been grown up in a small village, you´d know how little law means in certain areas and why this doesn´t necessarily lead into a society of happy and free people.
[/quote] Actually I did. And we were happy and free. Poor as ****** but still happy and free for the most part comparitively speaking.
Actually the key word was “random” and you rather confirmed that this doesn’t exist.
Pretty unique definition. Commonly authority does not refer to an action, but to a potential and prestige.
Well, we are, since you reject to confirm what you clearly stated. On the one hand you claim there is some kind of magic common sense…
…on the other hand this “common sense” is backed by the potential of “your favorite authority figure or enforcer guy” or the angry mob:
Or differently: if someone does not comply to (whatever you call) common sense, heshe gets hit by a stick, so heshe will understand what the ruling (!) common sense is. Yes, that´s pretty authoritative, only that you cover it by the logic of a natural “common sense” that people will comply to because…uhm…they are human - just like any police state would do.
People steal, kill and piss in the water - and mostly they do it for a reason, same as they share, give and form political unions for a reason.
Ergo religion or belief. You BELIEVE someone has the right to coerce another human being to do something when otherwise they would not. If you did not have the “authority” badge, stick, or tag, you would not be allowed to coerce another individual. If you do have it you are. This “authority”, this prestige, this potential, is a belief system that raises a normal human being above their peers. Therefore authority is nothing more than a religion and the use of force to exert one’s will. It’s no different than a priest announcing that because they are ordained of God they have the right, because God said so, to beat some poor sinner senseless.
Yeah it’s called empathy. Most of us have it.
And for those of us that don’t, or are not emotionally attached to the individual in question there’s force and power. Or “the stick.”
People exert their will upon the universe. This is a given truth. And given we all have our own subjective values and morals each one’s individual’s Will will be different. You see someone you believe to be suffering and feel empathy for them you’ll want to help. Great help them. But wait you see someone not helping them and see them as a bad guy and want to force them to help. Stop. You are now not only projecting your subjective viewpoint and situation onto another but are also becoming coercive and actually victimizing another and BECOMING a bad guy. Coercion degrades empathy.
If you empathize another then it is common sense not to do something that hurts them.
If you don’t empathize it is common sense not to do something that will incite harm to yourself.
It is also common sense to know that you cannot point a gun at someone and force them to empathize with everyone.
And in knowing that in lacking an attached empathic connection with someone you need to be able to defend yourself or have someone defend you believing a rule will protect you makes little sense. If you can defend yourself you are independent. If you depend on an external defender you are dependent on them for your protection AND you are in danger from them from being exploited if you cannot TRUST them.
Uhm yes, EVERY social relation is based on belief. While your definition appears single-sided (authority is not only about a person’s belief to be an authority, but about common acceptance as authority) it perfectly applies to your idea of club law:
You believe that “for those of us that don’t, or are not emotionally attached to the individual in question there’s force and power. Or “the stick.””
Ya, clearly appraisal of authority. Not my words, but yours. You don’t have problems with coercion. You only have problems with the "wrong coercion ". That’s perfectly fine with me. Just sayin, that everyone else has the right as well to chose and most people prefer “the stick” to be used in concordance with some sort of codified common decisions that apply to everyone, not by despotic decisions that apply to those who hold the stick.
Nope. You don’t just HAVE empathy. Empathy ia a relative concept, not a global one. Same as common sense derives from society not from nature. You have empathy to someone, while you don’t have empathy to others. It’s NOT common sense, it’s highly individual.
I can see that your world view consists out of good guys and bad guys (“…victimizing another and BECOMING a bad guy”). That’s not only ideological by definition it’s also as simplistic as it gets.
Defending oneself is not coercion. If I’m minding my own business and someone tries to rob me and I shoot him for trying to do so that’s not coercion that’s self defense as he was trying to coercively take my stuff. If however I’m the attacker and try to assault/rob/murder someone then they’re fully within their rights to defend themselves. Which brings us back to the SDR conversation about radio waves. If I’m broadcasting and tap into a used frequency, thus causing interference with someone’s stuff and they come knocking on my door I can two approaches. A) The defensive route. That is this is my broadcast and I’m not responsible for your stuff. Or b) The empathetic route: Wait a minute I’m causing harm here and forcing myself on him and his space. This could be argued to a form of coercion. This is wrong. How would I feel if this happened to me? It’s the same as having a neighbour with loud music blasting or a tree that interferes with your TV broadcast. Some would argue that it’s entirely their right to play whatever they like on their property and it’s none of your business to tell them different and if you don’t like it then it’s your responsibility to move to a different neighbourhood. Some would argue that it is their responsibility to make sure they aren’t a bother to the neighbours. And that’s essentially what this whole conversation boils down to. Do we regulate the radio waves making a set of neighbourhood or state “rules” everyone has to follow or do we have everyone take individual responsibility for their own stuff. Did it ever occur to anyone to create an incentivization program of some kind to abide by some kind of rule set or say if someone is using spectra you want to use in your area that you want to use you could pay them not to so you can use it?
Your point being? Most human beings can FEEL and have emotions and therefore have empathy. They may not be empathetic for everyone (I believe I already pointed this out) and therefore no it’s not a global concept but a rather very subjective one. Who indeed does one care about? But again what’s your point? Global empathy is not needed. You just need to understand how empathy works and encourage a few of the right empathic connections in the right places. Only your psychopaths do not have the capacity for empathy.
Wow aren’t we one for making assumptions. You didn’t even stop to think I’m not even one to believe in absolute truth let alone be sucked into a paradigm of “good guys” vs “bad guys.” I was using that as an example to create a simplistic explaination of what I was trying to illistrate. Please next time you want to learn something about ME, ask. Don’t cite some example I give in a debate. I very often simplify concepts because not only have human beings proven to be lacking in intelligence much of time, of one kind or another, but also I’ve found they tend to like things excessively summed up. If I expound things in full I tend to get complaints about “It’s too long! I don’t want to read all that!” or “Links? Articles? Videos? I don’t want to take time to educate myself!” Therefore I simply.
Moreover law should be simple, like really simple. And it should be written simply and in plain language that can be commonly understood. Otherwise what’s the point? If there is so much law that you need a degree just to understand it then I’d say someone is failing either in human management or communications. If you can’t trust someone to act civilly in your business fire them don’t make up reams and reams of laws. If a business like BP oil or Monsanto is harming people and the environment and people don’t rise up it’s their own bloody fault for not doing their research and taking the innititive to care about the product their buying. That’s a communications and human resource issue. Why are people so eager to vote for government but not so willing to do even a bit of their own research and buy a different product?
And AGAIN this whole conversation comes back to taking responsibility for your own stuff vs being responsible for other people’s stuff. Which is the essense of the philosophies between anarchy and statism. In statism you are duty bound to take care of others whether you actually feel for them or not. In an anarchistic society you only take care of people you want to take care of.
And how does this apply to SDR? Because regulating radio waves, like regulating anything, is a statist concept and has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with forced conformity.
Also allowing the state to dish out liscenses gives them power to revoke liscences and to censor people. It sounds all well and good when discussing interference patterns but we should know by now we can’t trust the government especially when it comes to communications.
