A concern with Maidsafe involves throttling. The difference between common carrier and info service was that under info services the carrier would be allowed to profit from interfering with who their customers could communicate with and what they communicated. The info service profit would literally be noise in the channel where they would be paid to harass and sabotage. In the case of Maidsafe this would seem likely to manifest as them simply noting that no paid ads were clicked on and throttling back the connection to the point that it wasnât useable. Or no âlegitimateâ service was used. They might lower the price, and while the price was still too high, claim that they were subsidizing a portion of the connection and justified in the throttling. Pure BS, but predictable. Their point is profit from censorship and propaganda and to enhance both.
A concern with Indie Phone is what good is it if it canât operate on a clean network. And how does it get that. Does it go to tiny independent operators like Credo mobile and think that situation will hold out? I donât think what they want works with any kind of toll pipe
A concern with Distributed Input Distributed Output or PCell (apparently better than 5G now) is that the telecom and cable industry donât really want it as it would disrupt their planned obsolescence schedule and potentially create competition. It will be met with a provider strike just like Onlive (whose technology was deemed impossible) was met with a supplier content strike. OnLive itself was a threat as it could do things like take the companyâs 10gb connection and allow an end user virtual access to the 10gbs connection through the service itself so that through a 5mb connection it was like having virtual access to a 10gb connection for search and some streaming or fast forwarding of video. OnLive itself was a universal server technology that could serve all content and services and potentially set them all in competition with each other. Onlive still exists but the collusive industry opted out of what it considers a bad example or disinter-mediation and inducement to competition. It can do that because the industry is self regulating, and its got choices like opt out which it shouldnât have.
If all three were approaches were combined it might be possible to avoid these types of concerns. If MaidSafe would make it possible to eliminate the DIDO back channel and possible to distribute the DIDO compute load across the phones and if it were possible to integrate even the Pcell wall mounted antennae component into the phones then it might be possible with an Indie phone to have a self contained replacement for the entire internet. DIDO really is said to be like mobile fiber. Full proof remains but Steven Perlman and his companies tends to deliver and his entire career has had a consistent theme. These phones would be complete mesh boxes. Floating them on balloons might be enough to create trans oceanic links for net replacement. A no compromise mobile wireless consumer phone mesh may be the way to cut out the cables and the data centers and the tolls and manipulations by state and corporate actors.
Iâd like to note that PCell is not like LTE and not like beam shaping but more like leveraging interference- although its is said to be compatible with LTE or able to piggy back with little cost and a better power profile.
Iâm the guy responsible for the layer which the network provider sees, so Iâll take this.
Firstly, net neutrality is a legal requirement in currently most parts of the world. The US is thinking about dropping that, but even if they do it will still be a legal requirement everywhere else.
Secondly, net neutrality explicitly refers to charging to not have content transmitted traffic shaped. Content can still be traffic shaped by network providers anyway for operational reasons - for example, my vDSL provider gives me 70Mbit for HTTP and HTTPS and 1Mbit for everything else, plus a 5Gb cap on the 70Mbit between 4pm and 1am (if you exhaust that, it falls back to 1Mbit). Access to certain named sites is not counted against that cap. As much as that sounds very much like not net neutrality, no one is paying my ISP to do this, so itâs legal.
Yes, a network provider could currently easily specifically throttle all RUDP connections. I am hoping to split RUDP into a control and data channel, and then explicitly publish how to throttle the data channel without throttling the control channel. I am hoping to make RUDP as friendly as possible to network providers, that gives them the least incentive to throttle us negatively (i.e. throttle the control channel).
Some might say âwhy donât you encrypt/obfuscate everything?â Well, Iâm hoping to provide a secondary option which does just that. That gives people the choice to cope with whatever their local network provider does.
In the end, all this stuff are battles being waged by Google, Netflix, Amazon etc against the owners of the transport links. We have very little influence in any of that.
Please clarify, could they not just throttle upload from end users in a discriminate fashion or even blanket fashion? My guess is they would love to do that for what ever reason. Would making encrypting everything resolve this, I am concerned that it wouldnât and they can see bits going into an end user system and those going out and if they slow the upstream they can achieve almost all their objectives. Also I suspect where Maidsafe is throttled most of all of its utility is broken. But let us be very clear that throttling up stream is the most blatant censorship and silencing. No coincidence that cable is still very asymmetric.
I am also I think clear now that the interference radio is really just math, and can be adapted to symmetric use to give us something like useful mobile fiber but likely under the open or public domain approach.
Right now RUDP has such low performance I donât think weâd even be noticed by content providers. Compared to Netflix or Bittorrent we are and will remain completely insignificant.
My appreciation for Maidsafe or similar approach has continued to grow as Iâve realized there is no waiting for or relying on plan B and there should also be no retreating from a global network that belongs to the public and canât be allowed to become a system of command, control and surveillance (despite its defense origins.) Even in those defense origins it was meant to keep communication alive.
While the MaidSafe system may hang by the equivalent of a RUDP Morse code thread, when authority considers the potential consequences of a successful MaidSafe weâd have to assume they see it as a fuse leading to a powder keg.
The system would only need enough functionality to enable a handful of secure apps to change the world. To spread, truly secure text and file transfer apps might be enough assuming they were easy to access, fully secure and stable. Probably search, texting, email (with good storage and file transfer) and secure phone (even without video.) MaidSafe versions of these might work with current wireless mesh tech even with hop latency. Even Appleâs multipeer, despite, its limited range is working with some these but at lower security levels.
So, the data that we upload to SAFE will be seen and counted towards our caps? I have 150GB @ month (which is at the high end in Oz) and 1Mbit uplink âŚat those rates it would take us years to seed the network with our data.
I wonder what type of ISP plan is going to be the most economical for being 100% native SAFE browsing. I know latency is the most important component to a fast browsing experience currently, but given the architecture of SAFE, will we still need to fork out for the top plans I wonder?
I understand this might be sensitive information and if so, âThe computer says noâ would suffice for these questions.
In UK there are still some real unlimited plans, both mobile and wired.
I use ThreeUKâs mobile broadband and boy do I get value out of it. Iâm on a boat, so donât have a wired option, but use it like one, and the cost is about the same as I used to pay for Virgin cable broadband (though Three mobile is probably cheaper now as Virgin were hiking prices on a regular basis).
So shop around, and certainly donât assume there are no good unlimited options.
Another strategy is to find places where you can do your uploading from from a laptop: Free WiFi in Libraries, Coffee shops etc.
Since SAFE is encrypted on the client, and your credentials never leave your machine, the usual warnings about public WiFi donât apply to SAFE users. Its just your own machine you need to keep free of malware.
You could see, we dont do anything remotely symmetric because we donât like Torrent. This is where enclosure or closed is really about top down speech, whether it be money or bits. I know collegiate is a bit more horizontal relative to bueraucratic and entrepreneurial and even so is not a panecea but we did almost all of the human portion of our evolution in non hierarchical groups of 100 or so in democratic peaceful cooperation. We are wired for the horizantal, the verticle gets us sick and its a push button machine verticle now.
This is where its possible to imagine a post business world as so much of what business is is enclosure. From the business mindset there is going to be an antipathy to the internet for the much the same reason as the opposition to unions. They dont like the collective or the commons.
Still even as there is a real effort to turn the internet into TV and make it a top down medium of command and control through enclosure, still horizontal communication is increasing each year.ht
It seems logical that the goal is to gradually turn down the volume on voices that canât or wonât pay the premium. Its the logic of money being just ordinary speech. Nevermind that artificial scarcity plays a role.
Like taking the typical highway system and designating a couple of lanes as commercial truck only. This is money paid to comparatively silence horizontal speech. This is why the cords have to be cut.
If your ISP counts uploads against your cap (almost always yes), then of course it will. Not a lot that anyone except your government can do about that.
I am not familiar enough with the situation in Oz, but I seem to repeatedly notice that all your content delivery networks seems ridiculously expensive. For example, a subscription to the Economist is for some reason hugely more expensive than anywhere else, and your internet costs far more than anyone else too, plus Iâve heard that subscription TV is also much more expensive. All that is surely your governmentâs fault, whether through hidden taxes or lack of initiative or action.
Here my bog standard home vDSL internet is 70Mbit down 20Mbit up for HTTP and HTTPS only.
I personally believe that web browsing on uncached SAFE will be exceptionally slow. SAFE will have to implement tepid storage in my opinion. dirvine and others disagree with me though.
If Iâm right any home ISP with a sub 100ms ping time should be indistinguishable from any other. Satellite internet connections are always going to be slow though, you canât work around a ~800ms ping time.
Unlimited usually means âunlimited [see fine print]â. Search Google for your ISP broadband package and the word FUP, so for example Three UK unlimited [see fine print] mobile broadband actually has a monthly cap of 1000Gb plus they substantially throttle bulk transfers between 3pm and 12pm daily.
Of course, to Chris Foster a 1000Gb monthly cap on a 4G connection for a very reasonable price sounds like nirvana . In the end itâs about what is competitive.
This is exactly what I was concerned about in the posts I was making on scalability. We need SAFE Network to provide incentives for people providing the mesh net.
This requires specialized nodes who expand connectivity and offer broadband. If we donât do this then theyâll stop SAFE Network by throttling the bandwidth of whoever uses it.
You can disguise the traffic but if you do this youâd still end up having to pay the ISPs. If SAFE Network became too threatening the ISPs would reduce the data cap or charge a lot more for access which effectively would kill SAFE Network from ever being scalable.
The only way I can see for it to scale is via meshnet. The regular Internet is too slow and centralized around entrenched interests.
If ISPâs could farm Safecoins it would solve the whole problem wouldnât it? Suddenly the money would exist to build as much connectivity as SAFE Network demands.
âŚand act like throttling upload wasnât an issue or not really a compromise. Mesh may seem like a wall to people because they are used to thinking about its slow hop limits. I so wish something with software radio could be done to change Meshâs PR fortunes.
. In the end itâs about what is competitive.