Mesh - Pico Peering Agreement


I guess there has to be some kind of order in current meshnet land, but with SAFE, this may not be required, if I understood @dirvine correctly in the video segment posted at the end this post.

Pico Peering Agreement v1.0


There are now many community networks, but they are seperated geographically and socially and do not form a coherent network. This document is an attempt to connect those network islands by providing the minimum baseline template for a peering agreement between owners of individual network nodes - the Pico Peering Agreement.

The PPA is a way of formalizing the interaction between two peers. Owners of network nodes assert their right of ownership by declaring their willingness to donate the free exchange of data across their networks.

The PPA is maintained at by a group of volunteers from around the world. It is intended to be used as a template for other small-scale peering documents and licenses.


(1) Free Transit:

The owner agrees to provide free transit accross their free network.
The owner agrees not to modify or interfere with data as it passes through their free network.

(2) Open Communication:

The owner agrees to publish the information necessary for peering to take place
This information shall be published under a free licence
The owner agrees to be contactable and will provide at least an email adress

(3) No Warranty:

There is no guaranteed level of service
The service is provided “as is”, with no warranty or liability of whatsoever kind
The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time with no notice

(4) Terms of Use:

The owner is entitled to formulate an 'acceptable use policy’
This may or may not contain information about additional services provided (apart from basic access)
The owner is free to formulate this policy as long as it does not contradict points 1 to 3 of this agreement (see point 5)

(5) Local Amendments:

(to be filled in ad-hoc by the node owner as this document is implemented)

Definition of terms

Owner: The owner of the node has the right to operate their network equipment and to donate any part of its functionality to the FreeNetwork

Transit: Transit is the exchange of data into, out of or across a network

Free Transit: Free transit means that the owner will neither charge for the transit of data nor modify the data

Free Network: The Free Network is the sum of interconnected hardware and software resources, whose FreeTransit has been donated by the owners of those resources

The Service: The Service is made up of Free transit and Additional Services

Additional Services: In terms of the PPA, an additional service is anything over and above Free Transit. For example, provision of a DHCP server, a web server or a mail server

The PPA in practice

The PPA shall be implemented in data readable form following agreed standards in community network node data bases to facilitate automatic interconnection of nodes.


There is no guaranteed level of service
The service is provided “as is”, with no warranty or liability of whatsoever kind
The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time with no notice

What - no network neutrality? That is outrageous!


And profit isn’t the purpose of the agreement so no conflict, so neutrality remains.


And profit isn’t the purpose of the agreement so no conflict, so neutrality remains.

So you’re not really for net neutrality - you’re only anti-profit.
Like I always thought. Thanks for helping out.


@janitor I think that the key difference here, is that these are NOT ISPs, which have a monopoly AS WELL AS, specifically granted statutory immunity from virtually all civil suits related to the internet traffic which they service.

In a Mesh network, if someone charges more, then the network moves around them. Alternatively, if the higher charges result in a genuinely higher performing network, then whats the harm. The problem with net neutrality is not the theory of charging more for better service, the problem is that we can’t afford to give organizations which already enjoy monopolies that kind of censorship control over the network. Because giving them that control coupled with the monopoly will allow the Telcos to extort money and set a huge barrier to entry for new digital businesses, and don’t even think about non-profit truth-seeking organizations.


What is simpler: deregulate (I hope you wouldn’t want to regulate mesh networks too?) or introduce more thieving laws?

But noone is arguing for deregulation, are they? The (pseudo) net neutrality jokers have one, simple mission: change the laws so that they too can freeload on others’ money.


Well, I think that I am arguing for deregulation in the case of Mesh networks, because no one actor, or closely related group of actors will be able to control a Mesh network. By design, poor service and high costs will simply cause a Mesh network to route around them. This is a totally different structural backdrop from the government enforced monopolies and immunities enjoyed by the current ISP/Telcos.


So are you in favor of not deregulating telcos or not?
If you are not, then you’re against mesh networks.


Come again? Mesh networks and the current Telco based ISPs are two totally different things.


If by deregulation, you mean, not just allowing the Telcos to charge more for certain data speeds, but actually stripping away the Telcos monopolistic power to offer wired and wireless 3G-4G, internet services, as well as their wide immunities to lawsuits for data which they convey, then yes, I suppose I am in favor of deregulation.

I’m also in favor of the US Dollar returning to the gold standard. I’m in favor of a broader public domain, and a world where IP policy is not set in high-level treaty negotiations behind closed doors. I’m in favor of an aggressive space program. I’m in favor of politicians always telling the truth.

I’m in favor of a lot of things, but when the current system incentivizes the major institutions to operate in a certain way, my solution is to start looking for an alternative system, not attempt to get these institutions to act against their own self-interest.


It may not be realistic, but there could be regulation that strangles telco/cable while also making them even less competitive than they already are, thereby encouraging alternatives. I think losses in these industries would work like a feed back signal. Cable/telco more then being unnecessary toll roads and being extractive literally profit from undermining society with censorship-sponsorship and enclosure. I understand that mutuals want some place to park money but I also think 401K are total Wall St theft. Also doubt the gold standard.


By deregulation I mean the complete cancellation of all telecommunications-related laws.

Right. My point is calling for more regulation is definitely not looking for an alternative system. My second point is if telcos were completely deregulated they would have the same rules like these mesh guys, which means net neutrality would remain a laughable concept just as it is now.


Yes but if you argued that enterprise telcos should be regulated and individual providers (mesh network guys) of exactly the same service shouldn’t, what kind of logic would that be?

P.S. I should have quoted the two replies in one reply but I am on a mobile device which isn’t easy to use, sorry folks.


@janitor You clearly have strong opinions on the net neutrality debate. I’m not sure that you are wrong, but Im really not sure how net neutrality (which as I understand it is a fight about which regulatory framework applies, as opposed to whether there should be regulations) has anything to do with the mesh networks.

Mesh networks by their nature are hyper-competitive. Because there are so many players involved, they all have to follow the protocol, or be excluded by the network. No single decision-making unit, (whether an individual or a group) can dominate the network.

I’m not sure how differentiating between Mesh networks and ISPs is calling for more regulation. But then I’m not sure how these two subjects are connected.


Okay, since I took this off-topic I should probably wind it down, but in short there is nothing inherently competitive about mesh networks. Trust me, telcos know how to create mesh networks (they built them for the military ages ago).
You are correct, the fight is simply a fight of freeloaders about who will adjust the law in their favor and not about creating a level playing field. For example, Netflix and Google are for net neutrality because they’re simply a bunch of very nice people who really care about the average Joe.
You would think folks like Netflix would argue for deregulation of telecommunications because that would make it possible to get the free market where the best providers win. But that’s exactly what they do not want, and that’s the point about net neutrality.
They don’t want a deregulated (free) market. They want a market regulated according to (fake) “net neutrality” principles so that the majority of telcos’ subscribers subsidize the minority who uses Netflix services.

What’s the link? I’m pointing out that unregulated mesh networks show how net neutrality actually works: in essence as long as you pay up (which can be based on peering bandwidth and not necessarily in money), the owner doesn’t care (he stays neutral and allows you to buy more bandwidth). They show that so-called net neutrality is bollocks. Problem is not the greedy telcos, but the government regulation of them.


This is an attempt to try to redefine what neutrality is. If we completely deregulated we’d end up with one monopoly supplier king maker and with worse price, access and supply issues. In a true meshnet work there would be no bandwidth issue and no one charging for it. It would be part of the back channel that each end user supplied node provided. Not going to allow toll road enclosure gate keepers so that spam can be subsidized. Going to cut the cord on the spam and the toll road gate keepers.


That doesn’t make sense. Right now mesh networks are completely deregulated - anyone can buy and share their WiFi AP over a mesh network. @kirkion said those who aren’t competitive wouldn’t be used. If that is correct - and I think it is - why would customers go to the most expensive provider with lamest service?

LOL. Have you joined? When you do, let me know how much bandwidth you donate to the greater cause every month and how much SAFE coins you mine with the remaining 0% of bandwidth.


First you were insisting that not deregulating telco and cable further meant being against meshnetworks. It doesnt. Not even close. They can be regulated in a way that helps us get rid of them. Your version of deregulation would allow them to bid for something beyond total spectrum rights to the point that anyone who communicated electronically would have to pay some monopoly rights holder and only that monopoly.

Ive heard this bit in the maidsafe forums about safecoins for bandwidth, but that part sounds like a load of rubbish to me, because that bandwidth wont be worth much once the system transitions to actual mesh. You seem to think that there is going to be artificial scarcity to allow enclosure and keep sponsored gatekeepers in control. Or that they will be able to corrupt the system before that point so it never makes the transition. If that were the case the system would be worse than useless. Each device in a working mesh will provide all the bandwidth it and other devices that need to communicate with it need. Each new device will add to the surplus of bandwidth and spam wont be allowed to create artificial scarcity.

I think it was you (sorry if I have this wrong) that was insisting this effort is not about changing distribution but about reinforcing the present system or simply making it slightly better. I personally dont think so. This is about fixing distribution so that its less corrupt, not taking it further in the DRM direction. Its less power for the rich and much more power for everyone else. Even if that means the rich arent so rich any more.


That’s not deregulation, that’s regulation.
Deregulation is when there are no licenses for spectrum “rights” (an inappropriate term, by the way, since spectrum doesn’t “belong” to anyone). Anyone would be free (hint: free market!) to setup their mesh “point” (or whatever) as long as they don’t violate other people’s rights (in other words, you can’t create a super strong station right outside of your neighbor’s bedroom because you may not be able to pay for all the healthcare costs you may cause him).

Needs are unlimited, means are scarce. That’s the basic idea of economy.
For example, porn in 256 colors? No, I don’t think so, unless there’s nothing better available.
If I download it over your freely shared AP for which I am not paying anything, I’ll be damned sure to get the best quality file I can display on my device regardless of how much congestion that will cause you - simply because I don’t have to pay for your service I will not economize.
(If you ask me to provide the same amount/quality of throughput to you, that’s market pricing, quid pro quo, which is why I’m claiming mesh networking will not work without free market principles.)

To me it’s about making sure that the coercive power of the State that net neutrality fanatics want to increase should be completely removed, and not strengthened.

In a deregulated market everyone would get richer except the few oligarchs.


Sounds like at least moderate regulation to make that work.

But that is not the potential of the tech. I wonder if we will enter something steeper than Moore’s so-called called law on mesh bandwidth. People were accusing Perlman of violating Shannon’s law when he was presenting the DIDO white papers (now PCell,) and at the far end is genuine quantum communication which has some outrageous implications like time travel and some more practical ones like getting rid of most circuitry. If there is no real scarcity there is no need to ration or allow scarcity of the commons rhetoric- which above you seem to be proposing a regulatory solution to anyway. So much scarcity of the commons talk would be like pilgrims claiming the natives would drink all the in water lake superior, therefor Pilgrims must be able to charge natives to drink out of lake superior. And it would be wants vice needs that are unlimited and in either case the implication seems to be regulation even if it be a free market where someone is allowed through regulation again to make property of the commons to charge others for it. If someone were to compare the DIDO whitepapers and releases from 3-4 years ago to PCell today it might yield a better picture for the forum of that tech’s fit with true mesh and ProjectSAFE.

That is fine and under functioning mesh you will be limited by the code rules (laws) of the network to an amount of the collective pool equal to that which you contribute with you end user owned hardware. In the beginning you are just subletting regressive enclosure oriented bandwidth, a loser for ProjectSAFE even over the medium term, hence the need to transition to end users owned mesh as fast as possible and stop paying to enrich infrastructure designed to spam, censor and mind control.

No quid pro quo is needed, you will get in exact proportion to what you contribute and by the principles of mesh networking and Moore’s law etc. that should be more than enough. Under mesh principles new nodes add to all the network parameters in a way that is much more linear than say processor scaling, there is not bottle neck to exploit save for latency which software defined radio seems to solve and if it doesn’t mesh may not be suitable and a solution for ProjectSAFE will be harder to come by.

Now that impression seems like arguing for an ability to oppress through money or a misunderstanding coming from placing stock in lines from sponsored media. Neutrality was there from the very beginning of the net and at its heart. It was a provision to prevent an abuse of contracts with a kind of defacto lock-in (really lock out) where the government (public interest and public money) was subject to one vendors schemes to make its networking equipment incompatible with another vendors at the inter network level in order to take and lock in share at the government’s (public’s) and competitors expense. If anything its always been a principle that requires an open, rational market and prevents monopoly barrier to entry games where suppliers are able to get inequitable permanent gain through damaging the public interest and limiting competition. Its a pro competition provision. Whereas peering is an attempt to allow anti competitive artificial scarcity games and a health response would be the pretty automatic break up of firms that get anywhere close to being in a position to attempt this.

That hasn’t historically been the case, quite the opposite, but bad regulation can make it so. Total lack of regulation guarantees it. Historically regulation has failed and allowed a big three situation in most markets. One to three firms will win what they rightly see as a winnable competition usually with credit manipulations and then lord it over everyone else like corporate welfare barons. Funny how markets aren’t self regulating. There have to be some rules of fair play or the lowest common denominator of human nature will be the rule set. We can allow regulatory failure in some markets but not communications and media. To allow failure in these two would seem to guarantee failure in all others. Get these two right and even banks can be knocked into line.