Bob George wrote: > Well, for your dial-up, email-only alternative network scheme, your 486 > running even an older Linux system, updated as necessary, would work > fine. If you're just talking to a partial mesh of compatriots > (conspirators?), then you could easily set up uucp to dial one, some or > all of the "Intermesh" on a schedule according to rates and preferences, > or simply whenever there's something outbound (trusting them to call YOU > for any inbound.) You don't need to reinvent anything, and any mix of > old and new Internet-standards based apps will work for reading and > composing messages and "news." One or more of the 'mesh crowd with good > Internet connectivity could offer up gateway services between your > multitude and the rest of the Internet world, even doing spam filtering > and the like. This all exists and works just dandy, but of course you > need to find other like-minded folk to make it actually happen.
Yes, there are Hams using packet. But even if just ascii email, I dont think that the bandwidth they now have would support nearly the numbers of email users. They are also into long-range continental communication, whereas the hardware needs of a local COOP ISP would be much more modest. And yes, there are the BBS people, and a communitarian effort to organize internet access. > > > For dial-up access to an existing provider that insists on advanced > authentication options, just update any workable Linux distribution on > that same 486 with reasonably current ppp software and you're in > business. No changes to hardware required here either. Your Kharma may vary. I tried that, but nothing ever installed properly on any of the distros I tried it on. Like with document formats, there is a proliferation of Linux archive formats, and one of the problems I had was that I needed to upgrade the archive tools. Which needed an upgraded compiler, which needed a more uptodate library, when when downloaded needed an new archive tool. > > > For your wild-eyed, damn the FCC wireless scheme, as you repeatedly > state, if you can find other individuals with an equal disregard for the > law and legitimate bandwidth users, by all means, do it. Just don't > expect applause from the masses, and heed the cautions of the > isp-wireless list: rocks ain't trees, and if you're in the hills, best > account for those too. The speed limit on US 65 a couple miles from my home is 55. Everyone goes 64. But of course, we have a culture clash. The hillbillies were the first to figure out what it meant when people from the government arrive saying they were there to help. But I will repeat yet again Bob- that it aint *my* scheme. I am simply mentioning the result we have already seen with CB radio. I had no interest in disobeying regulations, and even sent in the card that came with my CB. But just like folks drive fast, they ignored the FCC too. And given that *fact*, I look at the way hardware prices are falling, power output increasing, and software proliferating, and see that the FCC will loose control. The problems I have had with the internet interface dont seem to be that rare, so there will be others motivated to get around the whole setup... and come up with, among other things, bootleg wireless connectivity. Which will work whether the FCC likes it or not. Will work whether saboteurs or Murphy's law crashes the internet or not. Kazinsky cases are not only illogically angry, they are creative. And if the net crashes, sure Hams will try to fill in, but I have visited some ham links recently, and it looks to me like the interest in ham radio communications, like with the BBSes, is waning. > Don't update to a newer distribution when you run into a stumbling block > then. Figure out what's not working, and make the adjustments. If you're > really the rugged survivalist you pose as, you would consider your > ability to actually maintain the system in the absence of an annual > distribution update as important as the hardware and operating system. A > box you can't fix yourself is useless if there's nobody around to snivel > to for help. Well, I could try to write my own operating system in binary too. Why spend hours of my own time trying to track down the problem when I can get a new distro install disk for 5 bucks? > >> The Internet was setup by government to facilitate the functionality >> of organizations. > > > Wrong. It was designed to provide a network to operate in the event of > total meltdown of centralized control. I would think that would be > appealing to you. We seem to live in different Virtual Realities. The original network that I know about was between university mainframes doing defense research. > Been done. All of it. Back in the 1980s. On pre-486 systems. At 1,200bps > and slower. Wireless. No need for the bloat of 16MB RAM and a 486 and > any stinkin' TV frequencies. No need for connections to any central > network, unless you want it. It looks to me that gray market SURVPCs are around capable of much faster speeds. > I suspect you prefer to rant against government and what you don't > understand rather than work to actually build any sort of alternate > network. Let me try to be clear. I live in a region which has lots of ranters. Given my choice between rule by the ranter and the government, I'd take the latter. But I dont think it's upta me. You are arguing with the messenger cause you dont like the message. People who live in rural areas live with regulations which were written by people who live in urban areas. They aint really happy about that, and since in a democracy, the majority rules, and the urban majority is 98%, rural folks have no choice but to rant. We tend to have more time to think, and a more critical eye. Since you brought up the automotive example, let me clarify a couple points. When Huckabee took over in Arkansas, he came on TV, and said that he looked at the statisticis, and could not find where motor vehicle inspections actually reduced accidents. So- he abolished them. 2nd, my 48 dodge would be a deathtrap.. for someone in an accident. It was made out of a ton of steel. I shudder to think what it'd do should it hit a new car. But in any case, I dunno what the rules are where you live, but in Arkansas, I can drive my dode without using a seatbelt. There are no seatbelts in it, and the antique car nuts would go ballistic if regulations were applied. Then too, we have the case of the 1955 DeSoto, which came out with a totally new user interface, the 'push button drive'. No gearshift. Just buttons on the dashboard. Lotsa buttons. looked like a GUI interface. But after it wasnt so new anymore, for whatever reason, folks went back to the old (like ansi scrollbar) shift lever interface, and the widely proclaimed death of the 'standard transmission' never actually happened. So, I am somewhat skeptical that all the goodies presented to us now will be all that durable either. And if people find out that they can use their PC to wirelessly communicate in their local area without paying a phone bill- they will. whether the FCC likes it or not. The numbers will be so vast that the Ham bands will be ignored, along with their limits on bandwidth, and of course... speed limits. They wont need a design from me.
