That would essentially be an intranet, with no access to the internet, the world wide web. I mean the idea of a decentralized internet sounds fantastic to me, but how would you actually connect to it?
I'm thinking wifi would be the easiest way. you can find cheap routers at thrift stores these days that will take custom firmware. there's plenty of free server solutions you could slap on a used computer (linux basically is a server OS, but there's also apache webserver, and I think even Whinedohs has server options built in at this point).
What I'm envisioning is a peer-to-peer network built (at least at first) on existing protocols and hardware to create a decentralized architecture. The advantages that come to mind would be that it would be harder to take down and it would only cost an initial investment to get setup (no monthly service fees).
The downsides would be everybody would have to maintain their own hardware and some people might end up getting bogged down if they were in a primary route over long distances, not to mention the issue of covering long distances of people who aren't yet on the network/geographic barriers like large bodies of water, etc.
Most of this is theoretical of course. More robust protocols and some sort of block-chain-like transfer protocol might be needed to glue all the pieces together...
How would you be able to access new information, instead of what's currently on the intranet? We need to figure out how to access it, then offer free access. We don't really know what Starlink is for, but if something can be built with that concept with the end goal of being free internet, then it's something that should be pursued, with all the bitching from telecom companies falling on deaf ears.
How would you be able to access new information, instead of what's currently on the intranet?
People would add information over time, the same way they did with the early internet, except now we'd be a step ahead in terms of what services to offer.
Eventually, as with the internet itself, major brands would have to adopt the new network or fall behind competitors, much like they did with the og internet. The big difference being that with no major hubs to bottleneck bandwidth, it would be harder for a few big players to control the whole thing
That would essentially be an intranet, with no access to the internet, the world wide web. I mean the idea of a decentralized internet sounds fantastic to me, but how would you actually connect to it?
I'm thinking wifi would be the easiest way. you can find cheap routers at thrift stores these days that will take custom firmware. there's plenty of free server solutions you could slap on a used computer (linux basically is a server OS, but there's also apache webserver, and I think even Whinedohs has server options built in at this point).
What I'm envisioning is a peer-to-peer network built (at least at first) on existing protocols and hardware to create a decentralized architecture. The advantages that come to mind would be that it would be harder to take down and it would only cost an initial investment to get setup (no monthly service fees).
The downsides would be everybody would have to maintain their own hardware and some people might end up getting bogged down if they were in a primary route over long distances, not to mention the issue of covering long distances of people who aren't yet on the network/geographic barriers like large bodies of water, etc.
Most of this is theoretical of course. More robust protocols and some sort of block-chain-like transfer protocol might be needed to glue all the pieces together...
How would you be able to access new information, instead of what's currently on the intranet? We need to figure out how to access it, then offer free access. We don't really know what Starlink is for, but if something can be built with that concept with the end goal of being free internet, then it's something that should be pursued, with all the bitching from telecom companies falling on deaf ears.
People would add information over time, the same way they did with the early internet, except now we'd be a step ahead in terms of what services to offer.
Eventually, as with the internet itself, major brands would have to adopt the new network or fall behind competitors, much like they did with the og internet. The big difference being that with no major hubs to bottleneck bandwidth, it would be harder for a few big players to control the whole thing
Problem is, those big players have the infrastructure for server farms to hold all that data.