Spyke
discuss.tchncs.de

packet radio probably, but i hope you like BBSs because 9600bps is blazingly fast over this medium

10
sh.itjust.works

I also hope you don't intend to communicate anything that requires security or privacy because, assuming you mean HAM bands in HF, then you can't encrypt anything.

4
discuss.tchncs.de

that's another big limitation

there's probably a way to use encryption over HF, but this would require some kind of commercial license

3

I mean encrypting the data is the easy part, doing it legally is the hard part. Good luck getting a world wide multi-station license....

5
stownreply
sedd.it

Hear me out - you could run, like, a sneaker-net but with cargo ships!

7
nyanreply
lemmy.cafe

The problem with using RFC1149 is rounding up and training enough seabirds—pigeons won't fly that far over water. Albatrosses would be ideal, but there might not be enough of them available.

Hmm. Can we instead attach mesh repeater units to the albatrosses, and hope that enough of them take up optimum spacing for long-distance transmission? Or perhaps it would be better to just string a line of buoys across the Bering Strait once Russia stops being cantakerous. Then all we have to do is find a way to connect up Australia and a few assorted islands here and there.

5
arcimboldoreply
lemmy.sdf.org

What about IPoverFish?

Edit: IP-over-swimming-carrier maybe better. Let's get an RFC ready before next April 1st

1
nyanreply
lemmy.cafe

Whales would allow for the greatest throughput, and are technically not fish, so "swimming carrier" works. Plus, another good reason to lean on the few nations that still allow whaling to stop: "Don't kill those, you'll break the Internet!!1!"

The problem with the RFC will be equalling the tongue-in-cheek silliness of 1149 and its extensions. I expect there to be a large section on "encapsulation concerns" (in other words, waterproofing).

1

We could also solve the problem of scientific missions not being able to tweet while they are exploring the deep sea!

1

P2P implies that peers talk to each other directly. In a mesh configuration peers talk to each other via other peers.

4

From what I understand it's the final form of decentralization. The idea is that a bunch of user/community owned computers communicate with each other and act like an alternative community based internet provider. Big cities already implement some form of this like NYC.

9
lemmy.eco.br

Ah, ok. You're just paranoid.

Guess what. If your data pass through any node, ISP or not, you can be spied.

5

"paranoid" assumes that it's unjustified suspicion of someone or something. However it's a well known fact that ISPs may spy on users as it's been exposed to happen in the past...

10

@BaalInvoker not paranoid, beyond observation, straight up control over who gets access and not. CBDC social credit system depends on centralized structures

0
sedd.it

How would you propose connecting to a mesh network without the use of an ISP? Are you thinking wireless (wifi)? For something like that to work you would need an AP/repeater every 150 feet or so. How would you cross oceans without bouncing wireless signals off the ionosphere (creating latency issues) or using a cable (requiring some entity to maintain it - $$$)?

If you break it down into the requirements to do such a thing you can start to understand why your question is a bit ridiculous.

7
VENreply
mastodon.social

@stown I don't think its ridiculous, especially given how they've strung cables across the ocean haha

-2
stownreply
sedd.it

"They" = companies with money to invest and profits to be had.

3

You reached the end

[@linux](https://lemmy.ml/c/linux) any global mesh networks that could replace ISP's? | Spyke