On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:

I'm sorry, there will be no war _between_ security of any kind, and privacy of any kind. One implies the other.

If something is private, it must be secure If something is secure, there is obviously something worth keeping restricted.

private <> secure. secure <> restricted private ~ resticted (stricly speaking, there are levels of restiction) Your logic is flawed. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech. It will require updating firewall software so that it also handles bandwidth throttling and fail-over routing. On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:

In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have at least three or four different routes to the internet.

Unfortunately, extra phone lines and nailed-up connections cost money, and at that point they'd just start going for the phone companies instead of the ISP's anyway. The benefit is that common carrier anti-censorship laws might be a little stronger with phone lines.

____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

It's important to recognize some points, - It's a backup system, consider bad weather and emergency services. CB radio should be broadened to allow this on designated channels for the same sort of reasons. - Most people wouldn't be sending heavy packets all the time. - It would be useful for large audience broadcast (say a church wishing to broadcast voice_over_IP to its immediate neighborhood) - Your kids could have a 'neighborhood chat room'. - Some sort of encryption is required. (Which will be a lot easier sell after the IR search thing is found unconstitutional) - Maxim is making a 900MHz chip that supports 1Mb/s. Using burst and spread spectrum I suspect that a network with suitable bandwidth and routing rules couldn't generate more bits than it could handle with respect to distance between sites. On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

...

900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech. It will require updating firewall software so that it also handles bandwidth throttling and fail-over routing.

I've looked at that, but I'm unsure about it... the problem is that if not enough people have it you're out of range - but if too many people have it, you're choked for bandwidth and get interference problems.

With a range of a few hundred feet to a few miles, routing can also become problematic.

It would be nice though: a $100 'packet box' for each station, that allows you to set up independent IP connections with your neighbors. If you can get them common enough, it would be impossible to cut someone off by cutting their ISP access -- 'cause out in the wild, a packet is a packet is a packet, and if all the stations run IP protocol, even if every ISP in the world rejects a packet, it could still make its way across any continent in short hops from station to station.

And this is not just an anti-censorship thing, either; this is more properly a tool for 24/7 uptime for people who can't afford t3's and can't get PacBell's attention to fix their damn line in the first minute after it goes down. I can picture that sales pitch appealing to a lot of home businesses who get cut off from their DSL connection for a week at a time while PacBell pulls its head out of its collective ass. Or Cinci Bell, or Southern Bell, or NTT, or Deutsche Telecomm, or whoever serves their area.

I like it. Every station an ISP.

____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:

900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech.

Microwave networking providers price vary considerably, and a number of ISPs are reluctant to unroll this stuff due to implementation pricing. Can anyone recommend good nice, and inexpensive packet radio LAN technology ? I've heard that breezecom is pretty nice, what do you guys think ? How secure are the spread spectrum modulation schemes on these things anyway ?

Ray Dillinger wrote:

In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have at least three or four different routes to the internet.

On that note, what's the most inexpensive way of becoming trully multi homed, and how much of a pain is it to set up BGP ? What are the requirements for getting an ASN number ? Can a smaller ISP pull this off ? This is a serious question, I can't find a whole lot of information on this.