
The alternative Internet, WiFi based - tawm
http://wiki.omegasdg.com/index.php?title=Project_Kleinrock
======
runjake
I don't mean to be insulting, but this looks like it was hatched up by a high
school teenager with no experience or skills in setting up metropolitan-scale
networks, let alone a "second" Internet.

No security, & contrary to the webpage's claims completely touchable and
jammable. Unless you had a ridiculous amount of wireless access points
deployed, destroying one node _would_ have a significant effect (again,
contrary to what the webpage sees).

~~~
jamer
Actually, I'm not sure why the website doesn't mention that, but we were aware
of that. Our lack of experience in security was one of the factors in why we
didn't continue further.

\- Paul, OmegaSDG

------
willidiots
The major problem with this proposal is scalability.

"Repeater mode" is usually WDS or a logical client bridge+AP. This is entirely
layer 2, has no routing, no useful path metrics, and is completely unsuited
for a network larger than a few nodes if you want any sort of
reliability/usability.

True meshing algorithms like 802.11s or BATMAN can optimize the mesh topology,
but you're still on one huge broadcast domain. The proposal needs to establish
a means to restrict the size of these domains - convert each node (or a subset
of supernodes) into "routers", and roll out a routing protocol which is
optimized to this type of ad-hoc, organic deployment.

The other problem with scaling (no matter what your meshing algorithm does) is
the half-duplex nature of RF - if you're doing this with single-radio SOHO
routers, you're going to lose half of your throughput per hop. I run two
500-node muni WiFi nets, and we try _never_ to exceed 2 hops between a node
and its backhaul gateway - any more and you're in the sub-1Mbps range on
802.11g rates.

Fix these problems and you may be on to something. Of course you also need to
bridge geographic gaps somehow.

------
sliverstorm
If you're serious about global wireless mesh networking, you need to switch to
different tech for inter-node links. Offer WiFi taps into the network to
support the commonly available hardware, but use HF or VHF to link nodes.

Sure, the bandwidth will be really poor, but you have to make a few
sacrifices, and the robustness of the network explodes as the range of each
individual node increases. Besides, in that kind of doomsday scenario nobody
will be using a darknet to watch Hulu.

~~~
crocowhile
I agree that one has to make a few sacrifices but I don't see projects like
this one as a doomsday failsafe internet; rather as an attempt to get a REALLY
free internet. I am afraid we are going to need that in the next 5-10 years.

~~~
sliverstorm
Then you'll have to get clever and run massively parallel wireless links on
adjacent frequencies. WiFi is not the way to make a single true, real mesh
internet all over the world.

Of course, suddenly I find myself considering something... wireless uses
_wildly_ more power than wired connections. Is a global wireless mesh really a
responsible goal?

------
dstein
For a mesh network like this to succeed there has to be a killer app built on
the platform. And I'll tell you what it is -- a free wifi telecom network. A
complete replacement for the telecom networks run by megacorps could be the
technology disruption of the century.

~~~
aditya
Like, say, <http://fon.com>?

~~~
JulianMorrison
Single company network requiring proprietary closed source routers? No use to
me.

~~~
dagobart_
Hm, aren't they using Linux after all?

------
scythe
It sounds really cool. The first question I'd try to address is to make sure
the protocol is really up to the task, because if you implement this and it
doesn't work...

Can a typical router running an ad-hoc wifi network like this really handle
provision of Internet to an entire city, and furthermore, is the current
'repeater' protocol the most efficient way to do this?

One of the biggest structural problems with darknets is that of "necking",
where one large subset of nodes is only connected to another large subset of
nodes through a relatively small subset of nodes. Usually the problem is
compounded by the the difficulty for nodes in either subset to discover each
other in a network which attempts to be anonymous. Freenet and WASTE both
encountered this.

The ability to automatically find Kleinrock routers within a certain distance
of you might mitigate this, but it could also affect the security of the
network.

------
nextparadigms
I think Wi-fi mesh networks are the only way we can have close to fully
decentralized Internet. Ideally the new "Internet" would work completely P2P
from one user to the next, either from router to router or from mobile phone
to mobile phone. But the technology will probably not be very practical this
decade, but I could see it catching on in "niche" markets, like in oppressed
countries, and then grow organically from there.

~~~
donall
By oppressed countries, do you mean those that enact laws that enable the
government to censor parts of the internet and/or deny citizens access to the
internet as a whole? Like, for example, England and France? (And perhaps soon
the US as well?) If so, I'm not sure that counts as a "niche" market!

~~~
benwr
In these countries, despite nominally censored traffic, the majority is not
routinely prevented from doing what it wants to do. Facebook is (and will
continue to be) available, as will Google, and email services, and nearly
everything else of interest to most people. "Oppressed", in this context,
refers to places where people are intensely aware of censorship. This daily,
universal annoyance could be a much better catalyst for the creation of
distributed systems than is the violation of a far-removed moral (or even
practical) principle.

~~~
nextparadigms
I was thinking lately that it seems that in time new companies appear that
have the _incentive_ to move things forward.

For example, Google has the incentive to make the web as fast as possible
because they are mainly a web company, so it's in their interest to do that,
while for Microsoft and Apple, the web might not be their first priority, and
at times they might even try to restrict it, so it prolongs the survival of
their own platforms.

In the same time, I was thinking about Facebook's Project Spartan, and how
they have an incentive to create a webstore that works on all platforms, while
Google's incentive is to have it work only on Chrome, or more recently to have
some of their services work only on Android. In this case it would be both's
Google's and Apple's incentives, to keep us as locked in as possible on their
platforms, while it's Facebook's incentive to liberate us from the locked
platforms.

And this is where I wanted to get. I think there will be companies that will
appear in the future, that will have the incentive to make a fully
decentralized P2P Internet work, and once again none of the "old" giants,
whether it's Facebook, Google, or even Apple and Microsoft, will like this
idea. For example, both Facebook and Google would hate the idea of a
completely anonymized Internet, because that goes directly in the opposite
direction from their profit incentive. But, like I said, I think there will be
companies that will be able to make that work in their favor, and thrive from
it as it becomes their main profit incentive to support it.

------
sbierwagen
Seattlewireless.net has been trying to do this for eleven years. Progress has
not been enormously fast.

~~~
gonzo
one could say... backwards.

------
venti
We also have a big community Germany that has been using wifi mesh networks
and ad-hoc routing protocols since 2003:
<http://wiki.freifunk.net/Kategorie:English>

Though all of these networks are very impressive, I don't think they can
replace the big ISPs in case some one shuts down the Internet completely.

------
SMrF
This was my first startup. We were going to use wireless mesh networks to
"bridge the digital divide" and provide broadband to the (at the time -- 2005)
40% of Americans in rural America that didn't have it.

I've always lumped this under the "too idealistic" startup destined to be a
nonprofit. Rural America is broke, for the most part, and our margins were
going to be razor thin -- even using commodity wifi gear. I only ever got one
angel interested, mainly because they all thought the market was bad. We never
really got it off the ground. Perhaps skipping the backhaul altogether, (like
the linked article), would have made it viable. But honestly I'm not sure I
could have sold faux-internet, which is what most people are going to think of
this. As it was the only way we were able to get a town interested was to
uncover grant money that would have covered most of the costs and let us
subsidize prices (see non-profit thing above).

But there were other challenges. Mainly wifi is just not that great over big
distances. And it's absorbed by water -- so trees are a big problem. Also one
of the most requested apps was VOIP, and the latency on a mesh network makes
VOIP kinda crummy. As we built out the financial model, we learned that there
was a lower limit to the density of a community that would support a profit.
It ruled out most markets. And to make matters even worse, when we did find
communities that met our already ridiculous criteria we usually had problems
finding a backhaul. For our pilot town we were going to create a point to
point wireless connection over 20 miles from the nearest major population
center. Yeah, we gave up, graduated, and got jobs.

It's also worth knowing that wifi in major urban centers doesn't really work.
There just isn't enough frequency to go around, so the interference makes it
pointless. At the time Clearwire (now just Clear) was buying up spectrum in
city markets. I thought it was genius, but I always doubted the wimax standard
would live up to the hype. I remembered we had a point-to-multipoint wireless
56K connection back in the mid 90's and that was shit. I figured things would
get better, but the basic problem remains the same: you can only really jam so
many connections into one point, and you need LOS. Of course cell phones seem
to work fairly well, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. But
Clear doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation.

Alright, so here are some links to other mesh networking projects that have
been around for a long time and have software that is actually deployed:

<http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php> (seems to be slightly broken, but
working mostly)

<http://www.cuwireless.net/> (interned here, really smart guys built this and
they have a running network in Champaign-Urbana).

Also recently the feds opened up a bunch of spectrum, so I'm really hopeful
about what we can do with it. 2.4 just isn't enough.

Edit: Highly recommend following @saschameinrath He's a genius and has been a
champion of community wireless internet since the term was invented. He also
started CUWIN.

~~~
noonespecial
We tried this in rural Virginia as well. We got non profit status, circulated
surveys and petitions and got some gear to start the roll-out. Everyone was
super excited and called us community heroes. When the time came to actually
sign up, and the rural-ites found out that the service would be 39.99/month,
it turned out that dial-up suited them just fine after all.

~~~
windsurfer
You should have tried rural areas in Ontario. Wireless providers are making a
killing signing people up for 60 or 70 dollars per month, not counting
hardware purchases and installation.

------
JoachimSchipper
Ignoring all the _other_ problems: where is the uplink? Are you really going
to try to get from, say, NYC to Mountain view over this network? (Nevermind
crossing any oceans...)

~~~
floppydisk
If this came into effect using commercial hardware, you'd probably end up
seeing cluster networks where neighborhoods become isolated mesh networks.
Some people may acquire the capacity to link between different mesh networks,
but in general most networks would lack the ability to get from NYC to
mountain view.

------
zokier
Wireless community mesh networks are really cool stuff. The problem I think is
that there seems to be very little cooperation between different networks.
Many seem to run completely custom/unique software/hardware/protocols
-combinations. Of course I realize that this is quite bleeding edge stuff, so
some experimentation and exploration is necessary. But I just hope that some
day (not too far in the future) the necessary hardware/software -combination
to connect to such networks would be commodity and for that we need
standardization.

edit: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_routing_protocol_list>

------
morphle
This was my third and fourth startup. Having failed twice by lack of funding I
learned to do without and what people want.

Free anonymous internet you want to pay for: Ambient Connectivity. After 20
years of hard work I am about to roll out a much more ambitious approach:

\- free gsm for mobile phones in a square mile \- free Wifi for
smartphones/tablets/laptops \- 'campus' network with your neigbours with 1 -
10 Gb/s ethernet links over optical fiber or UTP cable \- free shared storage
of tv, movies, music \- end-to-end encryption and anonymity in the clients,
not the network \- users buy the routers $100 ($1000 rural) and the 2-4 cables
\- Open ISP sells 1000 Mb/s traffic at $4 to pay for the backbone and the free
traffic (1 Mb/s per user). \- Open ISP can not control anything and proves
this by allowing the community to audit their routers

A first-mile network with free mobile and wifi traffic on top of a 1-10 Gbps
optical fiber (and UTP) last mile with an non-profit ISP behind it. Crucial is
the $100 mesh router I designed, a 10 GBps optical 8 core router with wifi and
picocell built in, capable of software radio with. We also use off the shelf
DD-WRT and PicoBSD based $50 routers. Without the cheap 10 Gb/s the community
network will be too slow. We must compete with FTTH and the telco's. Stringing
optical fiber over private property (farms, backyards, roofs, between
appartements) is key to the freedom part. This will be my fourth commercial
internet provider, one is now big. merik@eigenglasvezel.net Co-fonders wanted.

------
morphle
This was my second and third startup. Having failed twice (no funding) I
learned to do without. After 20 years of hard work I am about to roll out a
much more ambitious approach:

Free anonymous internet you want to pay for: Ambient Connectivity.

\- free gsm for mobile phones in a square mile \- free Wifi for
smartphones/tablets/laptops \- 'campus' network with your neigbours with 1 -
10 Gb/s ethernet links over optical fiber or UTP cable \- free shared storage
of tv, movies, music \- end-to-end encryption and anonymity in the clients,
not the network \- users buy the routers $100 ($1000 rural) and the 2-4 cables
\- Open ISP sells 1000 Mb/s traffic at $4 to pay for the backbone and the free
traffic (1 Mb/s per user). \- Open ISP can not control anything and proves
this by allowing the community to audit their routers

A first-mile network with free mobile and wifi traffic on top of a 1-10 Gbps
optical fiber (and UTP) last mile with an non-profit ISP behind it. Crucial is
the $100 mesh router I designed, a 10 GBps optical 8 core router with wifi and
picocell built in, capable of software radio with. We also use off the shelf
DD-WRT and PicoBSD based $50 routers. Without the cheap 10 Gb/s the community
network will be too slow. We must compete with FTTH and the telco's. Stringing
optical fiber over private property (farms, backyards, roofs, between
appartements) is key to the freedom part. This will be my fourth commercial
internet provider. merik@eigenglasvezel.net Co-fonders wanted to built a viral
website and unix (routing) code.

------
morphle
This was my third and fourth startup. Having failed twice by lack of funding I
learned to do without and what people want.

Free anonymous internet you want to pay for: Ambient Connectivity. After 20
years of hard work I am about to roll out a much more ambitious approach:

(1) free gsm for mobile phones in a square mile. (2) free Wifi for
smartphones/tablets/laptops. (3) 'campus' network with your neigbours with 1 -
10 Gb/s ethernet links over optical fiber or UTP cable. (4) free shared
storage of tv, movies, music. (5) end-to-end encryption and anonymity in the
clients, not the network, no logon. (6) users buy the routers $100 ($1000
rural) and the 2-4 cables.(7) Open ISP sells 1000 Mb/s traffic at to pay for
the backbone and the free traffic (1 Mb/s per user). (8) Open ISP can not
control anything and proves this by allowing the community to audit their
routers

A first-mile network with free mobile and wifi traffic on top of a 1-10 Gbps
optical fiber (and UTP) last mile with an non-profit ISP behind it. Crucial is
the $100 mesh router I designed, a 10 GBps optical 8 core router with wifi and
picocell built in, capable of software radio with. We also use off the shelf
DD-WRT and PicoBSD based $50 routers. Without the cheap 10 Gb/s the community
network will be too slow. We must compete with FTTH and the telco's. Stringing
optical fiber over private property (farms, backyards, roofs, between
appartements) is key to the freedom part. This will be my fourth commercial
internet provider, one is now big. merik@eigenglasvezel.net Co-fonders wanted.

~~~
morphle
My apologies for the triple post. I did wait a while after the first post. As
It did not show in the list, I reposted. My bad.

------
dcposch
Why not start simple? I would really like to see wireless mesh networks
replace Comcast and co for last-mile connections. The backbone works fine, and
there is plenty of competition among Tier 1 ISPs. It's the last-mile providers
which are often abusive local monopolies (or duopolies).

That would solve a real, current problem and save consumers money, instead of
trying to preempt the highly speculative possibility that our government would
want to shut down the internet.

Also, just local wireless mesh has plenty of technical challenges. As other
posters have noted, significant challenges stem from both sparsely populated
areas (link distance) and densely populated ones (interference, spectrum
limitations). There has been significant research into overcoming these
limitations--see, for example, MIT's RoofNet and UIUC's CuWIN.

One project I think is especially interesting is Phil Levis' research at
Stanford, studying full-duplex wireless. For the first time, they have nodes
that can receive and transmit on the same channel at the same time. This
(almost) doubles max throughput, but more importantly, it solves a lot of
difficult interference problems (particularly the "hidden node" problem:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_node_problem>).

There's also a hard, unsolved software problem: how to route traffic
effectively on a large mesh of unreliable, low-throughput routers. No existing
routing protocol that I know of (RIP, OSPF, BGP, etc) is well-suited for this.

I would love to see a startup built around last-mile wireless. They could, for
example, use commodity PicoStations along with high-gain antennas. The hard
part would be nailing the business model and the software. Both are
fascinating problems.

------
marcamillion
This is interesting...it's also something I have always thought about. Ever
since the green revolution of Iran when the gov't shut down the networks, I
had thought that the solution might be some sort of large scale mesh network
that can be built en-masse.

The problem is, ok say we can get a mesh network using commodity routers
within Iran up and working...how do the packets get out of Iran ?

Do you then setup mesh nodes/connections with the surrounding countries and
then route traffic through their backbones ?

But what if those networks are also taken offline ?

I am not being sarcastic, but this is something that I have seriously thought
about and haven't found a solution. If someone has a suggestion, that would be
awesome.

Also, how do you build cross-Atlantic mesh networks with commodity hardware ?

i.e. say the underwater fiber cables to India are cut again, like they were
last year or the year before, how does this system work in that case ?

~~~
nextparadigms
The idea is not necessarily to build a global network from the start. But to
have some means of communication within a local area, or between several local
areas once they do kill the Internet. That kind of Internet is still better
than no Internet at all.

------
hamoid
I don't see in that wiki references to similar projects, for example
<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk> which is used in areas of Germany. I
heard the traffic in such networks can slow them down until barely usable.

------
staktrace
Although I absolutely love this idea, I don't see it taking off without a
critical mass of users (i.e. right now there is no Kleinrock router nearby
that I can connect mine to). The only way I see this gaining critical mass is
to piggyback it on some other device that people buy. e.g. build an open-
source box that you sell to people, and that basically becomes your local
email/calendar/webhosting/social network hub/file sharing/whatever server, and
then hook it up to others who have bought similar servers. I feel that there's
enough demand for that kind of a server now that people realize the pitfalls
of having everything under Apple/Google/Amazon control. And if there isn't
yet, there soon will be.

(Edited a few times for clarity)

~~~
ckinni
I agree, but I do think it seems to have a limited appeal within urban areas,
then tunneling connections between server nodes in other cities over the
regular internet. The tunneling between cities is still vulnerable, but when
it gets cut off there will still be a way of communicating. The nice thing
about this when localized to large urban areas is that the cost per capita
shrinks. I'd imagine it wouldn't be too expensive to set up a bunch of routers
that weren't online. Quick Google seems to suggest that a router tends to cost
around $1-2 per month in electricity, plus an up front cost. Create a
Kleinrock ecosystem in a section of a city would not necessarily require a
large number of people adopting it, but rather a manageable start up cost plus
maintenance, which seems almost reasonable.

Of course, if a few people are paying for it, you'll still need people to
actually use your wacky science project, which may or may not happen... If you
build it, will they come?

------
vladoh
I don't think this idea has a real potential for several reasons.

You cannot connect the networks of America and Europe with a WiFi router, so
you'll need some more serious hardware. This hardware should be maintained by
somebody. And so you have the ISPs again.

In the moment only a geek can setup a Kleinrock router. Imagine your neighbor
who can barely coupe with the simple task of opening "the Internet" (or "the
blue E") setting up the router, installing and configuring a firewall.

I seriously doubt that home routers are enough for a bigger traffic than
couple of computers. Just look what cheap pieces of shit the ISPs are giving
now. Of course you can buy a better one, but that's not what the majority of
people will do...

------
trout
To create another internet you need another medium. Today everything that is
connected to the internet shares a physical cable or a short wifi hop to a
cable.

Unless you want to build out an entire secondary network of cables (fiber,
copper) there will not be a 'second internet'.

Their idea is to have the shared medium be airspace. This would almost be
feasible with a ton of satellites, but not using peer-to-peer repeaters and
ad-hoc networks.

Now - if you could figure out how to do communication over power lines through
major power grids, you would be onto something. There are some household
devices that can do this, but not between households.

------
littlebrother
Did anyone notice how this is similar to the Xnet proposed in the cory
doctorow novel Little Brother. Actually this is exactly that but just not
running on an array of XBoxes.

~~~
masterzora
Yes, but he certainly wasn't the first one to come up with this idea.

------
sixtofour
Depending on the country and region, this will only be regional networks
separated by distance and non-connectivity, except where these networks tie
into the Internet. Not to say it wouldn't be good to communicate with your
neighbors or fellow freedom fighters, but I can't see it competing noticeably
with the Internet.

~~~
bluedanieru
With most existing hardware, sure, but it's not as though we haven't had the
ability to communicate wirelessly across large distances for many decades.

~~~
sbierwagen

      but it's not as though we haven't had the ability to 
      communicate wirelessly across large distances for many decades.
    

It's possible to _communicate_ , but the question is of _bandwidth_.
AMPRnet[1] has existed since 1970, after all, it owns the class A 44 netblock,
but you're not going to be watching Youtube at 9600 baud.

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet>

------
NHQ
See here, in a democracy we can tell our federal government, which is made up
of our citizens, and employs a good number of them, to build an "information
interstate" system. Or even better, we can induce our states to build a
federation of networks, and just keep that one less thing out of the federal
10-gallons.

------
simon_weber
"Switch your router into open mode (no password or encryption)": I feel like
the lack of encryption really needs to be addressed here. I'm not going to use
a network where anyone on it can see my information as they pass it along, and
I think many other users would feel the same way.

~~~
vladoh
This could be a real problem, because for example in Germany it is illegal to
have a WiFi connection, which is not password protected. The idea is that if
they catch you downloading pirated songs, you cannot say - it wasn't me.
Stupid but...

~~~
moeffju
This is simply not true. If you make your connection available, all you have
to do is register yourself as an ISP with RegTP, the federal regulation
agency, and you instantly get all the protections that are awarded to other
carriers. But of course, you might also get some duties...

------
kgen
I'm not sure I fully understand -- what is the internet without the services
that you use on it? If common sites like youtube and facebook aren't directly
connected to this network, will this work? And if not, then what makes this
the internet and not just an adhoc mesh network?

~~~
nextparadigms
Obviously, this will take off only if there is a need for it, just like
anything else. If Governments keep censoring more and more of the Internet,
people will gradually move to this type of networks, and as scale is built,
services will start appearing on them, too.

What you're saying is also a typical "the incumbent's product has more
features than the new disruptive product", but that usually doesn't stop
disruptive products from taking off, because they fill a different need, and
they're much better at certain things - in this case at ensuring you don't get
censored, that your data is protected, and that you can be anonymous.

~~~
kgen
But due to the spatial nature of the mesh networks described, either the
networks would require wifi to span cities and states or each cluster would
need their own set of services? If that's the case, it's not really the
internet as we know today?

~~~
zokier
I'd imagine that clusters could be interconnected by fiber optics. That's the
beautiful thing about current internet; it doesn't care about the underlying
medium. Your packets may travel through a POTS network to satellites to fiber
optics to ethernet to DSL until it reaches your computer, and it's all rather
transparent.

------
dasrecht
I simply love and embrace ideas like this.

But why creating something new when there are projects available like OpenWRT
or DD-Wrt or Freifunk Firmware wich creates a Mesh-Network that works quite
good? The only thing you need is standard Wi-Fi routers and those firmwares.

~~~
nextparadigms
There are quite a few different projects out there. Ultimately, the one that
gets the most adoption, will win. Hopefully, that one is also the _best_ one,
but as it becomes the defacto mesh technology, more and more people will join
to work on it, add technology from other projects, and improve on it. So let
it be chosen through natural selection.

~~~
Vivtek
I suspect they'll merge rather than compete.

------
anthonyb
Isn't this sort of thing already happening, and has been for a while? Here's
the one in my city: <http://www.melbournewireless.org.au/>

------
mikemoka
a similar project was born in 2005 actually ...
<http://netsukuku.freaknet.org/?pag=faq>

------
closedbracket
Paranoia. Maybe we could use dialup to some random number as backup. Oh wait,
then they can tap the line. What if we launch our own satellite? Then, there's
the Russians...maybe Osama isn't dead.

------
pavel_lishin
Reminds me of Daniel Suarez's Daemon and Freedom.

~~~
ckeck
Haha, I was just thinking of this!

------
maeon3
The alternative internet will take off like wildfire when the existing
internet is locked down, and you can't do what you need to do on it. It's only
a matter of time before we lose our Internet. We must make a new one that cuts
out the middle man. If not then we will usher in a new era of slavery, and our
children will curse our generation for allowing such a powerful instrument to
be destroyed.

------
hackermom
In 2001 the fictive persona John Titor
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor>) described the Internet of his
future just like this.

------
noduerme
That's pretty sweet, except that when "they" declare martial law (which this
project assumes), why can't "they" bust down your door and take your routers?
I mean, if they can come arrest you now for eating too much power with grow
lights or bitcoin mining, don't you think it'll be pretty trivial to smash
down any door with a wifi signal behind it, when the tanks are out in the
streets?

~~~
kennywinker
Sounds like a lot of work. Hard to do if you get a high level of saturation.
Going door to door to switch off the internet is much harder than flicking a
big switch at the big telcos.

------
chrisjsmith
Warning: if the government decide to take out the Internet, that will be the
least of your worries.

~~~
noonespecial
But the Internet will be the best way to fix those worries.

