Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Communications The Internet

Motherboard and VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network (vice.com) 142

In order to preserve net neutrality and the free and open internet, we must end our reliance on monopolistic corporations and build something fundamentally different: internet infrastructure that is locally owned and operated and is dedicated to serving the people who connect to it, writes Jason Koebler, editor-in-chief of Vice's Motherboard news outlet. He writes: The good news is a better internet infrastructure is possible: Small communities, nonprofits, and startup companies around the United States have built networks that rival those built by big companies. Because these networks are built to serve their communities rather than their owners, they are privacy-focused and respect net neutrality ideals. These networks are proofs-of-concept around the country that a better internet is possible. This week, Motherboard and VICE Media are committing to be part of the change we'd like to see. We will build a community network based at our Brooklyn headquarters that will provide internet connections for our neighborhood. We will also connect to the broader NYC Mesh network in order to strengthen a community network that has already decided the status quo isn't good enough. We are in the very early stages of this process and have begun considering dark fiber to light up, hardware to use, and organizations to work with, support, and learn from. To be clear and to answer a few questions I've gotten: This network will be connected to the real internet and will be backed by fiber from an internet exchange. It will not rely on a traditional ISP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motherboard and VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network

Comments Filter:
  • Motherboard and VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network

    With Blackjack, and hookers!

  • by puddingebola ( 2036796 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:16AM (#55745033) Journal
    It will be provided over a community run network.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The revolution has started now that we have a leader in the US who is for the people and not for the government.

    • Exactly. The sparsely populated, rural county in which I live is served by community broadband -- fiber up to 1Gb/s in town, fixed wireless up to some 100's of Mb/s in the rural areas. The network is content neutral by default because we're not about to retain anyone in office who attempts to screw with our data.

  • They should have kept their mouths shut until they had everything ready to go and the nastiest pack of legal attack dogs money can buy hired and hungry for blood.

    Ajit Pai and his masters will want to strangle this baby in its cradle.

  • Peering? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jeffclay ( 1077679 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:28AM (#55745083)
    In all of the blogs, ./ stories and articles that I've read regarding Net Neutrality, I have yet to hear anyone speak about network peering. Here's a scenario: Your ISP is BigCo-A, and the server you want to access is using BigCo-C. BigCo-A and BigCo-C are not directly connected but use BigCo-B as a common peer (to bridge the network gaps). If BigCo-A and BigCo-C decide not to throttle anything, but BigCo-B does, then all that traffic will be throttled regardless of who your ISP is or the ISP of the server host.
    • That's a lot of bull. All the trunk lines are paid for through their leasing contracts. Every connection is paid for. They want to double dip and regulate content.

  • ISP are really entrenched, even Google with all of its unlit fiber failed to get last mile. These clowns have no chance.
    • Heavy emphasis on "clowns"
  • by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:45AM (#55745187) Journal
    People have to remember that what the "Internet" is, is a collection of privately owned networks connected by mutual free data exchange agreement or by paid agreement. So, There is nothing stopping something like this from existing. The "Internet" will exist as long as people with their own networks want to connect to others. I wholly support this sort of thing. At the same time, there is nothing WRONG (in theory) with two private networks paying each other for access to the other. We get into trouble when the end consumer has no real choice in the marketplace to choose which company best serves their needs. Net neutrality would not be an issue if we had a REAL competitive marketplace for the consumer at the last mile. If we had THAT then I could simply choose the ISP that has the least restrictive network rules. As it is now, most people have at most 2 options and in many places just 1.
    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      As it is now, most people have at most 2 options and in many places just 1.

      So, because there are a limited number of "wired" broadband ISPs in a community, we need to build a "wireless" ISP, ignoring all the wireless ISP that already serve the area?

      The entire country is served by satellite service.

      The vast majority of the country is served by multiple wireless providers.

      And of course, as a practical matter the majority of communities are served by both a cable company and telco company, both of which typically offer some ISP services.

      In most communities there is typically only one

      • So, because there are a limited number of "wired" broadband ISPs in a community, we need to build a "wireless" ISP, ignoring all the wireless ISP that already serve the area?

        Communities want prices lower than $10 per GB. From a document published by a nationwide wireless ISP describing its home Internet service [verizonwireless.com]: "Overage is billed at $10 for each additional 1GB." In the age of multi-gigabyte operating system updates and movie and game downloads, $10 per GB is seen as prohibitive for a household's primary information and entertainment connection.

  • by schitso ( 2541028 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:47AM (#55745201)
    This being Motherboard/VICE, will they truly provide unfettered access to a free and open Internet, or will they cave under pressure and block communications that their politics lead them to believe should be blocked? How will they respond when users pirate content? Share child porn? Or even just visit alt-right websites? I don't trust them, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that.
    • Upon re-reading, I also want to make it clear that my ideas of a free and open Internet do not include sanctioned/allowed illegal activity--just not an infringement upon all communications for the sake of blocking the illegal.
      • >I also want to make it clear that my ideas of a free and open Internet do not include sanctioned/allowed illegal activity

        The problem - and it is NOT solvable - is identity.

        Either you can trace it or you can't, there's no middle ground. With the ability to identify who the source of illegal content is, you can stop illegal content (or at least catch after the fact those who share it). Without it, you can just give up trying.

        Content itself can be masked any number of ways and WILL be so masked if you tr

        • I completely agree. I just wanted to clarify that illegal content is an unavoidable side-effect and not outright "sanctioned/allowed."
    • If you're a cisgender white male you are probably disqualified. Anything pro-Trump will probably be blocked as well, which isn't hypocritical because
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Oh give it a rest. It hasn't even happened yet and you are predicting massive oppression from a project specifically designed to route around censorship.

        It's as if you scan every story looking for how you can work the cis white male oppression angle in. The fact that you have to stretch so hard to do it suggests that there isn't any real oppression to complain about.

        • Oh, look, it's a member of the overdramatic SJW brigade! Pretty sure that I've never written cisgender within the comments of a Slashdot story and as such your opinion is rendered invalid. Furthermore you may want to consider that my comment was a sardonic tongue in cheek jab at those involved in this 'community internet network'.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) *

      If it's vice, it doesn't need to be alt right, just their definition of it. They've really changed over the last decade. Sad outcome of safe spaces.

  • by bbsguru ( 586178 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:55AM (#55745265) Homepage Journal
    So, one provider to the south side of West Podunk is aggressively Net Neutral. So are a few dozen other socially aware providers in other places.
    That's nice.
    But how, exactly, do these bastions of Bias-Free Internet propose to carry their customers traffic to and from each other, much less the world-at-large that everyone want to connect to?

    That's right, through the backbones of those Other players. You know, the ones who are busily writing the new best-seller, "How to Throttle for Fun and Profit".

  • It would be interesting to try community fiber, 1Gbps symmetric broadband, for a low monthly cost maybe $30-$40 per month per household.
    There's all this "dark fiber" that the federal government subsidized just sitting under our streets. If communities were able to connect the last mile to all that fiber we could bypass the telecoms entirely.

    You'd basically pay nothing for internet access then pay for TV and streaming services. Fuck verizon!

    • ^^^ said the guy whose greatest technical achievement was 'hiding' the SSID on his linksys router.

      It's great how you gloss over any and all difficulties in the so-called 'last mile'...

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @10:22AM (#55745443)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • How many streaming Netflix boxes can this proposed 'mesh' or peer-to-peer Network support simultaneously?

      These kids have their panties in a wad because they are afraid an ISP might choose to throttle a handful of websites, so their answer is to implement an alternative mesh/peer-to-peer Network that because of it's inherent design effectively throttles ALL traffic?

      Brilliant! That will show them what's possible when the 'community' comes together.

  • It's like having a BBS with a bridge to the Internet (emails, Fidonet, ...) like we did in the 90's. :)

    • Once again, Trump and his technologically retarded baby-boomer cronies push us one step closer to the 1950's...
  • by jtara ( 133429 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @11:35AM (#55745961)

    No, not sneaking around. These guys:

    https://stealth.net/ [stealth.net]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Local, and they've been putting their own fiber in the ground.

    They should consider partnering, if this is more than a publicity stunt.

    Disclosure: I have done business with Stealth in the past.

  • ...GOP wants less government generally.

    So to "prove those dirty Republicans wrong", 'populist' web groups create a functional substitute ... that doesn't require government to run it or police it.

    Hm, I guess that'll show 'em, right?

  • The article is a bit clueless. Comcast and AT&T have quietly bought out the internet backbone companies that actually run the internet. With acquisitions and buy outs; the duopoly of Comcast and AT&T have acquired a majority of the ISP companies that provide connection to the internet for most of the U.S.
    Now, they have won a victory in a battle that they have been playing since the mid 1990s making it lawful for an ISP to edit, throttle, and control what their customers can do on

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...