Alternatives to the internet?

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

An FTL network' date=' for starters, would be "better".[/quote']

Faster, yes, but without any real change in functionality (just size), it would still be an "internet".

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

I am wondering whether a centralized system would have eventually have to become decentralized like our Internet. Due to the prevalence of BlackHat programmers. If you have only one huge megaserver it make for a VERY juicy target for both Crackers and for Physical Intrusion (ie Terrorists or thieves or natural disaster). Also there's the issue of Latency (hard to get around the speed of Light), if the Megaserver is sitting in NYC, then the folk in CA will be getting a ton of latency on their connections (BTW this is an issue for having satellites of servers). Having your networks decentralized you can spread the load out some and also it gives you some redundancy in case the server goes down.

 

If DARPA hadn't started the internet, we would have had a number of AOL type services that might or might not have ever interconnected. Not being interconnected means that you choose your network at login and people are probably subscribed to multiple services to get all of the different content they want. Network services would probably look a lot like American Cellular companies work now. With limited competition in a given geographical region.

 

You're quite right in your assessment. While we're referring to the central computer model as a single computer, it's helpful to realize that it could actually have nodes (computers) that take some of the load off of the main computer, and that these nodes may be separated geographically for both security and latency reduction (as CompuServe did with their original time-sharing service). There are usually dedicated lines connecting the various computers, however, and they could be a physical target.

 

In the past, most of the computer systems that used a direct connection (centralized computer) model tended to serve a regional area (like a certain city, or university). Latency was usually less of a factor, as terminals were slow (300-1200baud were common when I started), data was mainly text, and in many cases, the programs were more likely to be run in a batch mode rather than interactive mode. Some terminals were actually teletypes (with a printer instead of a monitor), and many modern operating systems still have some support for the old tty machines.

 

Those of us who played on a BBS when we were younger were working with the older, non-packet switched, direct connection model. We'd directly connect our computer, which was usually emulating a dumb terminal, to the BBS computer by dialup modem. Total connections were limited by the number of lines connected to the BBS computer. There were services on the BBS, often including a mail system (limited to other members of the BBS), chat forums, and simple games. Later, some of the BBSs allowed simple internet access (usually through FTP/Gopher), and a few of the larger ones morphed into what we would call ISPs (like CompuServe, AOL, GEnie, and so on), when the browser started to become widely available. At this point, however, most users still used telephone lines to connect, meaning that there was still a more centralized gateway that was controlling information. It's only when newer connection types like cable modem came in, where we were truly using the packet switching model all of the way back to our computer.

 

If we look at early Traveller material, it's assumed that most of the computers are of the centralized type. In the original rules, the assumption is for a large mainframe computer to run all of the functions of a starship, as well as providing entertainment and other services for the passengers and crew. While later supplements mentioned redundancy (2 or 3 computers, in case one became damaged), the general assumption was that all terminals were directly connected to the central computer. Of course, this fits well with the science fiction from the 50s through 70s--where there's a single computer running the moon in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein), or a central computer that runs the City in the 1976 movie, "Logan's Run".

 

By the early 80s, it was being parodied by games like Paranoia, but the centralized model was still in place. Within the Paranoia setting, each Alpha Complex is run by a crazy centralized computer. While there were originally connections between the various Alpha Complexes (in the "Pre-Whoops" days), those were cut to avoid contamination by "Commie mutant traitors". Essentially, a linked system devolved into a bunch of independent centralized systems. And while there were independent computer systems in each Alpha Complex, those "nodes" were eventually absorbed into the main Computer persona (somewhat haphazardly, as is seen by often-contradictory orders).

 

Part of this view of a centralized computer in older science fiction comes from the initial high costs for computer hardware and software. It cost a few million dollars to build the computer that created the spaceship graphics in "The Last Starfighter", and it took up much of a large, climate-controlled room. A few decades later, the original XBox actually outperforms that Cray mainframe, and takes up a little more space than my Blu-Ray player. If a setting doesn't have the push to miniaturization that we have experienced, then perhaps, the centralized, time-sharing model of computing will stay viable.

 

JoeG

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

If DARPA hadn't started the internet' date=' we would have had a number of AOL type services that might or might not have ever interconnected. Not being interconnected means that you choose your network at login and people are probably subscribed to multiple services to get all of the different content they want. Network services would probably look a lot like American Cellular companies work now. With limited competition in a given geographical region.[/quote']

Interestingly, there's a movement afoot to implement decentralized cell phone communication. That is to say, instead of all calls routing through towers, they can be routed through nearby cell phones in the same way internet packets route through whatever servers are available. Such a system would have resiliency similar to the internet and would allow sustained communication even when the local infrastructure is destroyed (due to an earthquake, flood, etc).

 

Alas, for obvious reasons, cell companies are resistant to this idea.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Interestingly, there's a movement afoot to implement decentralized cell phone communication. That is to say, instead of all calls routing through towers, they can be routed through nearby cell phones in the same way internet packets route through whatever servers are available. Such a system would have resiliency similar to the internet and would allow sustained communication even when the local infrastructure is destroyed (due to an earthquake, flood, etc).

 

Alas, for obvious reasons, cell companies are resistant to this idea.

 

What you're describing sounds like a mesh network, where each device acts as a node for other devices to pass packets around (which is similar to how packets move through the wired Internet). Mesh networks tend to be more resistant to node loss, and is actually a technique used for the Iridium satellite phone system. Calls are often routed satellite to satellite, instead of being sent to ground stations, mainly to improve latency. In general, though, at some point a mesh network usually needs to pass packets through a gateway, in order to join the conventional phone network (or internet, for data), so the towers/ground stations won't go away completely.

 

JoeG

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Right, and towers will probably have better performance in almost all cases, at least until/unless cell router technology improves. But several emergencies in the last few years have highlighted the need for such a decentralized system.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

In futures of my own design, I usually include something called the Virtual. Essentially almost urban spaces accessible to the public have been set up to allow virtual visitors. Camera and microphones have been set strategically so that the viewpoint (and soundpoint) of almost any point in the room can be extrapolated by computer and presented to a remote viewer.

 

These virtual visitors can see and hear the what is happening at the site that they are visiting pretty much in real time and people at the site if they are wearing Virtual Specs can see them (or more precisely their avatars). While it is possible to see all the avatars of the all the people visiting a space this can get very crowded and confusing in popular destinations. For that reason most people only view a limited number of channels so as not to be overwhelmed by all the virtual gawkers. A channel might show you only people who work for your company or club, people with a valid merchant or shoppers pass, church group members or pretty much any other grouping of people that you might imagine.

 

While I have the Virtual exist side by side with the internet, it is powerful enough to act as an alternative to the internet if need be.

[dmjalund]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

In a SF game i ran, I had a franchise of nightclubs who had holowalls which showed life full sized images from the other clubs

[Tom Carman]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Interestingly, there's a movement afoot to implement decentralized cell phone communication. That is to say, instead of all calls routing through towers, they can be routed through nearby cell phones in the same way internet packets route through whatever servers are available. Such a system would have resiliency similar to the internet and would allow sustained communication even when the local infrastructure is destroyed (due to an earthquake, flood, etc).

 

Alas, for obvious reasons, cell companies are resistant to this idea.

 

This model has its downside, believe me. My parents' home is a bit remote for a location on the US East Coast: cable service stops several miles down the road and no cell towers are nearby. Their landline phone service is currently down. My mother has a cell phone to call out, but she only turns it on when she wants to make a call because the phone will burn its charge trying to pull in signal. I forgot about that the last time I was down for a visit, and my phone died before suppertime.

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

It may be useful to discuss the difference between medium and content. Currently we have several physical technologies for communication - wired internet, wi fi, cell, landline telephones, etc. In many ways though, the real power lies in what's transmitted, not how. The web, for example, can be transmitted through any of the above, but its power lies more in how it's used. So if we were to postulate some new medium - say every brick and bolt in every building has an internal computer with short-range wireless, forming a network with smaller and vastly more nodes than the internet - the bigger question is exactly what would be done with it. If its function is no different than existing media, is it ultimately distinct in the long run?

 

I think it's fun to postulate methods of networked communication that are fundamentally different. Off the top of my head, let's say every person has an internal organic computer that constantly talks via pheromones to those around them, like an organic wireless network. By necessity then you're always communicating with a living being, not just a computer. How does that alter what's being transmitted? Weird to think about.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

...We already do. Smell is one of the ways we interact. (And no, I'm not talking about "you really need to take a shower")

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

...We already do.

As an alternative to the internet?

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

As an alternative to the internet?

No, but pheromones are part of our communication system.

 

...Pheromone System v3.0?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

And then there is quantum data storage...

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

On the quantumnet Google also has a product called Particle.

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Whatever happened to the idea of sending signals over power lines? That could theoretically have evolved into something widespread, I assume.

[BlackSword]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

In one episode of the Outer Limts called "The Stream" all humanity has a small computer with wifi and and OCR software built into their tempels. It allowed them to instant message anyone on the planet, download ALL public knowledge, and could read (through their eyes) anything and input that knoweldge into their brains. No one in this world even knew how to read, as the computer would scan a sign or a book for them and input what it said directly into their heads. Resaurants had no menus, as it was just broadcast to you as you were on your way there, and you would instant message in your orders and ETA, so it would be waiting for you. There was no cash, just electronic transfers. Everything controlled by a remote was controlled by your implant.

 

The story of this episode centered around a young man who had been in a car accident as a child, and his brain was damaged in the spot where the implant would go. He was completely normal, in fact very intelligent, but he couldn't get the "Stream" implant. He had to survive by letting someone order for him, pay for him, etc. He had to teach himself to read, horde the last books that hadn't been destroyed, to find knoweldge, etc. It was a very good episode.

 

A setting like this would allow entry into the stream by default. ANyone who didn't have access to it would have a good sized physical limitation.

Never saw the episode, but I had a similar thought for a short story. Thinking about an extraterrestrial colony and everyone has implanted computers, in particular communication devices. All communication is passed through the ship, and it retransmits everything back to all devices. The devices also have a slight buzz of a thousands of people talking, but quiet enough that to most people its just background noise. One day the ship stops transmitting and all the devices go quiet. In the further conversation, its an example of a problem with a centralized communication network. The main node goes down and everyone is isolated.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Whatever happened to the idea of sending signals over power lines? That could theoretically have evolved into something widespread' date=' I assume.[/quote']

 

There are two forms, one for LAN use (like Netgear's Powerline adapters), and the other for broadband service.

 

The LAN devices propagate a signal back to the power company's transformer, and are sometimes finicky in connecting to other modules (one of our typical troubleshooting steps is to plug in a module upside-down, to see if it improves the connection). They don't like surge protectors either, and should be plugged directly into the wall. In some areas, more than one residence will be on the same side of the transformer, meaning that it could be theoretically possible for a neighbor to tap in or cause interference if they, too use the devices (like the old intercom systems that used house wiring). They are a pain in the a** to troubleshoot. I usually have to deal with them a few times a week on calls (L1 tech support for an ISP), and I take great delight in being able to bypass them whenever possible.

 

Broadband over powerlines has a similar limitation of not passing through step-down transformers, so there needs to be repeaters on each side of the transformer to make this work. For this reason, it's been more popular in Europe, where more houses are usually served by each transformer. As noted in this wikipedia article, the power network is very "noisy"; as devices are turned on and off, they send a pop or click into the line. The systems are expected to use signals in the 10MHz to 30MHz range, which can interfere with a variety of other communications, since the (unshielded) power lines would act as a giant antenna.

 

JoeG

[austenandrews]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

You can turn a power line into a radio transmitter that easily? That's an awesome McGuyver hack for a story.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

You can turn a power line into a radio transmitter that easily? That's an awesome McGuyver hack for a story.

 

I'd assume that it would just be interference on those frequencies, but I guess that someone could do some packet shaping of the traffic to modulate...

 

JoeG

[Tasha]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Interestingly, there's a movement afoot to implement decentralized cell phone communication. That is to say, instead of all calls routing through towers, they can be routed through nearby cell phones in the same way internet packets route through whatever servers are available. Such a system would have resiliency similar to the internet and would allow sustained communication even when the local infrastructure is destroyed (due to an earthquake, flood, etc).

 

Alas, for obvious reasons, cell companies are resistant to this idea.

 

Actually IIRC that is one of the features of the upcoming 4g networks. I think that the cell providers might be coming to the conclusion that it is too expensive to get enough cell towers in an area all by their lonesome. Sharing would make a huge amount of sense for getting good speed and reception. Though I can see that the old Cell companies being resistant to running other company's traffic over their antenna.

 

A big problem that all of the cell companies have is getting ok for new antenna in cities and towns. Some cities like San Francisco make the companies go to great lengths to hide the antenna so as to keep the beauty of their city in tact. Of course this also make SF one of the cities that has big issues with reception and enough infrastructure to handle call volume (also being hilly doesn't help either).

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

Actually IIRC that is one of the features of the upcoming 4g networks. I think that the cell providers might be coming to the conclusion that it is too expensive to get enough cell towers in an area all by their lonesome. Sharing would make a huge amount of sense for getting good speed and reception. Though I can see that the old Cell companies being resistant to running other company's traffic over their antenna.

 

A big problem that all of the cell companies have is getting ok for new antenna in cities and towns. Some cities like San Francisco make the companies go to great lengths to hide the antenna so as to keep the beauty of their city in tact. Of course this also make SF one of the cities that has big issues with reception and enough infrastructure to handle call volume (also being hilly doesn't help either).

 

Cell phone companies frequently have deals for running data and calls over their networks from other companies. When a cell phone "roams", it's actually sharing a partner's network, though usually at a higher cost. Additionally, there are a number of "virtual carriers" who lease airtime from the major carriers and repackage it under their brand. Virgin Mobile, for example, was a virtual carrier using Sprint (though Sprint later bought them). And Sprint's 4G coverage is actually provided by another company, which is a partner of theirs. That 4G coverage is based on WiMAX, which could implement a mesh network, but I don't believe that's how the network that the Evo uses works right now. The other networks are moving toward LTE evolution, which is currently tied into the GSM model (and isn't actually a 4G, packet switched system), and so I doubt that it could handle mesh networking. It may be a feature of LTE advanced (the true 4G, packet switched version), but I haven't been able to find anything that says so one way or the other.

 

I should also note, going peer to peer with mobile devices would not increase speeds, just possible reliability, as you have to deal with the latency of all of the devices between you and the backhaul to the internet (which will usually still be through a tower). The ping times could be extremely poor, resulting in problems with any real time streaming (like Skype or other voip services).

 

JoeG

[Tasha]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

I should also note, going peer to peer with mobile devices would not increase speeds, just possible reliability, as you have to deal with the latency of all of the devices between you and the backhaul to the internet (which will usually still be through a tower). The ping times could be extremely poor, resulting in problems with any real time streaming (like Skype or other voip services).

 

JoeG

 

I would have to look it up to be sure, but I am pretty sure that Latency (ie Ping) doesn't have much to do with Streaming. What it does is make responses to input slower (due to there and back again speed of the data packets (ie a little less than the speed of light). Though if the stream is not constant, the need to restart the stream can cause speed issues esp when the program runs through it's buffer before the stream can be renegotiated.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Alternatives to the internet?

 

I would have to look it up to be sure' date=' but I am pretty sure that Latency (ie Ping) doesn't have much to do with Streaming. What it does is make responses to input slower (due to there and back again speed of the data packets (ie a little less than the speed of light). Though if the stream is not constant, the need to restart the stream can cause speed issues esp when the program runs through it's buffer before the stream can be renegotiated.[/quote']

 

That's why the note about real time streaming, like VoIP, as it can't really be buffered for a long window of time, like, say, Hulu or Netflix streaming. If a Hulu stream is interrupted, then restarting the stream is a valid option in re-establishing the transfer. In general, packets can't be retransmitted if lost or delayed when dealing with VoIP traffic, so restarting the stream isn't really an option. And by its very nature, a wireless mesh network of cell phones (or similar devices) would not remain static. Nodes would drop in and out, and some would reprioritize the packets for their own traffic (like when a call is being placed), and my guess is that battery life would suffer greatly, since the phones would need to be actively receiving packets, processing them, and retransmitting (adding latency, as each device has to wait for the full packet to be received before it's processed).

 

JoeG