IDEA: We should create a new internet

Say you have 2 computers connected to a LAN, but you aren't connected to the internet on either of them. You are still able to transfer files between the computers easily. Now, if you were connected by a wireless router, any computer within the range of the wireless signal will be able to transfer files between each other. Then you decide to use a signal booster to increase the range of your wireless network so that you'll be able to share files with everyone in your neighborhood.

This is where my idea comes in. Internet connections usually cost money to maintain, you have to spend more to get more bandwidth and plus they are slower than direct LAN/WLAN connections. What if you were to give out signal boosters to people all over the city, and go on for every square-mile until your LAN can be accessed by millions of people? Hell, with strong enough signal boosters it should be theoretically possible to spread it all across North America. Everyone would be able to share files/folders with everyone else, WITHOUT needing access to the internet. IP addresses can't even be used to track down because it's a network without internet access, your IP address would not be associated with any ISP.

Download speeds would be amazing, they would only be limited by the strength of the wireless signal, so in any urban area you'd never get speeds lower than 10MB/s. At first it would just be like a P2P program where you'd download files from other people's shared folders, but then websites would not cost anything to host because it's just a matter of putting your website in a shared folder and leaving your computer on.

Fuck, everything about this sounds awesome. The only downside I could see of this is that being connected to the same network leaves everyone's computers wide open to hackers... who gives a shit, I want to try this. I wonder how much money it would cost to start out and get enough of a signal to cover a few blocks.

Go get a degree in network engineering then re-read what you have written. Come to think of it, this post has all the characteristics of a good troll.

You don't need a fucking degree in network engineering to know how to share files/folders between multiple computers on the same network. That's all this is, hell you've probably done it before if you've ever had 2 computers in the same house connected to a router.

Ok, well here's a better explanation for the computer noobs who don't know what I'm talking about.

When 2 or more computers are connected to a router, you can share files on either computer so that the other computer will be able to access them. You don't even need an internet connection to do this, just connections to the router.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/301281

Obviously if you are using a wireless router, then any computer within the range of the wireless signal can connect and share files between each other. Using repeaters you can increase the range of the wireless signal so that even more computers will be able to get on your network.
See:
http://www.cheap-computers-guide.com/wireless-router-range-extender.html

And there you have it, you can create your own internet with nothing more than your own computer, a wireless router and repeaters to increase the range of the signal.

Wow, you've re-invented mesh networking. Corngratulations.

This is the best crafted troll i've seen in a while.  The writer is so incredibly cocky and ignorant, it's almost impossible to imagine he actually exists.

10/10

>>6

That's one vast fucking collision domain. Sounds like fun!

LOL sure how about you guys elaborate on what about this idea would not work and how it would not be 10x more efficient to share files with than the internet.

It's fucking perfect, the only limitation I see is not being able to spread the wireless signal overseas without some mega-expensive fucking satellite dish or something but who cares about those chinks when you got a super-fast anonymous ISP-less internet all over North America.

In fact this all ready exists, try getting a HAM license and looking into packet radio.  Better spectrum, more power! 

>>9
Don't listen to them, they're just trying to troll you.

In fact this should work quite well if done right. Why don't you start implementing this right now? I don't see a problem with it.

>>9
It's quite obvious that you know nothing about how the Internet works and what for which purpose ISPs are used for. There is no point in explaining why this is not logistically or technically possible. All the jargon we throw at you will be lost because you won't understand what we're saying. When you actually learn the theory behind the jargon, you will understand. Go get a degree in Network Engineering then facepalm at yourself.

>>12
um... lol, that's all I gotta say. Yeah, networking computers together with a wireless router is such an impossible feat. Forget the fact that wireless routers are made that specific purpose and the fact that the range of wireless routers can be extended... if you ignore all of those facts then it is clearly impossible...

>>13
I told you to ignore these ignorant trolls. Fuck them.

Well, have you started yet? I'm thinking of trying this in my neighborhood as well but I'm so damn lazy...

I'm still not sure if this is a genius troll or a genuine dumb arse.

>>15
It's /prog/ ofc. it's a fucking troll. It's one of the best troll-posts I've seen for a long time, but a troll nonetheless.

>>15
When you get posts like that, I prefer to side with troll.

Holy shit this is revolutionary.

11/10

so you'll use tcp/ip and ipv4 to create a large network? as more nodes connect to the network, routing tables will grow, networking equipment will need to be upgraded to cope with the traffic, and larger pipes will need to be installed, until eventually the infrastructure resembles the current internet.

nice work.

kek, the one router to rule them all.

way to go, op.

Dumbass.

Ignore the supposed "internet engineer" faggots OP. This idea really merits further investigation. You could just use a combination of IP addresses and wireless internet to get the shared folders to other people.

Ignoring the fact that there's only one router in the OP's theory, sending massive amounts across the air would in theory cause a ton of interference. How many channels can you have on 2.4ghz or 5.0? I think its 11 each, meaning that in one router zone, assuming everyone is connected to the same router, without any interference, you have 22 connections at max (assuming no one is sub-routing.)

BTW: getting into the router and seeing which IP is going to which MAC address is easier than you think.

Every time a new person joins the network the speed each person receives would be lowered, after about 100 people youd have less than 1mb of speed,

if it were just one router, and somehow that one router was able to support an unlimited number of clients (which they don't and can't), the ARP table would grow so large that to perform a lookup on it would take a long time.

op here. Well, there's finally some valid arguments I didn't think of.

So in order for this to work the way I imagined, it's not enough to have wireless repeaters set up on every street block but also to have multiple wireless routers set up all over so that they all act as access points to the same network, to allow for an unlimited amount of connections. Theoretically, if everyone in the world had a router all acting as access points to one single network, there would be virtually no limit how many people can connect at once and the speed would not drop at all.

The way I imagine this would work would be that people would all have to chip in and pay a 1-time fee for a router so that the network can be extended more and more. It would take a lot of advertising to get started, the fact is it's still much more preferable to paying a monthly fee for internet access with low speeds and limited bandwidth.

>>24,25,26
WHBT. I am also kinda stressed because of it (very good work you). If not, there's no point in educating this genius.

>>27
router
one single network

I raged. 10/10

>>29
It may be called a router but he wouldn't be using it as a router.

>>30
I know. But if you don't use a router as a router, you solve none of the problems people have been pointing out (too many clients, huge ARP table, etc), so either way OP is a brilliant troll.

My 10/10 stands.

So many trolls trying to dismiss the OP. All he wants to do is make the internet on the wireless instead, if it can be done like the internet we are on now it can be done on the wireless as well.

/thread

>>32
5/10. Your not as good as >>1