Put the internet back under your control with the FreedomBox

Discussion in 'hardware' started by mood, Apr 22, 2019.

  1. mood

    mood Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    16,111
    Put the internet back under your control with the FreedomBox
    April 22, 2019
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/put-the-internet-back-under-your-control-with-the-freedombox/
     
  2. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    4,628
    Location:
    USA still the best. But getting worse!
  3. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    9,014
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    'We can, in short, rebuild the internet so that we, and not multi-billion dollar companies, are in charge.' ~ op cit

    Sounds like a plan.
     
  4. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    4,628
    Location:
    USA still the best. But getting worse!
    Like a BS plan?
     
  5. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
    Ummm. Most ISPs don't allow users to host websites.
     
  6. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    9,014
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Well, basically, yes.
     
  7. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    885
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    I heard about blocking SMTP (e-mail) by ISP, but websites? Is this common in USA?
     
  8. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Well, a BS marketing campaign anyway.

    This device is really acting more like a router - and of course, a router is already a small dedicated computer - this just brings the concept down to something that can fit you your hand - that already has some built in apps.
    Sure they do - just not a publicly accessible one - and especially not one for commercial use with a residential, non-commercial service contract.

    Almost every home router lets users setup remote access so when away, you can access your home computers. Same difference only here, you hit your home server first.
    No. Again, if for your own personal and non-commerical use, this is not a problem. But if you start using this "website" for a business (even a non-profit) and begin consuming lots of bandwidth, you surely would get the attention of your ISP.

    Now for sure, this can be scaled up and if 100s or even 1000s of users in one community start doing this it is going to get the attention of providers too. But it should be noted this device/system is really ideal for regions of the world where local internet access is very limited.

    It's a great idea, conceptually. Like most products, it is important to take the marketing "fluff" out of it before judging its real value.
     
  9. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
    But that's the point. You can't host websites that others can access. So "lets you host your own internet services with little expertise" and "put the internet back under your control" are ~meaningless.
     
  10. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Sure you can! It just depends on what you mean by "others". If you mean a few friends and family for non-commercial use, then no problem. But if you mean a commercial website where 100s or even 1000s may be accessing simultaneously, consuming large amounts of bandwidth, then no way.
     
  11. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
    "Commercial" is ~iffy in today's world of Google SEO and whatever. But commercial or not, lots of connections and throughput will get their attention.

    And just how much user-based Web can you have under that constraint?
     
  12. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Agreed. If you have 500 friends and family, all connecting at once, you will surely get their attention.
    It's about timing. Even if you have a few dozen friends and family members, if they connect at different times during the day (and not all at once), the ISPs are not going to notice, or care - as long as it is not for commercial purposes.

    Consider this. Right now, I can be streaming 4K video on Netflix to two different TVs in my house. My grandson can be, at the same time, streaming YouTube videos on his notebook while my granddaughter is updating her Facebook and I'm sitting here streaming Eric Clapton via Pandora. That's a lot of bandwidth all at once. And my ISP is not complaining.
     
  13. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
    Sure, but that's all download.
     
  14. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    1,477
    it all comes down to this:
    it's not the amount of the data you host and share, it's the content itself that "they" want to control, what you can ul and share. it's no different than seeding for torrent files.
     
  15. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Yes, but regardless if download or upload, it is still using the ISP's resources. I might regularly "upload" full backups of my computers for cloud storage - that's many terabytes of data. I might upload videos to YouTube or Facebook, or 100s of hirez photos. Doesn't matter.

    Not sure the point or you continuing to nit-pick debate this. Nothing has changed. It still depends on how many are connecting at one time and if this is being done for commercial or personal purposes.
    Sorry, don't agree with this at all. For one, it surely is the amount of data that matters to ISPs - that is how their fees are determined with the big telecommunication carriers (Internet backbone providers). As for content, this assumes they can determine the content. This is not easy if everything, or almost everything but the IP address in the packet is encrypted. And last, it would take a tremendous amount of time and effort (Read: $$$) for your ISP to analyze all your traffic, and the traffic of all its customers to determine the content.

    If this were an easy task, then Facebook, Twitter, etc. would be much more successful at blocking kiddy porn and terrorist propaganda, and ISPs would be more successful at blocking malicious code and bandwidth-hogging spam.

    Your ISP can certainly block access to different sites, but filter "content" of your traffic based on what they want you to see or not see? No way.

    So this "the content 'they' want to control" is just tinfoil-hat fodder.
     
  16. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    This Ars Technica article from yesterday fits right in to my comment above to illustrate how the amount of data matters.
     
  17. imdb

    imdb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Posts:
    1,477
    you got it all wrong, buddy. i said what they want to control is the content itself, not the amount, that's why they don't want the internet to be "under your control", because they can't "determine the content".
     
  18. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    No. I don't have it wrong. First, as noted and contrary to your claim, it IS about the "amount" of data.

    Second, don't fall for the marketing hype of this FreedomBox product. It does not give you control over the internet.

    And third, ISPs don't want to control the content because they can't and it would be cost prohibitive. Why would they expend the manpower and computing resources to control (or even monitor) our content? What revenue do you think they can get from controlling it?

    Plus, there's more money for them if they just let us do what we want!

    Why do you think spam got so far out of control? ISPs could have blocked it at the source, if they wanted to and kept it off the Internet. Instead, it got to the point where estimates put spam traffic anywhere from 50 to 80% of all Internet traffic and 90% of all email traffic!!! :eek: But instead of "controlling" it, ISPs would much rather sell us more bandwidth because that is more profitable for them.

    If we were in North Korea or Iran, then yes, controlling content might be their goal. But this is not North Korea or Iran.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
  19. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    885
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    If it is IRC server used for text communication even 500 connections at once would use low amount of bandwidth. Also static website (HTML + CSS) without pictures would use low amount of bandwidth. Certainly less than watching 4K video from Netflix or uploading backup to the cloud.
     
  20. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Right. Even lots of text adds up to almost nothing. But in that case, I think the shear number of simultaneous connections would get your ISP's attention and cause them to question what you are up to. And more importantly, cause them to look into if you are running some sort of commercial (or even non-profit) enterprise from a "residential" personal account.
     
  21. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
    My point is that it's silly to claim ...
    ... when having lots of connections for something that's not purely "personal" (i.e., "provide internet services") will bring the hammer down.
     
  22. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    885
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    You provide service for yourself instead of depending on services from Gmail, Facebook etc. Internet was meant to be distributed (P2P) network. This is one of the things I am glad I live in EU where ISPs can't do this as long as client isn't consuming bandwidth too much or traffic is clearly malicious/intended to hurt their infrastructure.
     
  23. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,505
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    That we agree on completely. :) As I said in my first post, this sounds like a bunch of "marketing" BS.
     
  24. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    885
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    One can say that it is silly to claim majority of people is going to use compartmentalized personalities on the Web. Just sayin'.
     
  25. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,849
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.