Thread 106162539

This is going to sound retarded, but bear with me.

Could we theoretically attach antennas to our computers and transmit data between other computers that way? Could we build a whole "new internet" of radio signals that our computers convert into readable data, that is harder for anyone to control, like our internet is now being regulated by id checks, ISPs and so on.

It would of course be difficult for most retards to get ahold of the hardware, but we could have a whole new wild west of the internet like it was in the 90s/early 00s

>>106162539 (OP)
>Why don't we use radio waves instead of the internet
Triangulation

>>106162539 (OP)
>Could we theoretically attach antennas to our computers and transmit data between other computers that way?
Yes, it's called packet radio. It's still used between mountain rescue ground stations for transmitting/receiving weather info

>>106162539 (OP)
Yes. It can be a mesh network. This and many other alternatives exist and have existed for about 50 years.
Go to >>>/diy/ham and read up on the FAQ and the library there. It answers all your questions in depth.

>>106162539 (OP)
We call it wifi.

>>106162539 (OP)
Yes, as >>106162585 said, that's packet radio. And as >>106162551 said, you can triangulate the signal. You could protect the data you're transmitting by encrypting it, but the bigger problem is that the radio waves are very strictly regulated, so you're stuck either
1. sending encrypted data over bands allocated for some other purpose (illegal because of the frequency you're on)
2. sending encrypted data over ham radio bands (illegal because of the encryption)

>>106162852
Heckin' updooted. OP is clearly not talking about a wireless LAN
>>106162858
forgot to add that the triangulation means that in either situation you end up with the glowies at your door and probably serious jailtime

>>106162539 (OP)
Encryption of radio waves is extremely illegal. You need a business license and to use specific bands.

What you're saying is a pipe dream.

>>106162875
You'd probably only get fined the first time (unless you touch one of the REALLY forbidden bands) but do it again and yeah you're going to jail. Glowniggers really don't fuck around when it comes to radio.

>>106162858
>2. sending encrypted data over ham radio bands (illegal because of the encryption)
It's not encrypted, just compressed :^)

>>106162875
>OP is clearly not talking about a wireless LAN
He is, he just doesn't know it. Aren't you OP?

>>106162890
Ya fucking with radio is like aiming a laser at an airplane. You're just giving away your location and will get ass fucked.

>>106162897
Do it then faggot. When the FTC shows up to your door and fucks your ass with your shitty handheld radio, you can use regular WiFi to tell us how much you fucked up, retard.

>>106162852
>>106162875
>>106162917
no, wifi is still connected to a router/modem somewhere, and that thing can be blocked by the ISP/government

>>106162585
i see, this is very interesting

>>106162858
>>106162875
>>106162890
>>106162897
>>106162939
Okay, this answers my question quite well. So the reason nobody has done this is because it's very illegal for normal people to use radio waves (bc the government knows how impossible it is to regulate and probably bc it would interfere with airplane traffic)

So we really are stuck with the internet as we know it...

>>106162539 (OP)
People are doing it and no, nobody in the gov gives a crap if you encrypt it or not as long as its not interfering with already allocated freqs.

Only an entangled quantum system can communicate (still upholding universal speed limits) without occupying the space in between

be the change you want to see
https://github.com/markqvist/Reticulum

>>106162875
>OP is clearly not talking about a wireless LAN
There's no reason wifi couldn't be used for exactly what OP is suggesting. Just make waveguide antennas out of soup cans.

>>106163036
Basically yes. Not just airplane traffic, but you get the point. Every range of frequencies (bands) is allocated to a specific purpose. And the few that can be used without a license are unsuitable for this purpose for a variety of reasons.
>So we really are stuck with the internet as we know it...
You can run your own ethernet/fibre between you and your friends' houses I guess

>>106162991
>no, wifi is still connected to a router/modem somewhere, and that thing can be blocked by the ISP/government
Am I talking to an actual retard? A router doesn't have to be connected to the internet. It's just a piece of network equipment that does IP routing. You will need exactly the same equipment if you actually want to make a radio driven network.

>>106162991
>wifi is still connected to a router/modem somewhere
retard

Frickin' laser beams.

>>106163056
You can, but even amplifying a wifi-signal can get the glowies after you. Not to mention the frequencies that wifi uses aren't suitable for long distance travel anyway. You'd need to be on HF to get beyond the next town

>>106163083
http://ronja.twibright.com/

>>106162539 (OP)
https://www.open-mesh.org/doc/index.html

>>106163100
Increasing the output power might get you in trouble. Shaping the beam for longer range is no problem. If anything it reduces interference.

>>106162852
/thread

>>106163100
> can get the glowies after you
In what shithole do you live?
Where I live glowies are encouraging that kind of stuff and experimentation

>>106163100
>You can, but even amplifying a wifi-signal can get the glowies after you.
4chan is really hilarious sometimes, I think my parents have been using a wifi amp and receiver for like 15 years

>>106163052
Isn't the trade off with this long range at the expense of absolute ass bandwidth?

>>106163062
>>106163036
An alternative is to run your own mesh network with neighbors and friends. People are already doing that in smaller cities. And you don't need to lay down any cable! There are direct line or sight wireless solutions for high speeds.

>>106163255
>nigger doesn't understand the difference between amplification and an extender

>>106163353
An extender/booster wouldn't reach across however many acres it is

>>106163195
if you live in the US, Canada, the EU, or any other first-world country they most certainly are not. have fun with the FCC fren
>>106163255
see what happens when you run your router through a 1kw linear amp

>>106163293
LoRA is, but Reticulum can work with pretty much anything that can transmit data from one point to another

>>106163640
>nigger doesn't understand directional wifi extenders

channel congestion and
latency sucks

>>106163036
Not just airplanes but military applications. Like the 1.6ghz band is reserved for military usage to send and receive data from space.

>>106163312
how?

i'm in awe of what a fucking idiot op is

>>106162539 (OP)
You have the alternative of using light (or infrared light), such as RONJA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA

>>106162539 (OP)
Wimax sounds a lot like what anon is asking about. Couldn't wimax do what he wants.

>>106164062
First day on /g/?

>>106162539 (OP)
If I was located in Bellingham, Washington, how would I be able to connect to a radio network in Rochester, Nee York?

>>106162539 (OP)
Somebody already thought of that years ago.
https://reticulum.network/
It's an anonymous, decentralized, end to end encrypted network that can run over existing ethernet/wifi networks and even supports meme shit like LoRa. You can build your own internet alternative based on second hand wireless bridges, old switches and even existing internet infrastructure. Wireless bridges are cheap as fuck and can handle about 5km distance just fine so they are really ideal for this.

>>106164090
OP doesn't want ISP's. Pure, direct communication via raido.
Problem is as I pointed out here: >>106164126
The military, after all, created the internet because its really not practical to create a radio wave strong enough to be remain stable, to cross thousands of miles. And that ignores all the interference caused from doing so.
It could work in a practical sense at a small, community level network. But once you start slapping strong enough senders on every single device that can reach 5 - 10 miles you would be creating a massive interference mess.

If this is supposed to be a counter to the web censorship, you're stupid. Radio waves are far more locked down than the internet. You'd be lucky if you can say a couple words before some ham radio boomers inform on you to the FCC.

>>106163705
>but Reticulum can work with pretty much anything that can transmit data from one point to another
So could you, theoretically, have local nodes all across the world that use LoRA bands but are interconnected via traditional internet as a fallback to LoRA because no matter what you will have dead spots in terms of coverage? I.e. have a node A in the US talk to gateway A that uses some other network as WAN (normal internet, tor, i2p, wireguard p2p networks, whatever) to reach gateway B in France that relays the message to node B?

>>106164346
LoRa, Wi-Fi and those 60Ghz wireless bridges are all legal for home use. Modern bridges can do like 6Gbps according to ubiquitis website. it all seems doable.

>>106164376
Reticulum can run over regular IP networks so I assume it can run over the internet somehow. However the biggest problem with those networks seems to be scaling. Meshtastic sounds like a good idea on paper but then when you actually try it you realize that it's fucking useless with more than 50 nodes on the network. My home city is pretty much 100% covered by Meshtastic and it just doesn't fucking work anyway because it can't scale that high. I wonder if Reticulum is any better.

>>106164346
>inform on you to the FCC
imagine living in burgerland
have fun selling yourself behind a walmart that you won't afford to enter

>>106164433
>Reticulum can run over regular IP networks
Guess I'll have to take a deeper look into it because at a quick glance it does look like the most promising one I have seen yet.
>My home city is pretty much 100% covered by Meshtastic and it just doesn't fucking work anyway because it can't scale that high.
Can it not scale that high or is it just a problem of only one or two nodes covering the entire city but not having enough bandwidth to handle it? I.e. is it just a problem of too few base stations or the actual implementation that's dogshit?

>>106162539 (OP)
You have a router that loses power bandwidth after couple dozen feet.

>>106164507
>Can it not scale that high or is it just a problem of only one or two nodes covering the entire city but not having enough bandwidth to handle it?
There are at least 280 nodes here. Long fast clogs up like the name suggests: fast. Medium fast fared better but still very often I would receive messages that I would be unable to reply to and the other way around. Every time someone posted a chain of numbered test messages on the public channel I would receive only some of them. Since implementation on a city scale can not be controlled it's just useless. There is no real world use for meshtastic outside of small personal networks.

>>106164643
>There are at least 280 nodes here.
fuck that's grim

>>106164346
the fcc literally doesnt enforce anything and you cannot find proof of a single case of them getting a regular citizen for unlicensed transmission

>>106164643
>There are at least 280 nodes here.
Well shit yeah okay then it's just the implementation that's completely worthless fucking hell if 280 nodes can't handle what I'll just assume to be very few users since all of this is still pretty niche then throw it in the fucking trash that's FUBAR.

>>106164048
Research these products and other companies and you'll understand. Imagine using these on a mountain with another at the base. Or across a valley.

https://store.ui.com/us/en/category/all-wireless

>>106164507
iirc meshtastic's ""path finding"" is just to broadcast across the entire network. Reticulum is smarter about where it sends a packet, however in practice if you're using LoRA i'm not confident it'd scale too much because LoRA has shit tier bandwidth. i haven't tested it but i know it at least tries to be scalable.

>>106164376
yes, and the split brain problem is not an issue. networks can isolate and regroup at any time and be fully addressable again without much trouble, at least that's the theory and the main dev seems like he thought it through quite a bit so i believe him until i figure out a non shit way of using it over long distances while not depending on external infrastructure

>>106164758
>while not depending on external infrastructure
Yeah that's the real problem. Reliably connecting local networks into the larger whole without having to rely on some centralized infrastructure. I guess you could just shit out (just the required network info for gateways to find each other) data into some blockchain and have them deal with replication, distribution, etc. but I have my doubts that would scale or be practical. Also
>crypto

>>106164820
the concept of "IP" in Reticulum is vastly different (each application/service allocates one) and if there exists a path between two nodes Reticulum will find a way with no configuration besides running the actual node.
read https://reticulum.network/manual/gettingstartedfast.html#creating-a-network-with-reticulum to get an idea of how automatic it is. it just needs you to make a possible path to a wider network and that's it.

i wouldn't mind LoRA if it was like 10mbps, then that way it would be usable for even a small town's emergency network, i'd say. still, you'd need to combine wired connections between floors/adjacent houses to build a meaningful mesh

>>106164126
You will either need a complete network of relays, or you can use store and forward nets such as FIDOnet.

>>106162539 (OP)
This has to be bait, you can't be that retarded to type all this without thinking of WiFi
>>106162991
Indeed he was retarded all along
>>106164433
>>106164643
If you are in the UK, meshcore.co.uk was created to tackle the scalability problem (at least that's what Andrew Kirby shills)

>>106165282
you do realize that wifi and an ethernet cable do not lead to two different internets? retard

your father weeps every time you are brought up.

>>106162539 (OP)
bandwidth is limited compared to cables. each cable is its own "airspace", compared to radio where there's just the one and everyone has to share it.

>>106162858
just blast your illegal sneakernet packets over FRS or something, nobody uses those bands or cares what goes on there.

>>106163036
>bc the government knows how impossible it is to regulate
>proceeds to regulate it
alright then.

>>106164730
Right!, thanks anon, very good nfo.

>>106164065
>bird passes by
>milf collection download gets corrupted

>>106167297
>packet loss is catastropic failure
You really have no idea about networking, do you?

>>106162881
how can a court prove a transmission is encrypted?

>>106167424
My man, it's radio waves. Anyone can just record it. And if it's in the wrong bands, that's another thing. All they need to do is play back the encrypted signal and it will be garbled noise and doing that is illegal on it's own since you're shitting up the radio waves when someone could be using it for something useful or an emergency. Constantly playing back garbage reduces the usefulness for everyone.

people already rightly told you that using encryption on ham radio frequencies is illegal, but you can use lora, no loicense needed either
but you'd be stuck mostly talking to locals so it would get boring fast

>>106167624
that doesn't answer the question but yes i agree lots of hamboomers would seethe and try to get an fcc doink to mail you a strongly worded letter about it

>>106164730

I used to work for an ISP that was mainly using ubiquiti radios and the mistake people make is not using routers at the nodes and relying on just plugging into switches. We used to get massive packet loss and loops when data wasn't being properly routed between sites. Signal path diversity is key and throwing in some cheap Mikrotik routers and running OSPF or static routes kept things running smooth.

>>106167702
The FCC won't mail you a letter, retard. They'll show up to your doorstep and give you a verbal warning. If you really piss then off, they'll come with federal Marshalls, considerate your equipment, and fuck your shit up. This isn't even talking about the legal prosecution. What the fuck do you think this is?

Most ham people do self policing so you really have to be a clueless soulless retard to get the FCC involved.

>>106167424
You do realise that the airwaves are monitored, triangulated and recorded globally 24/7, right?
Pic. related.

>>106167800
>What the fuck do you think this is?
lmao you're delusional. that shit never happens but gay hamniggers like yourself like to imagine it does so they can rationalize being boring pussies.

>>106167837
that doesn't answer the question. how is the IQ here this low?

>>106167856
You know what, fuckwad? The signal has been sent out. Hope you're happy.

>Could we build a whole "new internet" of radio signals that our computers convert into readable data, that is harder for anyone to control, like our internet is now being regulated by id checks, ISPs and so on.
Yes, but in order to get some resemblance of usable (video transfer) bandwidth & loicense free communication, you’re gonna need multi-gigahertz something like wifi. Dish antennas are already widely mentioned which can deliver good p2p distance. There are some mesh technologies but the trick will be to design something more akin to a bulletin board system on top of that to deal with the mesh hop limit. Community BBS-nodes would still have to connect over the internet to eachother. so you’ll have to figure out how you’re going to get content from a youtuber for example across the mesh to the end user within the confines of the mesh hop limit.

>>106167424
>how can a court prove
In the free democratic republic of the people they don't have to prove anything. You will have to prove it is unencrypted, and when you fail to do that, you will probably be shot.

>>106164126
shortwave

>>106167778
Thanks for the valuable support!!

>>106162539 (OP)
The Internet is just radio waves squeezed into a cable

>>106167424
Informational entropy
1s and 0s are either completely random (eg. 50/50 chance of occurring) or they're completely coherent string of occurrence (eg. all 1s or all 0s).
The more completely random order of bits is (the more it is 50/50), the more "information" it holds (because information in of itself is "something unpredictable just happened", information to you about sun rising in the east every day holds no value)

Encryption increases randomness of the information, increasing its entropy.
Same shit happens with compression.

Doing binwalk -E or binwalk -N on a particular file (eg. firmware) lets you know the entropy of it in particular parts, telling you if any part of the file is encrypted or compressed

>>106167424
>>106171333
example binwalk -E on exe file of windows driver.
It shows that at the end of the file there is clearly some either compressed or encrypted part of the driver

>>106162539 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEplzHraw3c

because of the range, to transmit radio waves from continent to continent you need 100kW antenna, you wont get everyone to just casually have 100kW antenna at their home

>>106171755
>to transmit radio waves from continent to continent you need 100kW antenna
Ham radio operators are laughing at you

>>106171333
>>106171385
Steganography can be indistinguishable from valid, regular data.

>>106171866
Steganography is indistinguishable to the human eye, but informational entropy makes no fool
example pic related

but there are other statistical methods to detect steganography like Chi-square test, histogram analysis, noise detection etc

The entropy difference itself averaged over the whole image isn't huge, but with preprocessing (ie divvying it up between the RGB bits) I assume you would get a much sharper difference

>>106167405
Yeah the session restarts back at 0 whenever a packet is dropped kek

>>106162539 (OP)
depends on weather, and basically no, you won't be able to do shit, any loophole you find will be closed with laws, instantly, until you learn to know your place pleb.

>>106162881
AN-PRC-25 For those of you in the know ;)

BUT WE DO USE RADIO WAVES
WHAT DO YOU THINK CELL TOWERS ARE DOING

>>106172846
OP wants control over the infrastructure which isn't allowed.

>>106172858
Short wave radios to transmit data + pigeons as a medium to transport packages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers

>>106162539 (OP)
That's already normie tech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_lbvqCQnMY
>why don't we use this for everything?
Bandwith.

>>106162881
In which shithole is encryption of radio waves illegal?

>>106172140
Run it on a decompressed image (converted to RGBA raw)

>>106173449
Thanks for the suggestion.

The difference is much more prominent now, entropy of the steganography raw picture seems to be lower.

Let me try Chi-square test

>>106173577
>>106173449
Forgot pic

>>106173311
Everywhere it matters, yes.

>>106173311
>>106173610
Makes sensed. It all started with Enigma, a long time ago. Encryption was obscure military tier technology.

>>106173584
>>106173577
>>106173449
Chi-square shows a high value, making it show histogram distortions

Lemme just do quick histogram to confirm

>>106172858
>>106173256
This is probably why there was once an interest in seeing if neutrinos cold be used for communications.
The upside was (and still is) that neutrinos cannot be blocked, so you could transmit through mountains, even directyl though the core of the earth. The downside was, conversely, that detectors were impractically huge, data rate was slow and nobody found any practical solution for how to make it compact.
Any such solution would of course be a military secret.

>>106162539 (OP)

maybe because it is bad ok
neighbour have lawnmover running 2800rpm full spectrum while it is working and it is not always working 100%

>>106162539 (OP)
Because we'd need to get loicences for this. Also bands tend to be just a few kHz, so you'd get dialup-tier bandwidth.

>>106162858
And you can't transmit continuously on licence-free bands, there are time limits like 3 minutes.

bump

>>106162539 (OP)
In theory you can set up your own mesh network with nodes working on ISM bands. Check out reticulum, as its basically entire network stack that works on almost everything, including LoRa devices.
>>106162551
Won't stop you from running your own mesh network onto itself + triangulation in crowded places would be hard because of how crowded ISM bands are.
>>106162858
>You could protect the data you're transmitting by encrypting it
Triangulation has nothing to do with confidentiality of the data
>but the bigger problem is that the radio waves are very strictly regulated
You can use ISM devices with no licensing, and well, if you want to rebel out against entire world, why would you care about law?

>>106178623
>if you want to rebel out against entire world, why would you care about law?
Because those of us that have outgrown their edgy 13 year old phase recognize that there are practical things you can do and on the other hand there is bullshit lapring.