I am curious to know, just what censorship or restrictions has the US government placed on the Internet? Certainly, the FCC keeps trying to place outrageous rules into place, rules that they have no authority to create, but just what is it "mentioned in the article" and repeated by Jeff.Petro are so onerous but not explicitly called out?
Hmm... it's somewhat hard to see just what current problem would be solved by this new network. Governments that censor 'net traffic could just as well censor a distributed wireless network: by denying frequency allocation, by jamming via mobile platforms, by shooting you... it's not as though the spectrum is some sort of subspace that only people and not their governments can access. (Interested parties should read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by Van Vogt.) As for encryption, you're free to encrypt anything you want right now, at least in the States. But here's a bottom line: without a need that when fulfilled, fills someone's pocket, ideas of net "freedom" and "privacy" are just hype. My experience observing the rise of the 'net over the years has been that much of the "freedom" is just a euphemism for "irresponsible license" and "privacy" means "access to pornography". Don't think so? Note the names associated with responses even in this forum. How many are a person's name, such as mine?
On the tech side of the issue, the idea of a pervasive wireless net is appealing. Rural areas still won't be served because there won't be one of those big bad ISPs to foot the bill for the repeaters, but college campuses will be the first to have a MondoNet...
Overall I have to ask: what problem is being solved that isn't really a problem of the current Internet but of politics, and who is going to pay for the solution? And, of course, in what coin?
Amazing idea, but will it fly or be stopped while its still on paper?
Most governments wish to restrict the freedom & privacy of the current net. And the US is no exception as mentioned in the article. I would expect regulatory roadblocks to MANET because it does promote freedom & privacy.
I really hope to see this in the future, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.