Comment by woah

Comment by woah 10 months ago

4 replies

I participated in community mesh networks for years and even did a startup where people could get paid for installing mesh nodes on their roof. Many others have done this as well over many years, and have either pivoted (Meraki) or gone out of business and sold their assets to conventional ISPs (Common Networks).

The biggest hurdle is that reliably running high performance transmitters is not easy for amateurs, and the payoff for any one transmitter is not that much. I'm going to use the example of a residential ISP but this applies to cell networks as well. The "meshier" the network is, the more people revenue needs to be split between, exacerbating the problem.

Another issue is that reliability is extremely important for internet access. Given the fact that amateurs are not going to be able to maintain high uptime, for a decentralized mesh network to succeed at actually providing internet service, you need to have a lot of redundancy in any given area, further reducing income from any one node.

The solution to this is to have a team of technicians that can go around and fix and optimize nodes as soon as there is any problem. This is basically what an ISP or cell carrier does. An added difference is that in a mesh network, the idea is generally that the property owner owns the node, while with a conventional ISP, the property owner leases to the ISP who owns the node. Property owners generally prefer the latter, since this is the model they are used to operating under as landlords.

tugdual 10 months ago

Do you think that this could be linked to a decentralized system for paying people to do this ? Similar to bitcoin, when a node goes down technicians arrive and are payed after the node has been fixed. (I see a lot of potential problems of "measuring" how much the node is repaired, who pays for it etc though)

  • woah 10 months ago

    A big problem that comes up a lot when trying to think of ways to replace a centralized business is that the friction inherent in a decentralized system costs more than the profit margin of a centralized business.

    An end user wants to pay a steady monthly fee for internet that never goes down. A property owner wants to get a steady monthly check for leasing a site. A technician wants to get a steady salary for fixing nodes.

    A decentralized repair network is likely to reduce reliability for end users, predictability for property owners, and job security for technicians. All three of these parties may find it more optimal to have an ISP business which can finance and coordinate things, even if the business is taking profit which could have gone to the other participants.

  • sfink 10 months ago

    Apologies for the cynicism, but that immediately makes me think of a node owner dropping a tinfoil hat over their node, waiting for an ACK from the technician, then taking it off again and splitting the "repair" money with the technician. Lather rinse repeat. It could even be automated.

    You'd just need one crooked technician who can recruit some number of node owners. (If the tech did it via remote-controlled power interruption and only did it on scattered nodes in areas with lots of redundancy, they wouldn't even need to recruit node owners and split the cash. But they'd also be leaving evidence that could easily get them in trouble once someone started getting wise to it.)

    • werzum 10 months ago

      how about reversing it and paying users for a mixture of uptime and quality of service?