A bit late to the party, but I’ve had my eyes on two projects that would fulfill this criteria – at least in the software routing level rather than the physical level.

GNUnet is built by the GNU project. It attempts to decentralize the internet by building an entirely new communication stack that essentially creates a decentralized DNS. Their goal is to make connections private and secure connections between nodes, but not necessarily anonymous.

Personally I don’t embrace any projects that use cryptocurrency as their backend. Such as ZeroNet, Handshake, and the like. A networking protocol shouldn’t use money as foundation.

Freenet uses existing web technologies to be interoperable yet decentralized with the current web stack. It utilizes WebAssembly to create decentralized programs and uses WebSockets for interpretability with existing web technology. It also uses “Small World” routing which they have tested to be the most effective form of peer discovery and communication in a decentralized environment. Their goal is to make an efficient decentralized network. They’re leaving the privacy, security, and anonymity to other developers that want to build on top of Freenet.

Both are open source. My money is on Freenet. GNUnet seems to be trying to replace too much too soon – big if true. Freenet understands the value of efficiency and interoperability first.

In my experience, “making a new one” never works.

What we can do is hack the old one. Go back to old protocols that work, undermine anything proprietary. Scrape fandomwiki to breezewiki, mod your discord client, make websites on neocities and nekoweb, use RSS to follow and email to comment. All the tools are there, leadership is the hard part.

Yeah, the internet itself isn’t the issue here. It’s kind of exactly your vision. Owned by countless different entites across the world, who all work together, interconnect and make it what it is. We already have that.

The issue are the big platforms who sit on top of it all. But we don’t need to invent anything or change any technology for that. Anyone is free not to type “Facebook” into their address bar or install the app. It’s not a technological problem

If you want more user owned internet, make federalized services not just more popular, but easier to spin up and run. Lemmy is great, but I should be able to spin up an instance on my home server without much trouble. Give me the ability to run and manage peer tube on my own.

Basically the problem is that you want to connect to the world-wide-internet, but you to so you need an ISP or satellite data provider to act as a middle man so they have all the control over who gets to access the internet (by paying them a service fee). What it sounds like you want is a mesh network where each user communicates with other users directly. Instead of your computer connecting to an ISP through your router, you connect to other computers in a local area network typically through wifi or radio signals. Its a decentralized network that everyone owns a small piece of which they send and recieve data from eachother.

This technology has been around a very long time. Would you like to guess why its not popular or well known? Well, its slow and only useful in rural areas where you aren’t getting ISP service anyway. An intranet composed of 20 people connected in a few mile radius sharing usenet level information at download/upload speeds in the low kilobytes per second isn’t exactly what people think about or want when they think of the ‘internet’.

Perhaps a time will come where a consumer bought mesh based network router comes onto the market with enough advertising and appeal to be bought into by the masses with state/nation wide coverage built around a smallnet protocol like Gemini. Something like this almost happened with the Helium Network unfortunately it was designed to send smart IOT information in small packets and was only mass adopted because it was tied to mining crypto shitcoin through proof-of-connectivity. If someone can create something similar but without the shitcoin, with a mesh router box that host your website and is sold on the idea of a decentralized internet with a one-time purchase to cut out ISP it might just work.

you could buy some ip space and setup bgp to peer with hurricaine electric or a local exchange and then be an integral part of the internet, essentially being your own ISP.

Why would you want to replace the internet at a technical level, which is what the post appears to be focused on?

There’s plenty of arguments to burn-it-down at a social level, but building a second technical implementation doesn’t get you around those. Having individuals own more of the core doesn’t do much when the network level itself is largely neutral to the content that passes through it.

Also the core of the internet is built around big, fat pipes. Those are beyond the means of most hobbiest folks running their own equipment. Without those pipes, traffic will reach bottlenecks easily and usability will suffer.

Every single time I stumble upon topics like this i can only remember: ZeroNet

You hosted your own piece of the internet on your machine.

If the target is to just bypass the regular ISPs, that is an entirely different task. The closest I could think about would be creating wide LAN networks, capable of interconnecting with each other, in parallel.

But I risk you’d quickly step on some communications regulation. Laying out cables requires permits. Wireless signals occupy signal bands.

Kudos for the Sega Genesis Shadowrun screenshot there.

Protocols and decentralization are a good step.

You mean, Like this?

I had some vague interest some time back in some of this some time back, the idea of a “zero-admin” network where you could just have random people plug in more infrastructure, install some software package on nodes, and routing and all would just work. No human involvement beyond plugging physical transport in.

Some things to consider:

• People will, given the opportunity, use network infrastructure as a DDoS vector. You need to be strong against that.

• It’s a good bet that not everyone in the system can be trusted.

• Not only that, but bad actors can collude.

• Because transport of data has value, if this is free, you have to worry about someone else who provides transport for existing data just routing stuff over your free system and flooding it.

• If the system requires encryption to mitigate some of the above issues (so, for example, one sort of mechanism might be a credit-based system where one entity can prove that it has routed some amount of data from A to B in exchange for someone else routing some amount of data from C to D – Mojo Nation, the project Bram Cohen did before BitTorrent, used such a system to “pay” for bandwidth), that’s going to add overhead.

• If you want your network to extend to routing data onto the Internet, that’s going to consume Internet resources. Even if you can figure out a way to set up a neighborhood network, the people who, for example, run and maintain submarine cables are not going to want to do that gratis. And yeah, to some degree, you can just unload costs onto other users, the way that it’s common for heavy BitTorrent users to pay the same monthly rate as that little old lady who just checks her email, even though said heavy users are tying up a lot more time on the line. But if you are successful, at some point, this stops flying below the radar and ISPs start noticing that User X is incurring a greatly disproportionate degree of resource usage. I should note that there are probably valid use cases that don’t extend to routing data onto the Internet, but if you don’t permit for that, that’s a very substantial constraint.

If anyone has to do something that they don’t want to do (e.g. run line from saturated point A to saturated point B), then you’re potentially looking at having to pay someone to do something, and then you’re just back to the existing commercial Internet system…which for most people, isn’t that expensive and does a reasonable job of moving data from Point A to Point B.

From a physical standpoint, while different parts of the network can probably use different types of infrastructure, if you want sparse, cheap-to-deploy infrastructure over an area, my guess is that in many cases line-of-sight laser networks are probably your best bet, especially in cities. You can move data from point A to point B quickly through other people’s airspace without paying for it, today. Laser links come with some drawbacks: weather and such will disrupt them to some degree, so you have to be willing to accept that.

The main application that I could think of for regional-only transport, avoiding routing onto the Internet, was some kind of distributed backup system. A lot of people have unused storage capacity. You can use redundant distributed data storage, the way Hyphanet does. You can make systems that permit one user to prove that they are storing a certain amount of data to let them build credibility by requesting hashes of data that they say that they’re storing. It won’t deal with, say, a fire burning down the whole area, but for a lot of people, basically having some kind of “I store your offsite data using my unused storage capacity in exchange for you doing the same for me, and we can both benefit enough to want to continue use of the system” system might be worthwhile. That’s also likely to permit for higher-latency stuff involving encryption and dealing with redundancy. I think that “Internet service for free” off such a system is going to be a lot harder.

Replacing “the internet”? Not gonna happen.

Replacing the web (which is what you seem to mean)? Also not gonna happen but it’s at least imaginable.

Personally I’d prefer that we stop wasting our time on these silly utopian fantasies of “replacing” things and instead think about making them better. The World Wide Web, and everything it makes possible, is a treasure. It doesn’t need replacement, it needs improvement, and the improvement is absolutely happening already.

Hi. I’m a network specialist. The Internet is not a big truck (it’s a series of tubes).

To explain simply: time, distance and money. That’s why nobody is doing it. All the humans are spread out over too much land, and to span the vast distances between places, you need either a really long cable (see: fiber optics) with permission to run said cable over that distance, or you need wireless relays (these don’t have as much bandwidth).

The main problem isn’t getting the power to reach a particular destination… You could fire a wireless signal from New York to LA if you had line of sight with relatively little power… The problem is, the damned earth gets in the way.

So what do we get if we try? A bunch of independent communities with spotty connections to nearby communities, and it’s likely that as soon as you go any significant distance, the demand on bandwidth would vastly outstrip any bandwidth you have.

Great, now the internet is slow, shit, and half the time, doesn’t connect to what you want to access.

The Internet is set up the way it is because it’s efficient and economical to do it this way. Let me talk at you for a minute and explain.

ISPs in your local area use copper wires, such as telephone or cable TV lines that were put in place more than a generation ago, to handle the “last mile”… The fact that we can get as fast of service down 20+ year old lines is a miracle half the time. Also, anyone with fiber, go sit in the corner, you’re in a different class.

So all these last mile runs go to their distribution building that amalgamates them into a small number of high speed, high bandwidth fiber lines that go towards the nearest exchange. Not telephone exchange, internet exchange. They’re usually located in data centers.

Internet exchanges act as a nexus of cross connectivity between ISPs, and corporations that host internet services like Meta, Google, etc. As well as transit providers, international data connectivity service providers that own undersea cables… Everyone and everything that wants to communicate on the internet is connected at these points, which is why they’re in data centers. The data center is attached to the internet exchange, not the other way around.

IX-es are connected to eachother over long distance fiber cables, usually run along utility properties, like those used for high voltage power transmission towers, or run along railroads or similar. Basically anyone who has a long, uninterrupted stretch of land, probably has been approached by transit providers to run fiber across their property between locations.

It’s a huge, complex web of companies that have agreed to move customer traffic between locations.

Recreating all of that is an insane technological challenge especially for a rag tag group of volunteers and hobbyists with little money, and no resources… From scratch.

I like the idea, but implementation is going to be nigh impossible.

I’m just dreaming here so humour me if you like, or don’t, no harm done.
Would it be possible to build an independent and mostly autonomous hardware backbone for the internet using some sort of mesh-like design?
I.e. consider a mesh of nodes that are solar powered with batteries to last the night. You plop those all over the place: your roof, in meadows, on vehicles, bus stops, wherever. They connect to each other wirelessly. They should be cheap and near maintenance free. In case one dies, the mesh should have enough redundancy to compensate while the node is being replaced.

Something like that should be fully independent, net-neutral and accessible by everyone right. Although you will need a rather high density of nodes/people who join, for it to work