saden1
06-18-2010, 05:08 PM
The DNS servers only resolve IP address to names. DNS is a facade to what is really happening, and certainly not necessary for network communication.
Which brings us to P2P -- the "known host" part I was referring to. All that is needed for P2P connections is a medium and the protocols. The protocols are built into millions of devices around the world. So, as long as you have a connection to your peer and some easy-to-make, easy-to-get, mass-produced devices, then you can still communicate. There are really no fundamental differences between P2P and normal Internet communications. They both generally use the same protocols.
Communication can still occur without the ISP -- all they really provide is a gateway to other unknown networks. However, none of that is necessary if you know your host and maintain a physical connection.
To me the biggest hurdle would be the physical connection part, but there are so many ways to connect that the US government doesn't control, that I don't see it being much of a problem for, say, Terrorists.
So, basically all this means is that normal people won't be able to use the Internet if they shut it down. No YouTube. No Warpath. No news (which sadly will be what most people want the Internet for in a time of emergency). Terrorists will have a minor inconvenience. Only the honest people will suffer really. To me, these kinds of proposals only showcase the ignorance of the people behind it. They're trying to legislate something that is clearly beyond their comprehension.
How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.
Which brings us to P2P -- the "known host" part I was referring to. All that is needed for P2P connections is a medium and the protocols. The protocols are built into millions of devices around the world. So, as long as you have a connection to your peer and some easy-to-make, easy-to-get, mass-produced devices, then you can still communicate. There are really no fundamental differences between P2P and normal Internet communications. They both generally use the same protocols.
Communication can still occur without the ISP -- all they really provide is a gateway to other unknown networks. However, none of that is necessary if you know your host and maintain a physical connection.
To me the biggest hurdle would be the physical connection part, but there are so many ways to connect that the US government doesn't control, that I don't see it being much of a problem for, say, Terrorists.
So, basically all this means is that normal people won't be able to use the Internet if they shut it down. No YouTube. No Warpath. No news (which sadly will be what most people want the Internet for in a time of emergency). Terrorists will have a minor inconvenience. Only the honest people will suffer really. To me, these kinds of proposals only showcase the ignorance of the people behind it. They're trying to legislate something that is clearly beyond their comprehension.
How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.