The core ideas behind distributed mesh networking are nothing new – giants like Cisco, Motorola and the US Department of Homeland Security, among others, have been working in this space for years. The idea is simple: how can one build a network that does not rely on centralized systems — choke points — in order to function? How can these networks bring wireless network access over as large a territory as possible? There are serious implications behind projects like this, such as use in natural disasters, or to extend network services to remote areas of the world.
One of the organizations working in this space is the Free Network Foundation. But, unlike the major investments being made by corporations like Cisco, the FNF is going it alone with an open philosophy and a people-powered approach. In the process, they are causing a rethink of what a truly autonomous and decentralized network might look like. The FNF is developing several software and hardware-based systems that are rapidly deployable, decentralized and resilient. Their systems not only provide network connectivity via mesh networks to a wide area, they also run custom software stacks to host organizational tools and popular web platforms. In addition to this heavy lifting, they “promote freedoms, support innovations and advocate technologies that enhance and enable digital self-determination.”
The Foundation’s co-founder and Executive Director is Isaac Wilder. A former computer science and philosophy student, he devoted himself full-time to the pursuit and study of these technologies in 2011. In addition to being a fluent and passionate proponent of the “free networking” philosophy — yes, it has its own manifesto! — Isaac frequently gets his hands dirty with the architecture of the system, as can be seen in the fantastic VICE mini-documentary “Free the Network.” Isaac and the FNF spent a decent amount of time on the ground in New York to provide technical and experimental support for Occupy Wall Street.
He generously took time from his busy schedule to answer some of our questions.
CitizenWeb: I, like many others, was first introduced to the work of the Free Network Foundation by the fantastic mini-documentary by Vice titled “Free the Network.” What has the FNF been up to since the days of Occupy Wall Street and hauling ‘freedom towers’ around Zuccotti Park?
Isaac: We’ve put hundreds of hours into building what we call ‘FreedomCenter’. In essence, it’s a solution for enterprise data ownership/digital self-determination. Most development project would just use IaaS/cloud tools, but we think that, in the long run, we’ll be much better served by the flexibility and security of running our own systems. FreedomCenter powers our web properties, but more importantly, it powers our lab, which offers a continuous build, integration, and radio runtime testing environment. The idea is to ultimately offer this infrastructure to the wider world of network hackers. We’re opening it now to a few trusted parties, but we don’t think it will be ready for the general hacker public until the spring.
CW: For readers who aren’t yet familiar with the work that the FNF is doing, could you give a brief overview of your two main projects (FreedomLink and FreedomTower), as well as anything else interesting that you may be working on at present?
Isaac: FreedomLink and FreedomTower are network appliances. FreedomLink is designed to anchor a regional network coop, and FreedomTower to anchor a neighborhood one. The regional network would be made up of neighborhood networks, linked together. Mostly, these projects consist of the integration of existing tools into a tested and turnkey suite. The other project of note is the FreedomNode, which would anchor a home/business/building network. One of the key ideas of the whole project is that we can implement transparent crypto on the node, so that all traffic is encrypted end-to-end.
CW: Starting up new projects in the tech space isn’t always easy, especially when one is trying to do something as radical as redefine how we think of networking nowadays. In your opinion, what has been the biggest challenge facing the foundation since its conception?
Isaac: The enormity of the task, and our own insistence on independence. I believe it would be relatively easy to get enough capital to make quick work of the project – the only problem is that we’d have to sell out. Were this particular idea is “monetized” in the for-profit sense, it would be a pale shadow. So, to put it succinctly, the challenge is building something useful, and big, without relying on resources that would jeopardize our ethics.
CW: Your website states that you are working on a “model free network” in the Kansas City area; what progress have you made with respect to this, and how does your ideal setup for a locally-modelled free network look like with respect to hardware and architecture?
Isaac: There are several hundred families in Kansas City that have access to the Internet thanks to work we’ve done with local partner organizations. We’re working to expand the network to more parts of town, and to serve more people that need access. As far as hardware goes, we’ve had good experiences with Ubiquiti gear, especially on longer range point-to-point links. As far as architecture goes, there’s no one solution, but the common thread is that the infrastructure is treated as a commons. This is embodied in the Free Network Compact, which a document (that draws from many others) intended to set some bounds on what it means to be a free network.
CW: A common criticism of the idea of “mesh networking” is that it can never be built to scale, or that it functionally cannot provide enough throughput to serve as a potential replacement to traditional network configurations. Not to mention the problems with things like DNS, etc. What can you say regarding these criticisms, and do you find them to be valid? What is the FNF working on that might help overcome these obstacles?
Isaac: Valid? Yes and no. It’s all in the details. There are limitations to mobile ad-hoc – this is what most folks understand “mesh” to mean: that the nodes can move around. Free networks are much bigger than mesh, though – they can be implemented in fiber, copper, fixed wireless, or mobile ad-hoc. It is a matter much more of political economy than of technology. So, the solution is simply not to try to make mobile ad-hoc scale. Isolate link-dynamic media access domains into pockets of manageable size, and join those pockets together with more static links. In this way you can scale, still offer a mobile experience, and use whatever technology is most appropriate for the geography.
DNS is something of a separate question, but I see no reason why a distributed naming scheme shouldn’t come to prominence in the next few years. There are several in the works. The general idea here is to use a DHT for discovery of names that are self-authenticating and globally unique, but ugly (like Bitcoin addresses), then, once you’ve discovered the machine-readable name for the resource in question, simply give it a pet name, sort of like we did on AIM when I was 13
CW: Finally – what is your vision for the future of mesh networking? How does this vision interact with the need to decentralize not only the physical aspects of the Internet but also its larger software platforms? Ideally, how do you see connections between people and computers functioning in the future?
Isaac: Well, the upper and lower layers of the networking stack need to be decentralized at the same time. At least, material decentralization is contingent on logical decentralization. That is why projects like tent.io, freedombox, sneer, et cetera are so important. If the logical flows remain centralized, we will not be able to take advantage of the efficiencies of local routing, not mention still being spied on by purveyors of ‘false p2p’ (G+ and FB being prime examples).
In general, I do believe that we will have a network with no choke points – be they material or logical. It starts with the individual, and grows from there: the individual organizes the neighborhood, the neighborhood organizes the city, and so on and so forth, until you arrive at a global network that is owned and operated by every one and no one, for the good of us all. This is not going to happen overnight: it will be gradual, and from the inside. It is already happening, and I view its continuation and evolution as inevitable. ♦