Another good reason to keep a POTS line and modem around:


http://lifehacker.com/5746046/how-to-foil-a-nationwide-internet-shutdown

Satellite phones and ham radio work, too.

So, does ad-hoc Wifi networks actually work in these cases? where there's ONE link to the outside and no infrastructure.

From my bedroom I can pick up (though not log on to) the WiFi network of seven neighbors. Would it be possible to set up a neighborhood-wide WiFi network using everyone's WiFi routers? We couldn't talk to the outside world but could we send messages and information between houses in this manner? That in it's own way would be a good safety net.

I can envision a local HAM posting news updates, a nurse or doctor being on call to respond to a medical emergency, someone passing files to people on treating water, etc...

-Blast

Yes Blast, you can set up a neighborhood wi-fi intranet.
Altho, from a security viewpoint this is not advisable.

And as stated, the only info you would have is what you already have on one of the computers. Still, would be quick and easy to pass info. Check on the web for info on how to do it, would be too long to post here, and I'm lazy.

If you want to be "really secure" see what the cost of running underground co-ax would be. I'm thinking probably not cost-effective in the long run, but a thought.

Chances are you wouldn't be able to set up an ad-hoc WiFi Intranet as most likely your neighbors are using completely different and incompatible router models, which probably don't have the facility to provide wireless bridging functionality.

http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wirelessproducts/f/apbridgingmode.htm

Typically you would need to be using the same router manufacturer which have the a wireless bridging facility.

To bridge the individual networks wirelessly (assumming you can get the basic network working) requires some network design skills and agreements to cater for everyones requirements and to provide intranet communications requires some knowledge in setting up dedicated intranet email, webpage and DNS servers to share information on the local Intranet.

Typically a wireless bridge setup configuration is shown here;

http://www.draytek.com/user/SupportAppnotesDetail.php?ID=117

Then there is the issue of security.

There are two ways to do this: Create an ad-hoc network of end-nodes (not wireless APs or routers). This works out of the box with most laptops but isn't easy to do well on a neighborhood scale. The devices move and most of them have crummy antennas.

The better way is to set up "mesh" wireless via APs or routers. Unfortunately almost no consumer-grade gear is capable of doing this out of the box. Some consumer-grade gear can be modified in software to support mesh wireless, and this can work well. It requires compatible hardware and either a dedicated hobbyist or a professional to set up. It may also require an investment in antennas. You could conceivably set up IRLP or some other packets-over-HAM-radio technology to permit people to email health and welfare information to the outside world.



Setting up an FRS or CB radio watch is a lot easier, I'd think.

That's actually what we did during hurricane Ike. Rather than continue to hijack this thread I'm going to start another.

-Blast

Why? Can you be more specific?

You can use your old dial-up connections or ham radio like they are in Egypt. In Egypt they call out to other countries dial up numbers.....

MrEnergyCzar

Using a Dial-up connection may get you to web servers outside the jurisdiction of the Internet kill switch within the USA (if that ever happened). If for example you lived in California and wanted to comment on this forum, dialing into Mexico or Mongolia isn't probably going to help but at least the BBC world service Internet radio will tell you why you can't.

http://www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg/

Dial up or Satelite DSL, DSL, ADSL, T1 or Packet SW Radio, still won't get you connected to the Egyptian Muesum for example.

The point is to put pinholes into the closed network.
One route to the outside is a route to the inside.
Limit it to a lightweight protocol like IRC...and you're communicating.

On the other hand, people fomenting riot aren't interested in getting connected to the Egyptian Museum. Using a modem and landline to dial out to international numbers can get your message tweeted online where those outside the country can read it (including the government, of course).

And Packet Radio will let you communicate to other hams within the country so they can coordinate meetings and the like without actually saying the words "meet me at the Golden Door at five." And the packets stay on a node (which can be in another country outside the reach of men with guns) till the recipient can get on the air to receive them.

And a big issue is health and welfare. Leaving messages that say "I'm well" is often the goal and a huge relief to friends and family outside the area. There are a great many uses for messaging other than reaching the Egyptian Museum or coordinating strikes and protests.

Good article in todays new york times about how the egyptian government managed to shut down the net in minutes. some of the back ups didn't work either, because the software to revert to internet relay chat for instance, was outside egypt and even local egyptian services relied on servers outside the country.
qjs

Another article on how it happened:

"For all the Internet’s vaunted connectivity, the Egyptian government commanded powerful instruments of control: it owns the pipelines that carry information across the country and out into the world.

Internet experts say similar arrangements are more common in authoritarian countries than is generally recognized. In Syria, for example, the Syrian Telecommunications Establishment dominates the infrastructure, and the bulk of the international traffic flows through a single pipeline to Cyprus. Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries have the same sort of dominant, state-controlled carrier."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-egypt-killed-the-internet/article1909478/

From the linked article..


LOL...

Even the UK up until 1992 didn't use TCP/IP for its doomsday comms (possibly still doesn't)

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/ukwmo/index.htm

Fascinating stuff.



They forgot to include the UK in the list.

Word I got was that Egypt was able to cut off the internet because the state runs the main connections to the www and landlines.

Twitter, using wireless connections, some of which cross international borders, was far less successful. The leadership was not up to date on their plans for dealing with an uprising. This was made clear when the government sent troops to surround the TV and radio stations. This would have been fairly effective in controlling the media in the 80s but now it just highlights how out of touch the ruler was.

Political observers also noted that turning off access to the internet seems to have backfired. When the internet was available many people would spend their time raging and letting off steam on the internet. When the connection was lost people lost the last outlet for their frustrations and ... wait for it ... went out on the streets to protest.

The US telecommunication system, highly integrated across media and platforms, with many redundant paths to get virtually anywhere, would be much harder to control. It wouldn't be impossible, just much more complicated and difficult.

Not really, there are only around 7 fibre backbone circuit carrier providers in the USA.

http://navigators.com/internet_architecture.html#ISP_Backbone

Even taking out a few of the major telecoms players using Emergency powers legislation would basically make normal Internet (as folks now expect to use there computers for email, messaging, social networking etc) usage virtually unworkable.

There are around 30-50 submarine cables operating from maybe a dozen geographical location nodes.

http://www.verizonbusiness.com/ca/about/network/maps/map.xml

Disabling these cables (physically just a few axe blows in the right places) would turn off a huge amount of the worlds Internet traffic running from the USA to Europe, Asia and central and South America. This would effectively isolate the USA from the rest of the world.

http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/webmap07-telegeography.jpg

http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worldBlack.jpg

Internal Internet network traffic within the USA would be effected just by pulling the plug on the backbone fibre main switch node centres.

The DHS know where the vulnerabilities are located to kill the Internet in the USA, if they did not then how can they protect those vulnerabilities from Terrorist and Cyber attack (i.e. the old fashioned Spetznaz with their sharp edged shovels)

LOL.

There are a lot of ways around those fiber backbones. ie: there is an entire array of similar fiber paths around the world. No need to shoot a signal directly from NYC to LA when you can route through Europe - Russia - China and pop into LA via the Mexican cell system. There are also private satellites, WiFi links that can be stacked to jump hundreds of miles, digital cell connections, and good old fashion patching through on ham radio. Point being anyone wanting to limit information can slow it by controling the main fiber links but they can't, not without a huge amount of trouble, eliminate it entirely.

It also has to be pointed out that nobody is going to physically cut the lines. First, you may capture or control a resource but you do not destroy it. Cutting it automatically triggers work-arounds. Slowing it to a near stop is more effective because it backs up the system without destroying anything and forces the system to keep checking back.

Even assuming that the transatlantic and transpacific fat pipes were still available, if you look at Internet map

http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/webmap07-telegeography.jpg

the direct route takes you fom NYC to LA via Washington via 500Gbps and 250Gbps links. If you were to route your packets the long way around, then getting to Europe isn't a problem from NYC going via 500Gbps links. You then either route through the middle east (Russia is a dead end), India, Asia (Hong Kong to Tokyo) etc all of which are on less than 10Gbps links before crossing the Pacific again back to LA on 250Gbps link once more. Thats a 50-1 bottle neck just for a single fibre link lost internally within the US, not even including the normal Europe/Asia traffic using these <10Gbps links. Thats virtually equivalent to putting 10 lane motorway LA rush hour traffic on the B955 to Glen Clova. (yes the B955 does have passing places every quarter mile or so)