bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that researchers from Australia and Singapore are developing a wireless ad-hoc mesh networking technology that uses mobile handsets to share and carry information. The mesh network will make use of Bluetooth or Wi-fi to swap information between handsets — even if the mobile phone network was offline. One potential scenario could be during an emergency where the mobile phone network was unavailable or clogged. In a city centre, users could set up the network to share information, video, photographs and, depending on the final client applications, even locate friends and loved ones. One benefit of developing such a technology would be that users sharing content between their devices would use the wireless communications technology already built into their phones and not bandwidth from their mobile provider. The researchers from the National ICT Australia and Singapore's A*STAR Institute for Infocomm Research hope to demonstrate the technology within two years, according to NICTA project leader Dr Roksana Boreli.'This is an early stage in the research project,' she said. 'We are addressing how you would quickly establish trust between devices, how you would discover them and share the information,' Boreli said."
At worst, a phone in repeater mode would last as long as the normal talk time. However, if it's acting as a repeater in a dense mesh, it probably wouldn't need to (and shouldn't) transmit at as high a power as it would to reach a tower a mile away.
Which is why this should be limited to emergencies (i.e. only to calls to/routed through emergency services). For everything else, it would be better to just replace the disjointed/overlapping commercial cellular networks with a nation-wide open wireless (wi-fi, wi-max, etc.) network. Then you could just use a VoIP phone and not be locked into any one provider. You wouldn't need to get a special sim chip (or risk paying outrageous roaming fees) when you travel to another country, and text messaging would es
my current cell phone battery is 7W*hr, cell network uses transmit power in the ~1 watt while talking. Bluetooth is in the.1 watt category. So 7 hours of active use without this, or up to 70 hours of active use as part of a bluetooth hub. So if we have a bunch of smart phones wanting access, and one of them is plugged in and thus designated host, as long as a plugged in phone is within 10 bluetooth hops then it would be a huge net savings of power. Basically this would be really sweet if we can put a hop
Isn't this the way that the information network is suposedly done in Diamond Age? As long as the encryption is good enough and the bandwidth wide enough, there's no reason such a system couldn't work. At present, I doubt that the second condition is true, however. Constantly sending and recieving other people's data is going to tax your device's already too small battery, which will of course cause people to turn the feature off, which will severly hamper it's usefulness.
Isn't this the way that the information network is suposedly done in Diamond Age? As long as the encryption is good enough and the bandwidth wide enough, there's no reason such a system couldn't work.
Somewhere around here, I have some of the docs from the early days of the ARPAnet, pre-Internet and in the late 1960s. I remember well a number of discussions of the way that these docs included pictures that were 1) completely wireless, and 2) included relaying by pretty much every gadget. The intent from the first was that if there was a data path between two nodes that wanted to talk, the software would find a path and deliver their packets to each other. This was funded by the military, as you'll all recall, so the equirements included the possibility that relay nodes were coming on- and off-line randomly, often because someone was shooting at them as they came on-line. The military wanted routing software that would rapidly route around damage and get the packets through. (Has anyone here heard the phrase "route around damage"?;-)
In the 1980s, I poked around a bit at MIT's ChaosNet, which was based on the same concepts: Everything is a relay, and if there's a data path, the data will be delivered. We did a few experiments chaining together machines with RS-232 crossover cables, firing up the "chaos" drivers, and watching the last node on the chain connect to a remote machine. I don't recall how long a chain we had, but we got it so the last one was pretty slow.
Lots of us have been disappointed for some four decades now, that we don't yet have total wireless interconnection with everything acting as a relay as needed. A while ago, I played with some OLPCs, and sure enough, they've implemented this idea. If you carry an OLPC into an area where there are others, it becomes part of the local mesh, and if any of them has access to the Internet, they all do. Most of us don't have this, because the commercial world is still dragging their feet on such concepts after all these decades, and only a few groups of people here and there actually have software that does it. (I have wondered whether the OLPC really does a good job of this, but none of my neighbors have one, so I can't experiment with it easily. I did one test of a chain of 4 machines, where the first could see my home gateway, and the others could see at most 2 neighbors. The last one could use the Internet, and was visibly slow but usable.)
And in other places, people are trying to implement this, not knowing (or caring?) that others have worked on it before them. And others continue to argue against the practicality, with the same arguments we've heard before. Yes, we need better batteries, but that's no reason we can't work on full mesh networks now (or 30 years ago). Yes, we need to encrypt everything; the security folks have been recommending end-to-end encryption for decades and we have software that can do it. We (or more often the commercial suppliers) just refuse to supply systems that put it all together. Part of it is the comm companies, who don't want total interconnection; they want everyone to pay them for data transport, and they want to be able to see all the data as it passes through their relays. Part of it dummies who don't want their computer to forward packets for others, and aren't smart enough to understand the result of others behaving the same way.
Amongst all the wide-eyed discussions of the miracles of modern technology, we occasionally are reminded of things that we could have had long ago, if we'd been smart enough to force the vendors to include them.
(And I expect replies that mention flying cars...;-)
I thought the bigger practical obstacle was node density? Also, ISPs don't want people to share their Internet connections with unknown numbers of strangers. And people mostly want mobile networking for Internet connectivity, so if you can't guarantee an Internet connection almost 100% of the time, I think a lot of people are not going to be interested in your mesh. That means there's little commercial incentive to develop such a system, and here we are, few meshes around.
umm, maybe because a phone that can't reliably make connections to anywhere is useless?
Really, think this one through. What're you paying the carrier for? Dialtone. Which means that you're paying them to reliably (for values of reliability that vary with carrier, but here in NZ they're all pretty damn good) deliver your call data to the recipient. Take away that service, and how do you ensure that, when you need it, you'll have the ability to make a call, or send a text message? What if you need to make an emergency call and there're no other phones around to hop your signal into range of a network interconnection point? Or if the only phones that are nearby are in transit, and thus you lose your signal mid-call because your multi-hop path back into the POTS network has irretrievably lost a link?
You might wonder what you're paying your provider for, but I guarantee that if they dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, to be replaced by this conceptual system, you wouldn't last a month before you were begging for their return. And if you regularly make trips that take you to less-populated areas, I'd give you a week. This might work in the middle of New York City or some similarly heavily populated area, maybe, but even there you still need some way of interconnecting with both other mobile networks and with POTS. Those interconnects are what you pay your carrier for.
Almost everyone I regularly talk to on the phone, is someone I regularly see in real life. If our phones didn't suck and let us use reasonably good crypto, there's no reason we couldn't have securely-exchanged public keys. Shit, with today's huge/cheap flash storage, most of us could be using OTP. Let the phones exchange a few gigabytes of random crap while they're physically next to each other on the nightstand.
Today's phones are still stupid. I mean really, really stupid. I don't know when, but some
Couldn't a creative individual develop an algorithm to create a public-private key system based on phone numbers.
No. Well, ok, you could use phone numbers as a key in some public database (analogous to looking up someone by their email address on openpgp keyservers), and use a WoT or a CA to measure how much you trust a public key to be correct, but at some point you still have people somewhere, having to securely exchange keys. There's no getting around that. But fortunately, like I said, I mostly talk
But fortunately, like I said, I mostly talk to people I've met in person, so doing that is possible.
That wouldn't be practical for people who regularly take sales or service calls from the public. They'd have to rely on the phone company as a CA, just as web site operators often rely on their web host's affiliated CA.
Trust = Ability to violate established security policy
Don't trust, only verify.
Encrypt information you want to send, then I don't care if 50 drug dealers, pedophiles, Catholic priests, scientologists, or other low-lives are involved in the chain, so long as the message reaches my intended recipient who has the proper key to decrypt it.
In a city centre, users could set up the network to share information, video, photographs and, depending on the final client applications, even locate friends and loved ones.
So... how long until the news media starts shilling that file sharing is "illegal"?
So... how long until the news media starts shilling that file sharing is "illegal"?
This strikes me as a perfect way to get away with file sharing as "sneakernet 2.0." The method of sharing data between two phones can already be done on the iphone (though I think that is more of a GPS-linked WAN situation than a LAN situation).
I would suggest that this does pose a security problem. One of the other posters here has noted his lack of concern:
Encrypt information you want to send, then I don't care if 50 drug dealers, pedophiles, Catholic priests, scientologists, or other low-lives are involved in the chain, so long as the message reaches my intended recipient who has the proper key to decrypt it.
It seems though, that if pedophiles are on the same network as I am AND if I am routing my traffic through their systems, that I might be the one bl
This strikes me as a perfect way to get away with file sharing as "sneakernet 2.0." The method of sharing data between two phones can already be done on the iphone
Not quite as easily as that - I've got an iPhone, but Apple has locked down the bluetooth to the point where it refuses to talk to my old Nokia. On the other hand, sending an mp3 of a local band performing at the pub from the Nokia to my friend's Sony Ericsson, easy as pie.
I don't find the law inappropriate--merely that I want to avoid finding myself necessarily in that situation because of poorly implemented technology (or given your example, poorly implemented law).
The kids who bring drugs / alcohol / weapons to school bring the problems down on themselves. Badly defined laws should be addressed--and you are right to suggest that there are issues with some, but behavior should sometimes be criminalized.
With specific reference to the pedophilia issue, I don't want to hav
Hasn't stuff like this been around forever? Certainly HAM & CB counts for something. Not to mention SINCGARS and EPLRS radio networks. And these are old. The military has been playing around with IP-based mesh networks for quite a while.
Hasn't stuff like this been around forever? Certainly HAM & CB counts for something.
But the CB or HAM operator has made a big investment in mobile/emergency power, antenna systems and so on. He will formallly or informally prioritize traffic - so that the essential traddic moves quickly and efficiently.
Strikes me that mesh networks would be fantastic for aviation. The FAA is in the starting stages of their next-gen ATC system, that will solve all the problems now in place with airplanes and trying not to hit something else. Air traffic control still depends on RADAR and transponders, which are fraught with problems. For example, aircraft typically just announce where they are, like:
"Smallville traffic, Cessna N1235 altitude three thousand, 5 miles northwest of the field, making left downwind for three three".
Which means: "For the airport in Smallville, I'm a Cessna with a License number of N1235, I'm three thousand feet above sea level, I'm 5 miles away from the field coming from the northwest, and I'm going to maneuver to the runway pointed North north west. (compass heading 330)"
It's almost all trust-based, self announced. If you make a mistake, and announce NorthEast instead of NorthWest, the likelyhood of an accident rises sharply. Yet it's a mistake that's simple to make. I've made it - announcing East instead of West, etc. When I notice, I'll re-announce, but it's still error prone.
But a simple mesh network that allows aircraft to automatically broadcast their location (latitude/longitude/altitude from GPS) in a simple packet in a protocol similar to that used for wifi or ethernet, where aircraft closer than 200 miles will rebroadcast (aircraft on the ground have a broadcast range of less than 5 miles, at 5 thousand feet the range extends to hundreds of miles) and the result would be that all aircraft would know about all other aircraft with perhaps a 10 second latency, even in very heavy traffic.
The HAM community already has this sort of thing. It's called APRS [aprs.org], and includes all the capabilities that you describe. All that would be needed is to put the necessary GPS and computer systems into the aircraft and wire them up to warn the pilot when another plane is getting too close.
There's a similar system proposed (available?) for ships. Periodic broadcast of GPS coordinates, heading and speed. But ships have an advantage that aircraft don't. You can mandate such a system (its relatively inexpensive) for cargo ships, tankers and the like. If smaller pleasure craft choose not to participate, its no big deal. A supertanker will make kindling out of your ski boat and never slow down.
Not so for aircraft. All it takes is some group to drag their heels, either due to cost or the adverse i
TCAS: Traffic Collision and Avoidance System each plane has an active TACAN and they peer -to- peer negotiate away from each other..... been available for a while now... when coupled to an autopilot it even lets you sleep through your daily commute up the Hudson... ok not really...
John 3000+ hours Commercial Multi Engine Instructor Pilot
It's short-range (VHF radio based), but it effectively informs other AIS capable ships of GPS coordinates, direction, speed, rate of turn, status, name, weight, destination, etc.
I think it has something to do with stubborn FAA policies that are more interested in CYA than pushing the technological forefront.
The SIM card has cryptographic functions. Now, the bazillion dollar question is there a vaguely consistent cryptographic hook at the phone application layer?
The follow-on statement for us Yanks is this will never happen. Any attempts to make it so will be summarily ignored by the carriers. Why? Because it contributes to the idea that the carrier is not necessary.
A nice follow-on to Wireless Network Modded To See Through Walls [slashdot.org] , it seems like pairing ZigBee [digi.com] with some cheap GPS chips (say, SiRF Star III) would pretty much do the job. Maybe you could put three of them in there for failover to satisfy reliability requirements, the whole thing would still come in under two hundred bucks for a prototype.:)
This idea is as old as the hills (or at least mobile phones). It will never really work well though because who wants to waste their phones battery on relaying other people's data?
Unless you're up against a monthly transfer cap, seeding while you're not otherwise using the network doesn't cost you anything. On the other hand, running the WiFi and Bluetooth radios (and the CPU) may significantly reduce your mobile's battery life, which is already much too short for most people's tastes already.
There are a lot of network protocols designed to save as much energy as possible. Check Low Power Listening. This is actually an interesting idea and there is much research from Cambridge UK too (see Pocket Switched Networks). In the end yes, there is more energy usage, but technology will progress:)
I think this sort of decentralized network is a great idea - it's something we need to see more of, and has tons of uses.
Can you imagine if an application was released that created just such an "off of the network" mesh and would work with most phones and it caught on like Napster did? Can you imagine how the mobile providers would go apeshit if large groups of people circumvented their network and were able to communicate on their own?
The mobile providers wouldn't even notice such a mesh. It doesn't cover long distance (without using the providers networks), lacks the bandwidth to support a significant number of users (without using the providers networks), can't allow significant internet access without somebody paying the bills for the connection...
And sure as hell a people aren't going to tolerate the loss of battery life and increase in their bills to support 'freeloading'.
I'm aware of the practical limitations and not suggesting that it would be a practical thing to compete with provider service now - but if there is ever a serious civil emergency (and I can think of several that are likely to happen at some point, unfortunately) something developed along these lines could be incredibly.
I can also see certain scenarios where something like this could develop over a period of time...Someone does a proof of concept, people who like to tinker start playing around, something get
I simulated such a network based on WiFi (with up to 40 meters distance). The aim was that users can exchange content (flooding) and WiFi hotspots are used to relay to the Internet. I came to the conclusion that you'll need 300 access points and 200 users in a 5000mx5500m area, but then everyone would have a network where emails can be sent from anywhere and are delivered reliably and quickly. Find the flaws here: paper [jakeapp.com].
So...they're talking about a Skype-like protocol that operates full-time on existing handsets?
For those of who who are unaware, Skype operates as a P2P client, with your voice chats being routed through other Skype clients within the network. Some nodes (particularly long-lived ones that are well provisioned for bandwidth) are designated for taking more of the routing duties than others. Basically, they're talking about doing the same thing here.
Essentially, all they're suggesting is a version of that
Forget independent scientists, Japan's government has been testing this for a number of years. It would be mandated in all new handsets so once there was a major disaster (and Japan loves it's natural disasters) emergency communication would be possible. Like the Emergency Broadcast System only not unidirectional.
Several years ago I saw a demo where text messages were relayed from phone to phone across most of Tokyo without ever connecting to the infrastructure. It wouldn't be fast, but it would be invaluably helpful with rescue and recovery efforts.
Just one comment... battery life. If each user's cell phone had to relay messages on behalf of the 'mesh' it would probably be flat in not much time.
The HAM radio community already have active emergency planning groups and ideas about setting up disaster communications, the most important aspect is to moderate what makes it onto the airwaves. Watching streaming video of the disaster is probably not needed when a simple broadcast SMS would do.
This posting [slashdot.org] on Slashdot from October 4th 2001 really hit home, describing a "P2P SMS technique where individual handsets act as autonomous SMS relays". And why can't we do this? Would it require independance from cell carriers? With wednesdays report to congress [npr.org] on the failure to upgrade the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, maybe we do need an ad-hoc alternative.
(After feeling useless after 9/11 the October 2001 post got me thinking. By the end of November 2001 I had my first ham radio l
How much is AT&T or $PROVIDER going to compensate me for the use of my bandwidth and electricity?
Are they going to respect any bandwidth caps I wish to impose, even when I do not disclose them beforehand and instead insist that I am allowing them UNLIMITED MESHING through my phone?
Are they going to agree to forbid the routing of packets from VPN and tethering through my phone, even though I will be heavily advertising those features as benefits of my providing a connection point in this mesh network?
A Mesh Network running on various home and mobile devices could be used to provide "free" Internet and phone services. Those that are willing to pay for a traditional Internet connection could hook up "gateways" for the Mesh Network to connect to the Internet (and thus VOIP) services. Like other posters note, this does consume battery/power/bandwidth, so it isn't exactly *free*. However, the more nodes on the network, the more capacity the network has (particularly if the devices can transmit with less power when close to other nodes). Nor would any node need to do any transmissions if a "grounded" node (one plugged into some reliable power source) can handle the traffic. A protocol could be developed to have nodes intelligently manage their power available/ transmission obligation trade offs. At least in dense node population situations.
There is no doubt that a back bone is needed to carry traffic distances. But like mass transit, the last mile is kinda a problem. A mesh network would be a great way to smooth out some of those "last mile" issues, provide coverage where coverage is spotty, and empower regular people to fix environments to work well. That's a huge step up from having to wait on your cell phone provider/ prison warden to decide to fix access.
One potential scenario could be during an emergency where the mobile phone network was unavailable or clogged. In a city centre, users could set up the network to share information, video, photographs and, depending on the final client applications, even locate friends and loved ones.
The emergency scenario implies extended and widespread power outages. When you battery dies, it dies, and it just might take you with it.
The cell phone designer makes certain simplying assumptions: that you will be well within range of a commercial grade repeater mounted high and with a relatively unobstructed line of sight.
That you aren't trying to hop-scotch your way at street level across midtown Manhatten in a sleet storm.
You are going to need one hell of an algorithym to manage the load if you allow unrestricted traffic in photos and video under 9/11 conditions.
What's needed here most is the ability to send a brief - meanignful - text message.
I've got a Virgin phone and that network has an annoying hole right here on the farm where I've been all summer. At least it's well documented on the coverage map. And I'm going home next week. Just thinking, I could string some connecting nodes down the driveway using a mesh network, or how 'bout connecting to a landline.
T-Mobile may have a crappy cell network, but they're the one cell company I actually respect. They fixed glitches with the iPhone on their network even though they didn't have to, they have the most open cell phones, and they don't neuter their cell phones (like Verizon does).
As a matter of fact, I do carry an FCC General Combustophone Operator License and am certified for 3 types of fires with clouds exceeding 500 Kilo-cubic meters of output.
More important than the radio itself. I believe the biggest problem is if there is already a routing algorithm efficient enough to avoid draining the batteries of several cellphones just to find its way to the destination.
If you dive into MANET research, you'll find that the field is almost completely based on unrepeatable simulations (partially of custom, unreleased/unverified simulators). There are almost no experiments. Maybe it is too hard for researchers, or they give up because of energy and reliability problems.
Aim Higher (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aim Higher (Score:5, Insightful)
How long does your battery last now? How long do you think it would last if your phone was a repeater?
No thanks.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At worst, a phone in repeater mode would last as long as the normal talk time. However, if it's acting as a repeater in a dense mesh, it probably wouldn't need to (and shouldn't) transmit at as high a power as it would to reach a tower a mile away.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why this should be limited to emergencies (i.e. only to calls to/routed through emergency services). For everything else, it would be better to just replace the disjointed/overlapping commercial cellular networks with a nation-wide open wireless (wi-fi, wi-max, etc.) network. Then you could just use a VoIP phone and not be locked into any one provider. You wouldn't need to get a special sim chip (or risk paying outrageous roaming fees) when you travel to another country, and text messaging would es
Re:Maybe 10* the battery life!!!! (Score:2)
my current cell phone battery is 7W*hr, cell network uses transmit power in the ~1 watt while talking. Bluetooth is in the .1 watt category. So 7 hours of active use without this, or up to 70 hours of active use as part of a bluetooth hub. So if we have a bunch of smart phones wanting access, and one of them is plugged in and thus designated host, as long as a plugged in phone is within 10 bluetooth hops then it would be a huge net savings of power.
Basically this would be really sweet if we can put a hop
Diamond Age? (Score:2)
Isn't this the way that the information network is suposedly done in Diamond Age? As long as the encryption is good enough and the bandwidth wide enough, there's no reason such a system couldn't work. At present, I doubt that the second condition is true, however. Constantly sending and recieving other people's data is going to tax your device's already too small battery, which will of course cause people to turn the feature off, which will severly hamper it's usefulness.
Re:Diamond Age? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this the way that the information network is suposedly done in Diamond Age? As long as the encryption is good enough and the bandwidth wide enough, there's no reason such a system couldn't work.
Somewhere around here, I have some of the docs from the early days of the ARPAnet, pre-Internet and in the late 1960s. I remember well a number of discussions of the way that these docs included pictures that were 1) completely wireless, and 2) included relaying by pretty much every gadget. The intent from the first was that if there was a data path between two nodes that wanted to talk, the software would find a path and deliver their packets to each other. This was funded by the military, as you'll all recall, so the equirements included the possibility that relay nodes were coming on- and off-line randomly, often because someone was shooting at them as they came on-line. The military wanted routing software that would rapidly route around damage and get the packets through. (Has anyone here heard the phrase "route around damage"? ;-)
In the 1980s, I poked around a bit at MIT's ChaosNet, which was based on the same concepts: Everything is a relay, and if there's a data path, the data will be delivered. We did a few experiments chaining together machines with RS-232 crossover cables, firing up the "chaos" drivers, and watching the last node on the chain connect to a remote machine. I don't recall how long a chain we had, but we got it so the last one was pretty slow.
Lots of us have been disappointed for some four decades now, that we don't yet have total wireless interconnection with everything acting as a relay as needed. A while ago, I played with some OLPCs, and sure enough, they've implemented this idea. If you carry an OLPC into an area where there are others, it becomes part of the local mesh, and if any of them has access to the Internet, they all do. Most of us don't have this, because the commercial world is still dragging their feet on such concepts after all these decades, and only a few groups of people here and there actually have software that does it. (I have wondered whether the OLPC really does a good job of this, but none of my neighbors have one, so I can't experiment with it easily. I did one test of a chain of 4 machines, where the first could see my home gateway, and the others could see at most 2 neighbors. The last one could use the Internet, and was visibly slow but usable.)
And in other places, people are trying to implement this, not knowing (or caring?) that others have worked on it before them. And others continue to argue against the practicality, with the same arguments we've heard before. Yes, we need better batteries, but that's no reason we can't work on full mesh networks now (or 30 years ago). Yes, we need to encrypt everything; the security folks have been recommending end-to-end encryption for decades and we have software that can do it. We (or more often the commercial suppliers) just refuse to supply systems that put it all together. Part of it is the comm companies, who don't want total interconnection; they want everyone to pay them for data transport, and they want to be able to see all the data as it passes through their relays. Part of it dummies who don't want their computer to forward packets for others, and aren't smart enough to understand the result of others behaving the same way.
Amongst all the wide-eyed discussions of the miracles of modern technology, we occasionally are reminded of things that we could have had long ago, if we'd been smart enough to force the vendors to include them.
(And I expect replies that mention flying cars ... ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To really start a mesh network
Re:Aim Higher (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, think this one through. What're you paying the carrier for? Dialtone. Which means that you're paying them to reliably (for values of reliability that vary with carrier, but here in NZ they're all pretty damn good) deliver your call data to the recipient. Take away that service, and how do you ensure that, when you need it, you'll have the ability to make a call, or send a text message? What if you need to make an emergency call and there're no other phones around to hop your signal into range of a network interconnection point? Or if the only phones that are nearby are in transit, and thus you lose your signal mid-call because your multi-hop path back into the POTS network has irretrievably lost a link?
You might wonder what you're paying your provider for, but I guarantee that if they dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, to be replaced by this conceptual system, you wouldn't last a month before you were begging for their return. And if you regularly make trips that take you to less-populated areas, I'd give you a week. This might work in the middle of New York City or some similarly heavily populated area, maybe, but even there you still need some way of interconnecting with both other mobile networks and with POTS. Those interconnects are what you pay your carrier for.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everyone I regularly talk to on the phone, is someone I regularly see in real life. If our phones didn't suck and let us use reasonably good crypto, there's no reason we couldn't have securely-exchanged public keys. Shit, with today's huge/cheap flash storage, most of us could be using OTP. Let the phones exchange a few gigabytes of random crap while they're physically next to each other on the nightstand.
Today's phones are still stupid. I mean really, really stupid. I don't know when, but some
Re: (Score:2)
No. Well, ok, you could use phone numbers as a key in some public database (analogous to looking up someone by their email address on openpgp keyservers), and use a WoT or a CA to measure how much you trust a public key to be correct, but at some point you still have people somewhere, having to securely exchange keys. There's no getting around that. But fortunately, like I said, I mostly talk
Re: (Score:2)
But fortunately, like I said, I mostly talk to people I've met in person, so doing that is possible.
That wouldn't be practical for people who regularly take sales or service calls from the public. They'd have to rely on the phone company as a CA, just as web site operators often rely on their web host's affiliated CA.
Trust per DoD (Score:2, Insightful)
Trust = Ability to violate established security policy
Don't trust, only verify.
Encrypt information you want to send, then I don't care if 50 drug dealers, pedophiles, Catholic priests, scientologists, or other low-lives are involved in the chain, so long as the message reaches my intended recipient who has the proper key to decrypt it.
File sharing (Score:2)
In a city centre, users could set up the network to share information, video, photographs and, depending on the final client applications, even locate friends and loved ones.
So... how long until the news media starts shilling that file sharing is "illegal"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So... how long until the news media starts shilling that file sharing is "illegal"?
This strikes me as a perfect way to get away with file sharing as "sneakernet 2.0." The method of sharing data between two phones can already be done on the iphone (though I think that is more of a GPS-linked WAN situation than a LAN situation).
I would suggest that this does pose a security problem. One of the other posters here has noted his lack of concern:
Encrypt information you want to send, then I don't care if 50 drug dealers, pedophiles, Catholic priests, scientologists, or other low-lives are involved in the chain, so long as the message reaches my intended recipient who has the proper key to decrypt it.
It seems though, that if pedophiles are on the same network as I am AND if I am routing my traffic through their systems, that I might be the one bl
Re: (Score:2)
This strikes me as a perfect way to get away with file sharing as "sneakernet 2.0." The method of sharing data between two phones can already be done on the iphone
Not quite as easily as that - I've got an iPhone, but Apple has locked down the bluetooth to the point where it refuses to talk to my old Nokia. On the other hand, sending an mp3 of a local band performing at the pub from the Nokia to my friend's Sony Ericsson, easy as pie.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids who bring drugs / alcohol / weapons to school bring the problems down on themselves. Badly defined laws should be addressed--and you are right to suggest that there are issues with some, but behavior should sometimes be criminalized.
With specific reference to the pedophilia issue, I don't want to hav
Old Tech (Score:2)
Hasn't stuff like this been around forever? Certainly HAM & CB counts for something. Not to mention SINCGARS and EPLRS radio networks. And these are old. The military has been playing around with IP-based mesh networks for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't stuff like this been around forever? Certainly HAM & CB counts for something.
But the CB or HAM operator has made a big investment in mobile/emergency power, antenna systems and so on. He will formallly or informally prioritize traffic - so that the essential traddic moves quickly and efficiently.
Mesh networks in Aviation (Score:4, Interesting)
Strikes me that mesh networks would be fantastic for aviation. The FAA is in the starting stages of their next-gen ATC system, that will solve all the problems now in place with airplanes and trying not to hit something else. Air traffic control still depends on RADAR and transponders, which are fraught with problems. For example, aircraft typically just announce where they are, like:
"Smallville traffic, Cessna N1235 altitude three thousand, 5 miles northwest of the field, making left downwind for three three".
Which means: "For the airport in Smallville, I'm a Cessna with a License number of N1235, I'm three thousand feet above sea level, I'm 5 miles away from the field coming from the northwest, and I'm going to maneuver to the runway pointed North north west. (compass heading 330)"
It's almost all trust-based, self announced. If you make a mistake, and announce NorthEast instead of NorthWest, the likelyhood of an accident rises sharply. Yet it's a mistake that's simple to make. I've made it - announcing East instead of West, etc. When I notice, I'll re-announce, but it's still error prone.
But a simple mesh network that allows aircraft to automatically broadcast their location (latitude/longitude/altitude from GPS) in a simple packet in a protocol similar to that used for wifi or ethernet, where aircraft closer than 200 miles will rebroadcast (aircraft on the ground have a broadcast range of less than 5 miles, at 5 thousand feet the range extends to hundreds of miles) and the result would be that all aircraft would know about all other aircraft with perhaps a 10 second latency, even in very heavy traffic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a similar system proposed (available?) for ships. Periodic broadcast of GPS coordinates, heading and speed. But ships have an advantage that aircraft don't. You can mandate such a system (its relatively inexpensive) for cargo ships, tankers and the like. If smaller pleasure craft choose not to participate, its no big deal. A supertanker will make kindling out of your ski boat and never slow down.
Not so for aircraft. All it takes is some group to drag their heels, either due to cost or the adverse i
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
each plane has an active TACAN and they peer -to- peer negotiate away from each other..... been available for a while now...
when coupled to an autopilot it even lets you sleep through your daily commute up the Hudson... ok not really...
John
3000+ hours Commercial Multi Engine Instructor Pilot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is such a system for ocean-going shipping, known as AIS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Identification_System [wikipedia.org]
It's short-range (VHF radio based), but it effectively informs other AIS capable ships of GPS coordinates, direction, speed, rate of turn, status, name, weight, destination, etc.
I think it has something to do with stubborn FAA policies that are more interested in CYA than pushing the technological forefront.
Trust? It's in There (Score:2)
The SIM card has cryptographic functions. Now, the bazillion dollar question is there a vaguely consistent cryptographic hook at the phone application layer?
The follow-on statement for us Yanks is this will never happen. Any attempts to make it so will be summarily ignored by the carriers. Why? Because it contributes to the idea that the carrier is not necessary.
Dear god the apple, it burns (Score:2)
Has the ubiquity of Apple really gotten this bad?
It is "itnews", or "ITnews", not "iTnews".
Nice follow-on! (Score:2)
A nice follow-on to Wireless Network Modded To See Through Walls [slashdot.org] , it seems like pairing ZigBee [digi.com] with some cheap GPS chips (say, SiRF Star III) would pretty much do the job. Maybe you could put three of them in there for failover to satisfy reliability requirements, the whole thing would still come in under two hundred bucks for a prototype. :)
Epic comment failure, sorry (Score:2)
I meant to reply to this comment [slashdot.org]. I did not. I are smart, so you should read my comments. Honest.
Battery life (Score:4, Informative)
This idea is as old as the hills (or at least mobile phones). It will never really work well though because who wants to waste their phones battery on relaying other people's data?
Re:Battery life (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Battery life (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're up against a monthly transfer cap, seeding while you're not otherwise using the network doesn't cost you anything. On the other hand, running the WiFi and Bluetooth radios (and the CPU) may significantly reduce your mobile's battery life, which is already much too short for most people's tastes already.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It costs you in that your power bill is higher (and unless you're entirely solar, the local power plant puts out more pollution).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We need more of this sort of thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this sort of decentralized network is a great idea - it's something we need to see more of, and has tons of uses.
Can you imagine if an application was released that created just such an "off of the network" mesh and would work with most phones and it caught on like Napster did? Can you imagine how the mobile providers would go apeshit if large groups of people circumvented their network and were able to communicate on their own?
Re: (Score:2)
The mobile providers wouldn't even notice such a mesh. It doesn't cover long distance (without using the providers networks), lacks the bandwidth to support a significant number of users (without using the providers networks), can't allow significant internet access without somebody paying the bills for the connection...
And sure as hell a people aren't going to tolerate the loss of battery life and increase in their bills to support 'freeloading'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of the practical limitations and not suggesting that it would be a practical thing to compete with provider service now - but if there is ever a serious civil emergency (and I can think of several that are likely to happen at some point, unfortunately) something developed along these lines could be incredibly.
I can also see certain scenarios where something like this could develop over a period of time...Someone does a proof of concept, people who like to tinker start playing around, something get
Re: (Score:2)
I simulated such a network based on WiFi (with up to 40 meters distance). The aim was that users can exchange content (flooding) and WiFi hotspots are used to relay to the Internet. I came to the conclusion that you'll need 300 access points and 200 users in a 5000mx5500m area, but then everyone would have a network where emails can be sent from anywhere and are delivered reliably and quickly. Find the flaws here: paper [jakeapp.com].
A Skype-like handset can't replace a carrier (yet) (Score:2)
For those of who who are unaware, Skype operates as a P2P client, with your voice chats being routed through other Skype clients within the network. Some nodes (particularly long-lived ones that are well provisioned for bandwidth) are designated for taking more of the routing duties than others. Basically, they're talking about doing the same thing here.
Essentially, all they're suggesting is a version of that
They've been researchin this in Japan for year (Score:3, Informative)
Forget independent scientists, Japan's government has been testing this for a number of years. It would be mandated in all new handsets so once there was a major disaster (and Japan loves it's natural disasters) emergency communication would be possible. Like the Emergency Broadcast System only not unidirectional.
Several years ago I saw a demo where text messages were relayed from phone to phone across most of Tokyo without ever connecting to the infrastructure. It wouldn't be fast, but it would be invaluably helpful with rescue and recovery efforts.
Battery Life (Score:2)
Just one comment... battery life. If each user's cell phone had to relay messages on behalf of the 'mesh' it would probably be flat in not much time.
The HAM radio community already have active emergency planning groups and ideas about setting up disaster communications, the most important aspect is to moderate what makes it onto the airwaves. Watching streaming video of the disaster is probably not needed when a simple broadcast SMS would do.
similar post after 9/11 (Score:2)
This posting [slashdot.org] on Slashdot from October 4th 2001 really hit home, describing a "P2P SMS technique where individual handsets act as autonomous SMS relays". And why can't we do this? Would it require independance from cell carriers? With wednesdays report to congress [npr.org] on the failure to upgrade the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, maybe we do need an ad-hoc alternative.
(After feeling useless after 9/11 the October 2001 post got me thinking. By the end of November 2001 I had my first ham radio l
Compensation (Score:2)
How much is AT&T or $PROVIDER going to compensate me for the use of my bandwidth and electricity?
Are they going to respect any bandwidth caps I wish to impose, even when I do not disclose them beforehand and instead insist that I am allowing them UNLIMITED MESHING through my phone?
Are they going to agree to forbid the routing of packets from VPN and tethering through my phone, even though I will be heavily advertising those features as benefits of my providing a connection point in this mesh network?
If
Why not use this for an Open Source network? (Score:3, Interesting)
A Mesh Network running on various home and mobile devices could be used to provide "free" Internet and phone services. Those that are willing to pay for a traditional Internet connection could hook up "gateways" for the Mesh Network to connect to the Internet (and thus VOIP) services. Like other posters note, this does consume battery/power/bandwidth, so it isn't exactly *free*. However, the more nodes on the network, the more capacity the network has (particularly if the devices can transmit with less power when close to other nodes). Nor would any node need to do any transmissions if a "grounded" node (one plugged into some reliable power source) can handle the traffic. A protocol could be developed to have nodes intelligently manage their power available/ transmission obligation trade offs. At least in dense node population situations.
There is no doubt that a back bone is needed to carry traffic distances. But like mass transit, the last mile is kinda a problem. A mesh network would be a great way to smooth out some of those "last mile" issues, provide coverage where coverage is spotty, and empower regular people to fix environments to work well. That's a huge step up from having to wait on your cell phone provider/ prison warden to decide to fix access.
This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.. (Score:3, Insightful)
One potential scenario could be during an emergency where the mobile phone network was unavailable or clogged. In a city centre, users could set up the network to share information, video, photographs and, depending on the final client applications, even locate friends and loved ones.
The emergency scenario implies extended and widespread power outages. When you battery dies, it dies, and it just might take you with it.
The cell phone designer makes certain simplying assumptions: that you will be well within range of a commercial grade repeater mounted high and with a relatively unobstructed line of sight.
That you aren't trying to hop-scotch your way at street level across midtown Manhatten in a sleet storm.
You are going to need one hell of an algorithym to manage the load if you allow unrestricted traffic in photos and video under 9/11 conditions.
What's needed here most is the ability to send a brief - meanignful - text message.
Are they reinventing HAM radio? (Score:3)
Are they reinventing HAM radio?
HAMs (amateur radio operators) invented the mobile ad-hoc network about 50 to 75 years ago [at least].
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a Virgin phone and that network has an annoying hole right here on the farm where I've been all summer. At least it's well documented on the coverage map. And I'm going home next week. Just thinking, I could string some connecting nodes down the driveway using a mesh network, or how 'bout connecting to a landline.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory cynical comment (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you dive into MANET research, you'll find that the field is almost completely based on unrepeatable simulations (partially of custom, unreleased/unverified simulators). There are almost no experiments. Maybe it is too hard for researchers, or they give up because of energy and reliability problems.