Where Cellular Networks Don't Exist, People Are Building Their Own 104
New submitter TechCurmudgeon writes: According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly are taking matters in their own hands with the help of a non-profit and open source technology. "Strategically ignored by Mexico's major telecoms, Yaee is putting itself on the mobile communications grid with the help of a Oaxaca-based telecommunications non-profit called Rhizomatica." A locally-made tower is the backbone of Yaee's first cellular network. The town's network is composed of two antennas and an open-source base station from a Canadian company called NuRAN. Once Yaee gets the tower installed and the network online, its 500 citizens will, for the first time, be able to make cell phone calls from home, and for cheaper rates than almost anywhere else in Mexico.
what about spectrums rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
#1 - Dude, you wanna go mug somebody?
#2 - Dude, I'm so baked I don't think I could piss. Oops, I was wrong, dude. Hehehhehehe. That's wet, dude!
#1 - Hheheheheheheheh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Crime has gone down dramatically since pot was made legal in Colorado.
Sure. And you could lower crime a lot more by legalizing heroin. Even less crime if the government hands over free heroin to anyone who wants it. (No limit on amount, other than inject the first dose before you can have another free one.) Crime would drop becaue of:
1. Drug use/sale/transportation is no longer criminal - instant drop in crime rate
2. Easy availablitiy, no need to burgle for dope money any more
3. People passed out can't com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recall colorado and washington reporting that they didn't get near as much as they thought from the taxing of marijuana.
I've heard this topic discussed on radio. The conclusion was that Colorado had to set the "expectation" very high in the bill, otherwise if they exceeded that number they would have "overtaxed" and had to surrender the money. It is future-proofing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the latest Dec 2014 Reports in Colorado, they brought in $44 million for the time period 2014-01 to 2014-11.
Which although less than the planned 65 million (Nov brought in $7m so Dec could bring the total to $52 assuming monthly upward trend continues), is still a lot of revenue to fund schools, improve infrastructure and enforcement.
Though one still has to wonder how many cartels own pot dispensaries now :D
Re:what about spectrums rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.
Re: (Score:1)
"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"
Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"
Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.
Hmm? The only jobs I've ever seen that drug test for cannabis use were factory jobs and menial entry level jobs. That's hardly "most employers". Considering the fact that cannabis is legal in those states and is used for medical purposes globally, I think this issue is significantly smaller than you're indicating. I don't know that I'd want someone toking up just before operating heavy machinery of course, and smoking during working hours is about as good an idea as drinking during working hours, but wh
Re: (Score:1)
When a significant portion of your community is employed by hospitals, you've got a serious problem. The point about not allowing drug use for on-call employees is always good policy; that still eliminates very few jobs from the available job pool (although high-stress jobs like those found at hospitals sometimes drive people to alcohol and THC in order to help them unwind).
"no gainful employment beyond menial labor" is a far cry from "can't work for the local hospital".
Re: (Score:3)
Really? If my company started drug testing I'd be SO out of there in a minute. Not 'cause I smoke (sadly, this wonderful herb does little for me) but because it's none of their fucking business what I do in my spare time. Unless someone comes drunk/stoned to work, it's exactly NONE of their business.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The only job I've ever been drug tested for was one requiring clearance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what about spectrums rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.
Exactly! People don't seem to realize that jailing someone hurts the country twice - first in the direct costs to jail them ($20K/year and up) and second in the lost productivity since they can't contribute to the GDP. We have a GDP of $17T with 350M people. Or, a GDP of $17,000,000M with 350M people which works out to $48,500 per person. If jail costs the low end of $20K per year we're paying 2.5 times that much in lost productivity. The costs are staggering. Of course not everybody in jail would contribute to the GDP but there's no reason to believe that pot smokers wouldn't.
We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes, and when looking at what activities need to be punished in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes, and when looking at what activities need to be punished in the first place.
My way of looking at things: a crime is an act which has a victim.
A victim can be manufactured (Score:2)
I imagine that for nonviolent drug offenses, the victim is the taxpayers who pay into the health care fund of the social welfare system who now have to pay to treat the complications of use of these unsafe substances. Likewise for infringement of copyright in older works that are out of print, the victim is incumbent publishers who fail to realize revenue on newly published because potential customers have instead spent their entertainment budget on infringing copies of the older work. Victims for other all
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that for nonviolent drug offenses, the victim is the taxpayers who pay into the health care fund of the social welfare system who now have to pay to treat the complications of use of these unsafe substances.
First, this justification could also be used to ban red meat and such. How far do you go? Especially when we don't have socialized medicine, meaning most of these types have to pay for their own treatment.
Second, as the calls to test those on welfare has shown, those on assistance are actually less likely to be using drugs.
Third, on the copyright issue - I've proposed in the past that if you take a work out of print long enough for it to not be generally available that you should lose your copyright, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you can actually demonstrate a particular harm that exceeds other recreational activities they might do instead. For example, BASE jump of smoke a bowl and watch the game? Or perhaps Smoke a bowl or mow the lawn?
Beyond that, sure, some drugs can have rather nasty complications, particularly the poor quality ones on the bl;ack market. Others tend to be fairly harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
The victim might well be some poor fellow in Mexico who got gunned down by the cartel which supplies the drugs used in "nonviolent" drug offenses.
Except that if drugs were legal the poor fellow wouldn't get gunned down. It's kind of fascinating to blame drugs for the problems that are actually caused by criminalization.
Re: (Score:2)
1 BTC = ~$500, so 11 bill BTC is WAY more than $11 bill
Now, if you want imaginary money, pay the bill with Monopoly money you print yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the cartels can compete with legal growers. They depend on being able to get a huge markup for the black market.
Re: (Score:2)
All irrelevant since we're talking about price competition in the U.S. where it has been legalized.
However, if more states legalize, the cartels will turn on themselves in a fight for what market remains open to them.
Note how in the U.S. organized crime has moved on since the repeal of prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually legal pot in Washington is cheaper and higher quality than what was available before. My only complaint is that I don't really care for the high-potency stuff, I prefer to smoke a joint or a bowl and then go out and **DO** something, weed the garden, paint a bedroom, go for a walk, whatever. Don't really like being so stoned I'm non-functional. Give me a baggie of leaf and I'm a lot happier, but then I'm not typical either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, human slavery and drugs are exactly the same thing, silly OP for not realizing that transporting small amounts of naturally occurring mostly inert substances is exactly the same as transporting human cargo for slavery, in fact I just saw some guy at the airport get stopped with three human slaves stuffed up his ass in a condom.
TLDR; you dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
For a moment I was tempted to post "pics or didn't happen", until I realized that I'd have given reason for the first on-topic goatse link.
Re: (Score:2)
Take away drugs and you still have guns and human slaves(sex or otherwise).
True, without some major, radical reforms there will always be something illegal to profit from. But the next part is a fallacy. You seem to be assuming the guns and human slave markets are currently underfilled and able to absorb all the criminals currently employed in the drug trade. I'd argue that within market inefficiencies they're all exploited to about the same level of profit. IE if we can 'get rid of' the drug trade and the criminals wanted to stay criminals in black market type organized crime
Re: what about spectrums rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm torn between agreeing on the topic of what drugs to approve and which ones to keep illegal, but I can't agree to that statement: Somewhere you have to draw the line.
No you don't. There is no inherent logic in this statement. You do not HAVE to draw the line all the time somewhere. And even if you decide that you want to draw the line somewhere, why does my line have to be at the same place?
Moderation sure is a good thing and I tend to disagree with most radical, all-out suggestions, they're usually goin
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for legalizing cannabis. I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.
I'd rather abusers spend time in jail than around me and mine.
We have to draw a line somewhere, and crossing that line is how the black market makes money. Taking away that line altogether is akin to anarchy.
Stealing it without paying for it would still be a crime. Fraud would still be a crime. It wouldn't be anarchy, no not nearly.
Medical meth vs. medical Heroin (Score:2)
I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.
Medical meth exists under the name Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) [rxlist.com]. There's also medical coke [medicinenet.com]. So why is Heroin (diamorphine) illegal while more potent opioids like oxycodone are legal to prescribe?
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, meth analogs have been being prescribed for years to treat ADHD. The child's response to amphetamines is the primary indication of the disorder; people who have ADHD calm down when on amphetamines, people without get hyped up.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not legalize Heroin? Or perhaps I should specify 'legalize in an extremely regulated fashion'. Studies have shown that simply giving addicts sustaining amounts* is cheaper and more effective than trying to dry them out cold turkey. Indeed, most are able to live productive lives while addicted so long as they have a secure source of the drug.
The UK managed to keep heroin dealers to a minimum for decades by simply defining heroin addiction as a medical concern and providing clean medical grade doses fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You could use the same phrase to describe the situation in Canada and the USA wrt the phone companies.
Re:what about spectrums rights? (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, the company that sold this town its base-station has legal rights to the spectrum they're selling, granted by the Mexican government.
Try reading the article first (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what about spectrums rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine if you did this in the USA, you'd get sued for not waiting for the nearest local incumbent to provide the service.
Haha are you serious? (Score:2)
When the daily news story is about the police finding a duffel bag of severed heads or corpses hanging from a bridge you might have bigger problems than unlicensed communications equipment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?
Well, we do have licenses ;) And we're actually pushing for more spectrum, right now.
Source: I'm _the_ Italian guy mentioned in TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be so much better than Verizon (you buy the phone from us and no one else) Wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I bought my Galaxy S5 Developer Edition directly from Samsung and use it on Verizon with no issues, we also buy iphones from Apple and use them on Verizon without any problems. The main issue with Verizon is that you need a phone that supports their bands, which until recently was only available through them as they tended to be one offs, now Qualcomm is including almost all bands in universal chips and the 2g/3g chips tend to have support for both GSM and CDMA. Now I will grant you, before LTE brought
Until they knock it down. (Score:1)
..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's not surprising since it's a virtual monopoly controlled by one of the world's richest men; Carlos Slim.
{snip} Telmex, of which 49.1% is owned by Slim and his family, charges among the highest usage fees in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lesson in this. If you want your kid to grow up to be a decent person, don't give him a name like "Carlos Slim."
Re: (Score:1)
You know, Telmex haven't changed the fees since like forever, same price since I can remember, just the local tax... the company will eventually have a nice fees
Monopoly? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Since TFS does not contain that word, I assume you mean TFA, which uses it in only one place. So which part of Mexico do you live in?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Anonymous Coward meant that there is no monopoly because customers can always choose to live in another provider's service area.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... I must be reading a different summary or am working with a different definition of TFS. When I read the summary, it says: 'According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly'.
Re: (Score:2)
ah, you are correct. I was looking inside the quote.
I still wonder which part of Mexico AC lives in that has 4 providers.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm... I must be reading a different summary or am working with a different definition of TFS. When I read the summary, it says: 'According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly'.
You are correct that I used the word "monopoly" in the summary when maybe I shouldn't have, the article itself mentioned telecoms in the plural. Is it more like the situation we have here in the US with Comcast and Time-Warner? Even if you have a handful of competitors it makes no difference if they've already agreed not to poach each others' territories or no one is reaching out to the outliers.
We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allowed (Score:3)
This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada. I'm sure there are places where cell networks don't exist such as mountainous, remote areas. However this technology could never be deployed here, even on a small scale, because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd), and therefore the same companies that won't put up cell towers in certain out of the way places will also sue the life out of anyone who would dare put up a tower, even if they have no presence there whatsoever. And legally they would be exactly right. The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts. But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.
Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow (Score:5, Insightful)
The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts.
But the purpose of a government is to privatize profits and socialize risks. Other arrangements don't require violence to back them.
But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.
There's never been a permanent government in the history of the human race.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd)
Not privately owned, licensed to private entities - subtle but huge difference.
Do you really want to live in a world where there are no limits on spectrum usage? Loudest device wins? We wouldn't even have wifi...
Re: (Score:2)
Not privately owned, licensed to private entities - subtle but huge difference.
How often must these licenses be renewed, and how much does such renewal cost? A perpetual, sublicensable license is practically indistinguishable from ownership. It's like saying all land is rented from the state and property tax is the rent paid to the owner.
Re: (Score:3)
This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada.
This sort of thing CAN work in the US, if we change a couple regulations and set up a procedure to accomplish it in an orderly manner. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.
1) Is the area being served by any cell company? If the answer is no, proceed to #2
2) Community organizes and petitions for an FCC waiver to set up a cell tower on specified frequencies.
3) Cell companies can either respond by setting up a tower* or allowing the process to go forward, OR present data showing it is covered adequately
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico also sells spectrum. Did you even read the article, or did you just start ranting?
Re: (Score:2)
They NEVER read TFA. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember about 20 years ago I knew many more people in South America who had cell phones that in the US. I, at that time, did not have a cell phone. OTOH, many of those in SA that had cell phones did not have land lines because the lines either did run into the mountains, or the land line was too expensive. In particular, the local service would not sell what we ca
Open source base station? (Score:2)
Gee... I didn't find links to the schematics and source code on their web site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Where are they?
Or..... maybe it's yet another click-bait article abusing the term "open source'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gee... I didn't find links to the schematics and source code on their web site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Where are they?
Or..... maybe it's yet another click-bait article abusing the term "open source'.
You're right, we are a bit messy right now. Code (rhizomatica specific): https://github.com/rhizomatica [github.com] Open source GSM code: http://openbsc.osmocom.org/tra... [osmocom.org] Anything else I can help you with? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything else I can help you with?
I will look at it and let you know. I am happy to see there is actual source code. Too many projects in RF-land claim to be open source, but are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like Rural America is strategically ignored by the main players for Internet Access. Best play so far is Verizon...so long as you're nearby a primary corridor for LTE, that is. Otherwise, you get the dubious joy of Satellite Fraudband, 2/3G, or dialup. To put it in would be only as a loss leader play because the overall expense of putting in tower coverage versus payback unless you're talking a highway corridor is a bad picture in the bean counter sense of things. It's a dead loss. I very stron
Re: (Score:2)
when the infra structure gets big enough for their to be enough profit in it Corporations will demand it be handed over to them.
Unfortunately for you, we don't really make any kind of profit. It's a non-profit organization, and the license is directly tied to it (as in, we can't make a business out of it). You know, it's not like the whole world has to be like the US :-P
Slashdot... (Score:2)