Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
i presume bastards = telcos call your congresscritter, explain why spectrum should be licensed off in a fair way, to organisations who won't abuse it. educate people why most current telcos are bad. invent a new, cheap technology that has the features you want and doesn't need at&t to work On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. > > So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? > I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) > > There has to be something that we could do from the > base to get rid of the bastards. > > ___ > OpenMoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Giles, you're complaining? try 30$/MB up here in canada. - Original Message From: Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: community Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 5:51:34 PM Subject: Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness? On 7 Aug 2007, at 22:34, Robin Paulson wrote: > > i for one was interested in what luca had to say, the discussion that > evolved, and i've learned something because of it The idea was a good one, but not feasible at this time and not with Moko hardware. The Neo1973 is an open device but it can't defy physics. > > and anyway, the telcos are bastards, are screwing us and many would > agree with luca's sentiments. i found out last week that i get charged > NZ$10/MB (about $8US) for GPRS data - that's not justified, and isn't > customer oriented, it's money-grabbing > True, plus their plans don't make sense. SMS messages cost a fortune for 160 bytes. But hey, they're a business and businesses are all about making money. Competition is what drives down costs usually. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8 Aug 2007, at 00:38, Ian Stirling wrote: You don't care if it's hard to prove it was you, to some extent. You care about the consequences to you due to not being able to instantly disprove it's not you to someone in a uniform that may have kicked in your door at 5AM. Well the crime will be traced to an IP address, if you are the only person living at that residence you'll have a struggle on your hands to prove it wasn't you. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Nelson Castillo wrote: On 8/6/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: Run an open Wifi node. It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. It's also hard to prove it was you. A Friend says he always leaves Wifi open. You don't care if it's hard to prove it was you, to some extent. You care about the consequences to you due to not being able to instantly disprove it's not you to someone in a uniform that may have kicked in your door at 5AM. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 7 Aug 2007, at 22:34, Robin Paulson wrote: i for one was interested in what luca had to say, the discussion that evolved, and i've learned something because of it The idea was a good one, but not feasible at this time and not with Moko hardware. The Neo1973 is an open device but it can't defy physics. and anyway, the telcos are bastards, are screwing us and many would agree with luca's sentiments. i found out last week that i get charged NZ$10/MB (about $8US) for GPRS data - that's not justified, and isn't customer oriented, it's money-grabbing True, plus their plans don't make sense. SMS messages cost a fortune for 160 bytes. But hey, they're a business and businesses are all about making money. Competition is what drives down costs usually. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/8/07, Mikko Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They probably don't, you just don't have a clue what they're actually > talking about (for example, not talking about power). > > Anyway, let me try to be helpful here in giving you some personal > insight about yourself: You obviously lack all necessary technical > background to understand the issues properly at all. Your obvious hatred > of telcos doesn't exactly help, since it apparently completely blinds > you to rational arguments why schemes such as the one you're proposing > are extremely difficult to scale in sane ways, let alone with limited > power. And no, dismissing them as telco FUD without any grounds isn't a > proper argument. > > Thank you, have a nice day, and let's get back to this when you > understand what a radio is and how it's different from a p2p network, > shall we? HTH and cheers. hey, take it easy i for one was interested in what luca had to say, the discussion that evolved, and i've learned something because of it your attitude is really helping. he might not know anything (i doubt it, he appears to have done some research), but dismissing his input because of it is short-sighted. a new pair of eyes with a different slant can often be useful. this list is not about personal improvement, it's about a phone and an OS. keep it to that and anyway, the telcos are bastards, are screwing us and many would agree with luca's sentiments. i found out last week that i get charged NZ$10/MB (about $8US) for GPRS data - that's not justified, and isn't customer oriented, it's money-grabbing ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Mikko Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ti, 2007-08-07 kello 17:34 +0200, Luca Dionisi kirjoitti: > > I don't know for sure if they write sentences like that one without > > having a clue. > > They probably don't, you just don't have a clue what they're actually > talking about (for example, not talking about power). > > Anyway, let me try to be helpful here in giving you some personal > insight about yourself: You obviously lack all necessary technical > background to understand the issues properly at all. Your obvious hatred > of telcos doesn't exactly help, since it apparently completely blinds > you to rational arguments why schemes such as the one you're proposing > are extremely difficult to scale in sane ways, let alone with limited > power. And no, dismissing them as telco FUD without any grounds isn't a > proper argument. > > Thank you, have a nice day, and let's get back to this when you > understand what a radio is and how it's different from a p2p network, > shall we? HTH and cheers. > > -- > Mikko Rauhala - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.iki.fi/mjr/> > Transhumanist - WTA member - http://www.transhumanism.org/> > Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - http://www.singinst.org/> Mikko, thanks a lot. Now I see the point. As I said, I will step back. --Luca ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
ti, 2007-08-07 kello 17:34 +0200, Luca Dionisi kirjoitti: > I don't know for sure if they write sentences like that one without > having a clue. They probably don't, you just don't have a clue what they're actually talking about (for example, not talking about power). Anyway, let me try to be helpful here in giving you some personal insight about yourself: You obviously lack all necessary technical background to understand the issues properly at all. Your obvious hatred of telcos doesn't exactly help, since it apparently completely blinds you to rational arguments why schemes such as the one you're proposing are extremely difficult to scale in sane ways, let alone with limited power. And no, dismissing them as telco FUD without any grounds isn't a proper argument. Thank you, have a nice day, and let's get back to this when you understand what a radio is and how it's different from a p2p network, shall we? HTH and cheers. -- Mikko Rauhala - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.iki.fi/mjr/> Transhumanist - WTA member - http://www.transhumanism.org/> Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - http://www.singinst.org/> ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
RE: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi wrote: > > Many NEOs -> many batteries. > Few NEOs -> few power need. > Scaleable, isn't it? > > I know I'm simplifying. I'm not saying it's trivial. The main problem here is that the WiFi hardware was not designed for the ultra-low-power modes required to extend the "standby" time. Note how most phones today can go for days without recharging while waiting for a call, but get only a few hours of talk time. GSM and CDMA radio systems are designed to use an absolute minimum of power when in standby. They broadcast location occasionally, but most of the time they are just listening--and listening only to the "housekeeping" channel. In a mesh network using WiFi, however, the nodes need to be active any time they are being used for data transfer. Even topological negotiation is going to require data transfer. > E.g. the previously mentioned link says: > Netsukuku is designed to handle an unlimited number of nodes with minimal > CPU and memory resources. Unfortunately this doesn't say anything about power requirements. - John ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, AVee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course thing can always be optimised, but i doubt that will be sufficient. > Your idea boils down to replacing GSM towers with a handfull of NEOs. That > whould roughly mean that all the power consumed a GSM tower now needs to be > provided by the batteries of these NEOs. Thats not something trivial. Many NEOs -> many batteries. Few NEOs -> few power need. Scaleable, isn't it? I know I'm simplifying. I'm not saying it's trivial. > And there will be added complexity because the system will have to cope with > all > the NEOs moving around, constantly changing routes from A to B etc. > It may not be impossible, but it's not going to be easy. I think the guys behind Netsukuku or BATMAN are already aware of those problems. E.g. the previously mentioned link says: Netsukuku is designed to handle an unlimited number of nodes with minimal CPU and memory resources. I don't know for sure if they write sentences like that one without having a clue. > Apart from that, systems like this are like public roads. With just a few > users there is no problem at all, but when things get crowded you will need > some rules or it will become a useless mess. We should think about a way to enforce such rules for when we need them. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 13:07, Luca Dionisi wrote: > On 8/7/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And also, wrt. mesh networking, you still don't really want to allow > > your phone, while it's mobile, to work as a bridge in the mesh; > > otherwise the battery would be dead in no time. But sure, advocate lots > > of open access points and perhaps putting the phone in mesh mode if it's > > hooked up to external power. And still there will be severe scalability > > issues, but what the hey, it's possible for _some_ N, right? :] > > Yep. > Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely > heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. > IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the > mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is > the only needed spot. > If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem > could be worked out. Of course thing can always be optimised, but i doubt that will be sufficient. Your idea boils down to replacing GSM towers with a handfull of NEOs. That whould roughly mean that all the power consumed a GSM tower now needs to be provided by the batteries of these NEOs. Thats not something trivial. And there will be added complexity because the system will have to cope with all the NEOs moving around, constantly changing routes from A to B etc. It may not be impossible, but it's not going to be easy. Apart from that, systems like this are like public roads. With just a few users there is no problem at all, but when things get crowded you will need some rules or it will become a useless mess. AVee ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > > > > Yep. > > Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely > > heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. > > IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the > > mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is > > the only needed spot. > > If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem > > could be worked out. > > Are you sure that I'm advocating the wrong way to go? > > It's not just consumption of power, transmission strength as well. Would you > really feel safe placing a mobile device to your head that is transmitting a > signal 10 or more times stronger than with GSM? > > Not such an issue if you mandate a headset, but it's still a health concern. When you make a call (or answer) then the phone could go automatically in a mode that doesn't participate in the mesh. Solved. Or the signal is so much stronger also when it serves only you? Then working with a laptop on wifi for 8 hours is dangerous? I think there is some FUD in this issue. And the bastards (you know who I mean) spread it well. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > Yep. > Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely > heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. > IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the > mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is > the only needed spot. > If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem > could be worked out. > Are you sure that I'm advocating the wrong way to go? It's not just consumption of power, transmission strength as well. Would you really feel safe placing a mobile device to your head that is transmitting a signal 10 or more times stronger than with GSM? Not such an issue if you mandate a headset, but it's still a health concern. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > The problem is that you can reach much shorter distances > without the help of someone else's spot. Yep. Wimax has a better range, it's designed to replace "last mile" technology, ie. the phone line or cable between your local telco exchange and your house. But it's never been designed with mobile phones in mind AFAIK. Another technology would be satellite phone technology, however this again won't be open, won't be low power and satellite bandwidth is even more restricted than GSM. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem > could be worked out. And, BTW, I think that having to recharge the phone batteries once a day is a price that I would pay if it allows for a free communication channel with a whole city. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And also, wrt. mesh networking, you still don't really want to allow > your phone, while it's mobile, to work as a bridge in the mesh; > otherwise the battery would be dead in no time. But sure, advocate lots > of open access points and perhaps putting the phone in mesh mode if it's > hooked up to external power. And still there will be severe scalability > issues, but what the hey, it's possible for _some_ N, right? :] Yep. Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is the only needed spot. If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem could be worked out. Are you sure that I'm advocating the wrong way to go? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On ti, 2007-08-07 at 12:14 +0200, Luca Dionisi wrote: > If I understand correctly, the real big problem, as for legal > issues and technical issues, is the GSM protocol. > > Using WiFi for a similar goal should be fine, though. > > The problem is that you can reach much shorter distances > without the help of someone else's spot. [...] > Do I mistake again? Not really, though I think I should again remind you that the _reason_ you get good range for your power with GSM is _because_ the towers centrally controls the frequencies and timeslots that the handsets use for transmissions, and everybody plays by those rules. And also, wrt. mesh networking, you still don't really want to allow your phone, while it's mobile, to work as a bridge in the mesh; otherwise the battery would be dead in no time. But sure, advocate lots of open access points and perhaps putting the phone in mesh mode if it's hooked up to external power. And still there will be severe scalability issues, but what the hey, it's possible for _some_ N, right? :] -- Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> University of Helsinki ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: > > > Run an open Wifi node. > > > > It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You > are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone > commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. It's also hard to prove it was you. A Friend says he always leaves Wifi open. http://wiki.freaks-unidos.net/weblogs/azul/open-your-wifi http://opwifi.com/ What if a lot of people leave Wifi open? Regards.- -- http://arhuaco.org http://emQbit.com ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
I guess you can't have a revolution without breaking some laws... ;) On 8/7/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: > > > Run an open Wifi node. > > > > It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You > are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone > commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. > > But anyway, on the topic of wifi, is anyone planning any Wifi tools? > easily sharing data like music, ringtones, browser links, contact > card etc? > > > ___ > OpenMoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: Run an open Wifi node. It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. But anyway, on the topic of wifi, is anyone planning any Wifi tools? easily sharing data like music, ringtones, browser links, contact card etc? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Earlier someone said: I think you described just about every tech-savy teenager out there... On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. >So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? >I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) > There has to be something that we could do from the > base to get rid of the bastards. Or to put it another way, there is a lot of suggestion out in the community that young people ( in schools for example) are becoming more violent. This is just the manifestation of the same problem in the tech area. It is something that has always been there, but magnified by the improvement in communications. I think we have a duty to work peacefully toward improvement of these problems on all levels, rather than find ways to accommodate our aggressive instincts. Note that this is not an easy way out; it involves fundamental changes in understanding of what rights individuals have in society, starting with parents. And it will take a century or so; we may not have time. clare, who is pessimistic about people, religion, politics, climate change etc ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Hello, On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There has to be something that we could do from the > base to get rid of the bastards. Find a way to convince the mobile phone network providers to give you (us) free access to their infrastructure, and hope you can live with the result they come up with? (Example: ad based, either on- screen or via audio - yuck) -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Run an open Wifi node. On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for your explanation. > > So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? > I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) > > There has to be something that we could do from the > base to get rid of the bastards. > > ___ > OpenMoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Thanks for your explanation. So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) There has to be something that we could do from the base to get rid of the bastards. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi wrote: I'm definitely willing to believe that there are tech problems, the GPS protocol into the chips we are using, closed firmware and all the rest. And I admit I really know nothing about mobile comm problems. Anyway, there seems to be some FUD here to me. But then I am probably wrong. Could you confirm these problems? Certainly. On 8/6/07, Ian Stirling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you are on average 20 nodes away from the destination, then on average, (neglecting routing problems) you, and all the nodes you route through, are sharing their bandwidth with 20 other users. Isn't that the same that having many users sharing the aerial bandwidth when communicating with the same big GSM antenna? No. Because the former is well managed. This depends on every one of the nodes that you are talking through working according to the protocol, and having plenty of free bandwidth, or they will drop your packets on the floor. GSM is fundamentally planned. It has small 'pico' and 'micro' cells scattered within cells of larger radius, on different frequencies, and different powers, so that they are all designed to not interfere significantly. With GSM there are perhaps several hundred channels, each of which can have 8-16 calls on them. These channels are carefully allocated to towers so that users connected to towers on those channels are far enough from other towers using these frequencies that when the tower listens for each radio user in its time-slot that there are no interfering signals. Because users are not evenly spread, there are 'hot' links, which are links between 'islands' of relatively isolated users. This means that a vastly disproportionate amount of traffic goes to them. Couldn't this problem be worked out? Some powerful (wired?) connection between the 'islands'. I mean, if you are talking about big group of users, say a town or a big building. Yes, increasing the number of uplonk sites to the internet beyond a certain value helps. Even neglecting users who are abusing the network, the noise floor goes up significantly, because everyone is 'shouting' at once. Emule does a great job in avoiding the abusers. It has no abusers of this sort. This is a really important point. Emule sits on top of tcp/ip. This is a switched one-one network. An abuser can only connect to however many sites they have bandwidth to do so to, and they have no advantage. Every 1K that they send is recieved by one user out there. Sure they can do smart things with the protocol, but that's the fundamental limit. Radio is a one-many. Every 1K that that they send is recieved by _all_users_in_range_. There is also a finite, and not really large compared to the enormous internet bandwidth in DSL lines et-al amount of data transfer out there. Increase the range by increasing the power, and you also increase the number of interfering users. Once you get a few people that decide that streaming video from their webcams to their office is a fun app, they utterly screw the people using the same frequency in the same range. Again, the protocol should take care of who gets what part of the bandwidth. The problem _is_ the sociopaths. With an open protocol, and open devices, and shared radio frequency it is simply impossible to stop them interfering with other users. Maybe mine is a naive idea, but I don't agree. If the protocol is well designed. It can't be. If users have free access to the radio code, they cannot be stopped from doing what is best for them at any time, irrespective of what is best for the environment. To further the party analogy - two people shouting at each other across the room can mean you can't easily talk to someone a little bit away from you. However smart you are, unless there is a bouncer (regulator) to escort them from the building, you can't stop them talking. These are not sociopaths that are intentionally harming the network - though that's another issue. They are only wanting to transfer data, and do not care about their effect on others by overloading the network and using more than their fair share. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
"Luca Dionisi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I mean, what if each phone in a neighborwood could be used as > a "radio-bridge" in order for a caller to find a path to a callee > without having to rely on a network operator and pay for it? Sounds like you are looking for something like the old MIT "roofnet" mesh-wifi project. I believe those roofnet folks all went to Meraki and are now (or will soon) be selling a rootnet-like box in the form of the $50-$100 Meraki mesh nodes. I don't know how much code is shares with roofnet and if it still interoperates with roofnet. (Roofnet was open-source of some flavor). http://meraki.com/solutions/ If it works and they feel like releasing interop details perhaps the Neo-v2 with wifi can partake of this network. -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprechthttp://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/ IPv6 on Fedora 7 http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/fedora/ipv6-tunnel.html ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
cedric cellier wrote: -[ Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 06:02:05PM +0300, Mikko J Rauhala ] The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. I like the OP's idea, whatever technically hard to achieve with actual divice, not because Im a sociopath, but because I find the idea elegant. No more need for costly and hideous GSM antennas... Much more robust (many routes to a destination)... Unfortunately, this seems obvious, but is false. If you are on average 20 nodes away from the destination, then on average, (neglecting routing problems) you, and all the nodes you route through, are sharing their bandwidth with 20 other users. Then there is the problem that it isn't as good as this. Because users are not evenly spread, there are 'hot' links, which are links between 'islands' of relatively isolated users. This means that a vastly disproportionate amount of traffic goes to them. There are similar problems with uplinks to the 'real' internet for long-term traffic. Then you run into problems with interference. Even neglecting users who are abusing the network, the noise floor goes up significantly, because everyone is 'shouting' at once. Once you get a few people that decide that streaming video from their webcams to their office is a fun app, they utterly screw the people using the same frequency in the same range. The problem _is_ the sociopaths. With an open protocol, and open devices, and shared radio frequency it is simply impossible to stop them interfering with other users. They get best (momentary) gain from the system by simply turning their radio power up all the way, and ignoring any traffic by stamping on it. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On Monday 06 August 2007 17:02:05 Mikko J Rauhala wrote: > On ma, 2007-08-06 at 14:50 +0200, Luca Dionisi wrote: > > On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What you can't do is use the GSM frequencies for this kind of thing, > > > first because you don't have access to the GSM chip firmware, ... > > > > Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. > > The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to > do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. i think you described just about every tech-savy teenager out there... ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Cedric Cellier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > I find the idea of cooperative network elegant. But it's the same as setting your wifi to be open and setting it to repeat any connections from any other router in the area. The potential for hacking/disruption is large, place a rogue device in the matrix of phones and you could cause loss of service for people I dunno, maybe people would like to do that? there's always some disruptive people out there, see the recent case of GPS/RDS hacking where people could inject false traffic information. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to > do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. The > wifi on GTA02 on the other hand will be capable of this sort of thing > (legally and ethically), therefore not really a hardware openness issue, > IMAO. Just that there would still be the practical problems indicated by > me and others. Ok for techie problems and we have to stick with the reality of closed firmware. I don't agree with the idea of waiting for what we'll be able to do "legally and ethically" with wifi. What about WiMax? What if (quite likely) the telcos win the WiMax auctions? Bye bye ethics! I would support a cooperative network solution. Speed and bandwidth issues would be worked out soon. But I guess at the moment it is just a dream. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
-[ Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 06:02:05PM +0300, Mikko J Rauhala ] > The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to > do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. I like the OP's idea, whatever technically hard to achieve with actual divice, not because Im a sociopath, but because I find the idea elegant. No more need for costly and hideous GSM antennas... Much more robust (many routes to a destination)... I find the idea of cooperative network elegant. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On ma, 2007-08-06 at 14:50 +0200, Luca Dionisi wrote: > On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What you can't do is use the GSM frequencies for this kind of thing, > > first because you don't have access to the GSM chip firmware, ... > > Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. The wifi on GTA02 on the other hand will be capable of this sort of thing (legally and ethically), therefore not really a hardware openness issue, IMAO. Just that there would still be the practical problems indicated by me and others. Don't get me wrong though, the Neo is not optimally open, and there are also non-evil things that the GSM firmware being closed restricts us from doing. I don't particularly like it, but it's a reality of today. We'll just have to mold where the future takes us, and the Moko. -- Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> University of Helsinki ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an > > incremental adoption of emule. > > Yes, but on a mobile device? > > > For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated > > that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in > > a movement starting from the base. > > Simple fact is if you produce an open mobile and start breaking laws with it > then its days are numbered. > I was thinking of a door left open for third-party apps. > > Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. > > Partly, but the chips are often built around a protocol. So if you are > changing the protocol then you can't use a device that implements a protocol > in hardware. > > > Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? > > Limitation of the silicon. It's like trying to use a sound chip for graphics, > or a dial up model for ADSL. > Sad. I was sure it was a silly question. Well, then the openmoko revolution is not as big a revolution as I thought. Still it is big! ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an > incremental adoption of emule. Yes, but on a mobile device? > For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated > that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in > a movement starting from the base. Simple fact is if you produce an open mobile and start breaking laws with it then its days are numbered. > Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. Partly, but the chips are often built around a protocol. So if you are changing the protocol then you can't use a device that implements a protocol in hardware. > Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? Limitation of the silicon. It's like trying to use a sound chip for graphics, or a dial up model for ADSL. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you propose is illegal due to the restrictions on radio transmissions. ... > The problem is you would be relying on someone near to you, ... > Also, the power drain of having a radio transmitter (eg. Wifi) switched > on all the time... Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an incremental adoption of emule. For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in a movement starting from the base. On 8/6/07, Sébastien Lorquet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that building a network architecture relying on others users to > transmit critical data streams could raise a lot of security and speed > issues. There are protocols for anonymity. On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you can't do is use the GSM frequencies for this kind of thing, > first because you don't have access to the GSM chip firmware, ... Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. On 8/6/07, Torfinn Ingolfsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, for the GSM network at least, the current devices simply cannot > talk to each other directly, ech needs to talk to a base station. Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi wrote: Hi all, I have a likely silly question. I'm wondering why is it that in the mobile phone world there has not been a revolution similar to the P2P that we have seen in the internet, e.g. with emule or bittorrent, that is where the users are benefitting from each other instead of relying in a centralized service provider. Neglecting the illegality that others have addressed. There seems to be a fundamentally flawed mental model that some people have. Radio waves are not like the internet. To make a computer analogy, they are like having everyone within several kilometers on one unswitched ethernet network. Consider a thousand people in a smallish room. If they are all silent, and speak only on an agreed schedule, everyone can easily hear everyone else, without raising their voice. (transmission power) However, this only gives so much bandwidth (words/minute) before the channel becomes saturated. If you don't have an agreed schedule, any two people in the room conversing will mean that you can't really hear someone if they are further away than the two people talking. This is a reduction in range due to interference. If everyone talks at once, you can only hear your neighbours. This is when communication with people other than your neighbours becomes impossible. Also, you can't meaningfully pass messages to other people - without a drastic crash in bandwidth, as every member of the network between you and the person you want to message is also passing messages for dozens of others. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Hello, On 8/6/07, Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a likely silly question. OK, I'll bite... :-) > I'm wondering why is it that in the mobile phone world there has > not been a revolution similar to the P2P that we have seen in > the internet, e.g. with emule or bittorrent, that is where the > users are benefitting from each other instead of relying in a > centralized service provider. First of all, you do realize that the "internet" way and the "telephone" way are two totally different ways of thinking? The "telephone world" has always been about the central service provider, first national telcos, then provider-to-provider agreements to do international calls. Later came the privatization of the market, which gave us private telcos in many countries, but still kept the central service provider model. > I mean, what if each phone in a neighborwood could be used as > a "radio-bridge" in order for a caller to find a path to a callee > without having to rely on a network operator and pay for it? Well, for the GSM network at least, the current devices simply cannot talk to each other directly, ech needs to talk to a base station. Also the "telephone directory" is a database on a base station controller, without that you wouldn't even know where to route your call. And I haven't mentioned calls to landline telephones yet, or text messaging... > I thought that the absence of this feature was a limitation > imposed on the user from the phone builders. So when I saw the > FIC initiative I thought that this kind of openness could lead > to the possibility of such a scenario. > > But I think I'm mistaking it. > > What's the real problem? The real problem is that the current mobile phone networks around the world (anyone, correct me if I am mistaken and there exists mobile phone networks which are not built like this) are built up around the "telephone way" of thinking, and therefore lacks the necessary infrastructure elements to do it another way. When all mobile phones have wifi, and there is free wifi access everywhere, you could change the phones to use that for transport, or you could run something like Skype on them. Today, the wifi access simply isn't there, too few of my contacts have wifi phones, and I don't want to use a system whic is (currently) that unreliable. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Hi all, > > I have a likely silly question. > > I'm wondering why is it that in the mobile phone world there has > not been a revolution similar to the P2P that we have seen in > the internet, > What's the real problem? What you propose is illegal due to the restrictions on radio transmissions. There isn't really an unlicenced frequency band you can use for mobile phones. You would have to design a phone which uses wifi/wimax communication to talk to other phones and build up an adhoc cell network. The problem is you would be relying on someone near to you, if you were in a quiet area then one person's phone going offline would mean you would lose your connection. Also, the power drain of having a radio transmitter (eg. Wifi) switched on all the time with an active would be huge. It just isn't going to happen anytime soon (IMHO). --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On ma, 2007-08-06 at 13:26 +0200, Luca Dionisi wrote: > I have a likely silly question. Not that silly, though the context is wrong. Doesn't have that much to do with hardware openness. > I mean, what if each phone in a neighborwood could be used as > a "radio-bridge" in order for a caller to find a path to a callee > without having to rely on a network operator and pay for it? The calls would be less reliable with lower quality of service, the problems increasing with the number of simultaneous callers, plus their phones would eat up power like crazy. > I thought that the absence of this feature was a limitation > imposed on the user from the phone builders. So when I saw the > FIC initiative I thought that this kind of openness could lead > to the possibility of such a scenario. With GTA02, you should be able to do Wifi mesh networking and route VOIP calls through that, if you like. Just that, well, see above. (With GTA01, all you have is Bluetooth, and while it's suitable for a lot of stuff, let's just not.) What you can't do is use the GSM frequencies for this kind of thing, first because you don't have access to the GSM chip firmware, and second because transmitting on the GSM spectrum without timeslot allocations from the cell tower will cause you to interfere with people's calls, some of them emergency ones. Plus the illegality of it all. -- Mikko J Rauhala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> University of Helsinki ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
