Slashdot Mirror


GSM and Asterisk Integration?

MistabewM asks: "Would it be possible to place a GSM transceiver within you home that can be tied into Asterisk in a way that would allow you to place calls from your GSM phone across your VOIP connection or though your local landline? An analogous system is being introduced on airplanes that will allow passengers to use their GSM phones in flight. I feel this would be a fantastic hack and could even be scaled up to provide large areas of free GSM service."

156 comments

  1. Apparently, yes. by g051051 · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Apparently, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He wants it the other way around, and that is not possible. You can't just activate your own GSM micro-cell. It's a licensed band for which you don't have a license.

    2. Re:Apparently, yes. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting, but thats the opposite of what the post requests. That allows you to use your cellphone minutes from you home phone.
      The poster wants to use their landline/sip minutes from their cell phone when at home.

    3. Re:Apparently, yes. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >It's a licensed band for which you don't have a license.

      as long as your at a low enough power, and your not interfearing with anyones communication, you are allowed to. same as those ipod/radio transmitters to your car radio.

      I would say as long as their is no GSM availabilty where you want to deploy this, and a limited range, it would be legal. I say this because I have helped install a transmitter, for my company, with AT&T's approvel though, for a test.

    4. Re:Apparently, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You have GSM on your phone? You shouldn't be getting into phone sex that much.

    5. Re:Apparently, yes. by karnal · · Score: 1

      Your company also had to obtain an FCC license to install and use such a transmitter.

      In addition, you need to renew your license. Just because AT&T says you have permission, doesn't mean you can just use that band. The FCC will be knocking on your door; especially in the event you cause problems in said band.

      --
      Karnal
    6. Re:Apparently, yes. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I doubt the FCC's gonna bother him, it's not like he's whipping his nipple out on national TV!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:Apparently, yes. by DotComMarky · · Score: 0

      So does this or does this not fall under Part 15 of FCC regulations?

      --
      It's just me.
    8. Re:Apparently, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW - thanx for publishing this URL - I found it quite interesting.

      I'm implementing a SIP Phone that runs native on the Mac. Not one of these cheezy inefficient ports like X-Lite. which I find very inefficient after I ran it through "Shark", the Mac X-Code performance monitoring tool.

      GSM Codecs like the Jutta Codec published on the net more then 12 years ago, is still a viable GSM Codec to use. But if you expect to be compatible with winBlows version of GSM, you are heading for a very frustrating experience. Of course winBlows did the best they can to be un-compatible with the standard GSM Codec which uses 65 byte frame sizes (an uneven number of bytes).

      After extensive reverse engineering the WinBlows GSM, I discovered the bit order of processing the LPE (linear predictive encoding) - is reversed. This is NOT the Big and Little endian issue, but something different.

      but I think people should know this, especially if they intend to implement a GSM on their own using Jutta's code.

    9. Re:Apparently, yes. by karnal · · Score: 1

      If the person whipping out a nipple is a "he", it's not going to cause any troubles.

      But put up a woman's nipple and you'll cause a backlash.

      Sometimes I think my country is strange.

      --
      Karnal
    10. Re:Apparently, yes. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > So does this or does this not fall under Part 15 of FCC regulations?
        15.23
      (a) Equipment authorization is not
      required for devices that are not marketed,
      are not constructed from a kit,
      and are built in quantities of five or
      less for personal use.
      (b) It is recognized that the individual
      builder of home-built equipment
      may not possess the means to perform
      the measurements for determining
      compliance with the regulations. In
      this case, the builder is expected to employ
      good engineering practices to
      meet the specified technical standards
      to the greatest extent practicable.

    11. Re:Apparently, yes. by tdonahue · · Score: 1

      "I doubt the FCC's gonna bother him" Well, you would think that the FCC would have better things to do than monitor the emergency services frequencies to verify that they are doing things like broadcasting their station id... But oddly enough the town next to mine was find several thousand dollars for forgetting to broadcast the ID. Tim Donahue

    12. Re:Apparently, yes. by g051051 · · Score: 1

      I finally got a first post and didn't realize it...

    13. Re:Apparently, yes. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You neglected to say whose nipple it was. It wasn't just some young attractive woman, it was Janet Jackson. I think it is certainly in the public interest to protect everyone from aging former pop stars' chrome enhanced mammaries being foisted upon a public resource as scarce as the broadcast-television band of the radio spectrum.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    14. Re:Apparently, yes. by alienw · · Score: 1

      Wrong. In the US at least, there is a specific part of the rules which allows very low-power unlicensed transmitters in the FM band. There are also the ISM bands and a few other unlicensed bands. It is illegal to transmit anywhere else without a license, regardless of power.

      I'd say a simple solution would be to use an ATA and a cordless phone.

    15. Re:Apparently, yes. by xiopher · · Score: 1

      congrats

    16. Re:Apparently, yes. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Informative

      >It is illegal to transmit anywhere else without a license, regardless of power.
      http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
      Specificall at the PCS frequency 1.705-2.1735 MHz the maximum legal power is 100 uV/M at 30 M

    17. Re:Apparently, yes. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i'm not a usian myself but isn't 900mhz an unregulated band in your country so you possiblly could make something legal that would work with tri-band phones (iirc the base station controls the transmit power of the handset too so it should be able to keep that within limits).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    18. Re:Apparently, yes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > I'd say a simple solution would be to use
      > an ATA and a cordless phone.
      I recall something about a dual mode DECT + GSM phone.
      Aha:
          http://www.google.com/search?q=dect+gsm+dual

  2. Free? by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Sounds like an interesting hack indeed, but I'm not sure how it will result in a free service. Someone needs to administer the Asterisk server, pay for electricity, the bandwidth to the server and lastly don't you need a license to use GSM frequencies? If you'd be willing to cover all these costs, then sure, it will be free. :-)

    1. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a definition of free, commonly accepted and mostly unambiguous (except to economist weenies) where, if there is a person willing to do that without charging a fee for it, and the cost is low enough they can ignore it or otherwise have it not be a problem, well... then it is free.

      If that someone is me, I'm already paying for the electricity to the server, if someone else can get some use out of it without abusing it, or interfering with my use, let them. Much of my bandwidth goes unused as well. As for a license, no clue, but you might be right on that one.

    2. Re:Free? by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post also described the price of air. Yes, breathing air is free, but as long as you're willing to expend the energy required to flex various muscles resulting in the lungs expanding and inhaling air. And you'll also need to drink water and ingest food -- which you'll need to purchase or grow. If you grow your own, you'll probably need to either purchase or fashion the tools required to till the soil and plant the seeds. So yes, air is free if you're willing to cover all those costs.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Free? by lightspawn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone needs to administer the Asterisk server, pay for electricity, the bandwidth to the server and lastly don't you need a license to use GSM frequencies? If you'd be willing to cover all these costs, then sure, it will be free.

      Sounds like a risky proposition... but it's his own asterisk.

    4. Re:Free? by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And even once you clear those obsticles you still must contend with [insert giant greedy GSM provider's name(s) here] setting a pack of flesh eating lawyers upon you. Seems to me this is better done currently with wifi and some of the wifi VOIP handsets coming down the pike (if not out already). And, there's still more unlicensed spectrum out there to play with so time will tell if someone will come up with a better free/low-cost alternative to current wireless telephony products.

    5. Re:Free? by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      Very true, but free wi-fi access points also cost money to setup and there are enough of those around. I'm not saying that those are proof that something like this will take off, I think it's at least possible.

    6. Re:Free? by plover · · Score: 1

      YOU WIN!!! :-) Best joke in this whole thread!

      --
      John
  3. Re:there's one in every story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sometimes Slashcode throws in random spaces, though.
    Check out how it prints the URL in this post: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15866 1&cid=13291455

    So it may not be the fault of the poster or the editor.

  4. Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by EvilMagnus · · Score: 4, Informative

    , the search term 'GSM Picocell' turns up these guys who appear to sell a GSM-to-IP product exactly like that.

    --
    -EvilMagnus
    1. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by uradu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, one would need to know the term "picocell" in connection with GSM to search efficiently, otherwise you could be spending some time searching.

    2. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Since it'll take me more than 2 seconds to calculate the optimal search term for googling the price, how much is their GSM base station?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Wow, simply searching for the obscure term "GSM Picocell" which happens to be the answer to the question immediately finds the answer to the question!! If only the OP had spent 2 seconds with google, and started out with the answer to his question.

    4. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $15K

    5. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      Here's a more community-friendly translation of your post:

      Subject: GSM Picocell
      Message: Ah, what you want is a GSM Picocell. I went ahead and searched for it on Google and found these guys who sell a product that may be what you're looking for, enjoy.

    6. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say this is a solution. it seems it is basicaly a repeater that uses an IP network instead the coax that they use. we have a cell repeater for our building and the coax looks like a 3/4" pipe with a solid 8awg copper wire in the middle.

    7. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. "GSM picocell" is not in and of itself the answer -- it's a (generally accepted within the relevant community) term describing what the questioner wished to create (a very small cell); in short, a restatement of the question.

      A specific product used to create such a picocell (which Google finds) is the answer.

    8. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

      Screw that. I don't have time for community friendly posts! I'm too busy trolling slashdot and insulting n00bs. ;-)

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    9. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just a repeater - it's a complete GSM BTS.

    10. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Yeah, except (from TFLinked site):

      ip.access offers a basestation system that can easily integrate into existing core mobile networks. At the heart of the solution lies the nanoBTS, a picocellular basestation, that provides coverage and capacity where it is needed. These small units are connected to the basestation controller (BSC) via IP networks. In turn, the basestation controller connects over a standard A and Gb interface into the mobile switching centre (MSC) for voice traffic and to the SGSN for data calls.

      The IP connection is just for backhaul to a BSC.

      So, just like any other GSM base station, you need a BSC (Base Station Controller) and a gateway MSC (which Asterisk _might_ be able to manage with some hacking - does Asterisk speak SS7?)

      The short answer to the OP, just hooking up a transciever isn't nearly enough. The audio->ddigital->rf->digital->audio is the least of the functions of the GSM base station transciever. There is tons of control and timing going on as well, and the base station is just an intermediary in much of that. Those functions are handled by the BSC. And while, in theory, you could read the GSM spec and program something up to do that, it'd get overwhelming real quick.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    11. Re:Uh, 2 seconds with Google... by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      So, just like any other GSM base station, you need a BSC (Base Station Controller) and a gateway MSC (which Asterisk _might_ be able to manage with some hacking - does Asterisk speak SS7?)

      Umm... it didn't a short time ago...

  5. Already covered by kevin_conaway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See here

  6. Yeah, sure. It's possible to do this by ReformedExCon · · Score: 4, Informative

    But you're looking at some serious changes to your wireless hub. If you are asking, I doubt you'd be able to do it.

    That's not meant as a slight, but just the truth. It's a very difficult thing to set this up. It requires more than just running some daemon. It also requires authenticated sessions on the servers. If you aren't Ericsson, you aren't getting into the network.

    That isn't to say that you couldn't implement this yourself. Skype, for example, doesn't run across the traditional long distance network, but it provides long distance phone service over the Internet. If you are willing to dive headlong into a long and arduous development plan, sure, you could implement this.

    Don't hold it against me that I'm not holding my breath for this, though.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  7. RF interference by ALecs · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Hopefully this gateway can use a frequency that doesn't have harmonic interference with radio astronomy to communicate with the ground (or even better, the sky - via satellite).

    And also hopefully, the handsets will use low enough power that it doesn't result in the equivalent of a 35000-foot cell tower.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17017

    1. Re:RF interference by Catskul · · Score: 1

      Maybe not though... maybe this would be a great idea for cell phone companies...

      If it works technologically (i.e. no doppler problems) having 35,000 ft cell towers which dont have to ugly the landscape would be great...

      Whey didnt they think of this earlier?

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    2. Re:RF interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I must have misunderstood the question. I didn't realize that he was talking about putting this shit on an airplane!

      Oh wait...maybe you didn't get it.

  8. Free service like how? by Brento · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...could even be scaled up to provide large areas of free GSM service.

    How exactly do you get large numbers of GSM transceivers for free? This sounds suspiciously like a dot-bomb business model. I mean, I'm willing to buy a wifi router and give away my internet connection because any tool with a wifi card can figure out how it works and take advantage of it. But buy a GSM transceiver, host an Asterisk server, and manage it all for strangers who walk past my house? What a tech support pain in the ass.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Free service like how? by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      But buy a GSM transceiver, host an Asterisk server, and manage it all for strangers who walk past my house? What a tech support pain in the ass.

      Sure, but what if you run a company and want to un-wire your campus? Forget desk IP phones, just have a few picocells strewn about and have people use their own phones (or buy $20 GSM phones from some random reseller).

    2. Re:Free service like how? by Brento · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what if you run a company and want to un-wire your campus?

      Commercial use of GSM frequencies requires a license from the FCC. It isn't an open frequency like 802.11b operates on.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
  9. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by flipper65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is like attaching a cellphone to your asterisk. It allows you to make calls across the GSM network and to receive calls to the number programmed on the SIM card and pass them to the asterisk box.

    There have been some attempts to do what the parent is asking about, but I do not know of any that have been rolled out for public consumption.

  10. Re:there's one in every story by reiggin · · Score: 1

    It only does that to URLs. And it's intentional. If you want to link something in a comment, you need to use the proper HTML formatting, otherwise, that's what they do it. The before-mentioned typo is an honest typo and not a Slashcode issue.

  11. A rephrase by DraconPern · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me rephrase the poster... ;-) Hello Slashdot, I want to start a mobile phone company with no money down. I am very poor but I want to provide GSM, voice mail, fax, voip, free calls, etc. Can you people help me?

    1. Re:A rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you hear me now?

  12. Licensing by amembleton · · Score: 2, Informative

    To legally set up a GSM transceiver you would need to purchase a licence. Well, I'm sure thats the case in most countries anyway.

    I know that the mobile phone companies in the UK spent a hell of a lot of cash to secure 3G licences, they wouldn't be too happy if you got to set up your own transceiver for free.

    Yes, I know a handset is a transceiver, but that probably comes under some kind of different licence.

    1. Re:Licensing by squirrelist · · Score: 1

      By my understanding you are allowed to use a transceiver (your handset) because you pay money every month to the spectrum owner (your cell phone provider). So basically the provider is leasing the spectrum to you, but it still belongs to them. Or do they lesae it from the FCC and then sublease it to you?

    2. Re:Licensing by nepheles · · Score: 1

      That's not true, as of recently, in the UK. There's a small overlap between some of the unlicensed spectrum and that used by GSM phones (it was originally intended to protect 3G and GSM phones from interfering).

      --
      ((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
    3. Re:Licensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lease it from the public, on whose behalf the FCC ostensibly manages the frequency spectrum.

  13. Seen one before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen such a device at Cisco Networkers in Orlando back in 2000. There was a "GSM transceiver" that was tied into the Cisco VOIP system. The "GSM transceiver" was not a Cisco device and I can't remember the manufacturer name, but it did work. I can't see why you would not be able to make it work with Asterix.

    1. Re:Seen one before by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine what Cisco pays for hardware, considering their prices...

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  14. looks like ... by BigCorona · · Score: 1

    Just a quick search comes up with a few companies like www.ipscellular.com that makes custom gms and cdma equip that you could put togather with a system like that, I dont know about the free part though, seems like someone would have to be footing the bill.

  15. Short and long answer. by wfberg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: The main restriction here is the use of restricted frequencies, and some "minor" technical hurdles.

    while it's perfectly OK for you, as a lone individual, or a company, to operate a GSM handset, operating a base-station is another thing. First, you'd have to get your greedy paws on a basestation, then you'd have to make your own SIM cards (hijacking calls that should be on the regular operator's network is highly illegal (DMCA); there's all sorts of (broken) encryption going on), and you'd have to outfit phones with 2 SIM cards, switching from your own network to the other (which entails switching the phone off and on again) every time you enter or leave the building. (This is doable, but annoying).

    Now, assuming you don't want the legal hassles of paying for multi-million dollar cell network licenses, you could operate a "pirate" basestation on some frequencies that aren't used too much where you're at (you'd have to measure it through first).

    In other words; you're better off investing in a handset that does both GSM and DECT(or whatever you use for domestic wireless phones in the US) or even both GSM and WiFi. There aren't many of those (though BritishTelecom has announced their model), but there should be some out there.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:Short and long answer. by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      while it's perfectly OK for you, as a lone individual, or a company, to operate a GSM handset, operating a base-station is another thing.

      While running a renagade cell tower isn't generally a viable option, if you command enough clout (i.e. a professional reputation and enough potential users) you can convince an existing cell carrier to put up a cell station on their network for your own private use.

      For example, Verizon put a cell station in an underground data center where I used to work. There would never be more then 10 people connected to the station at a time, so I'm sure the hardware wasn't any more complicated as what you'd attach to your PBX. The data center may have even paid for the hardware, but the cell phone company happily provided the connectivity.

      Normal usage charges apply, of course.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
  16. Sweet Deal by gkozlyk · · Score: 1

    If you were close to a "free" or open picostation like the one ipaccess.com has, would it then be free minutes then, or would the cellular company still ding you for using the frequency since the phone is registered to them?

    What are the costs on a system like this?

    --
  17. Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by Zarhan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, the equipment:

    One microcell, coming right up.

    Ok, simple omnidirectional antenna.
    Then you need the base station that drives that antenna.
    Then you need the base station controller that drives the base station.
    Then you need MSC (mobile switching center...) that actually gets the calls from the base station and forwards it accordingly to an SS7 network.
    Then you need to set up Asterisk to talk to that SS7 network and grab your phone calls.
    And all the rest of the components that I have forgotten.. In effect, you need to become a full-blown telco, albeit with only one base station.

    All the equipment can be bought from Nokia, Ericcson or other mobile network vendors. Price range is not for home users.

    Then, you need to get a license to operate that basestation. 900/1800/1900MHz is a licensed band. This *might* be quite easy if the location is just a single cell.

    Anyway, then you need to apply for Mobile Network Identifiers (MCC + the rest) to distinguish yourself as a GSM operator, so when you search for networks with your GSM phone, you'll see your own network as one.

    Then you need to get a SIM Card to use with your phone that has access to your network. (Or, you may be able to set it to "open for all" mode).

    (Of course, if the question was simply if you can reaac GSM network via Voip and want to set up the gateway your own home, then that's easy, just plug a phone or wireless modem to your Linux box....but I was under the impression that this meant the ability to use your GSM phone as a "cordless phone".)

    With landline this is of course easy, all you need is a modem waiting for calls..

    1. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      900 is unlicensed, isn't it?

      850 is licensed, but as long as you have a quad-band phone.....

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    2. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by wfberg · · Score: 1

      900 is unlicensed in the US for certain uses, which do not include GSM. Unlicensed only means that the end-user doesn't need to get an FCC license (and learn morse-code!), but the equipment and use still has to comply with FCC rules. Check here.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    3. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the HLR :)

    4. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how it can be unlicensed for certain uses and not other uses.

      Do you mean it is not unlicensed for GSM because of power requirements?

      Or does GSM occupy more frequency space than is unlicensed in the 900 Mhz band?

      As long as you comply with all FCC rules, you should be able to do GSM in the 900 Mhz band.

      Not that it would necessairly be useful once you did, but still, one could do it, perhaps in your own home or something. I don't know much about any of this, however, so you're probably right.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    5. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by ckulpa · · Score: 1

      You also forgot the 24V DC power plant

    6. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      You don't need a license to operate on the band. Your equipment, however, must be certified to comply with the FCC section 15 rules.

      Google for "Tragedy of the Commons" if everyone were able to cook up wacky RF-based services, nobody would be able to use the spectrum at all -- its bad enough as it is.

      50 years ago, you could hear a 10,000 watt AM station for 1000 miles. Today, you're lucky to get 150.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    7. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by DotComMarky · · Score: 0

      Not all of the 900Mhz band is "unlicensed", however, certain frequencies such as the ones baby monitors, cordless phones, etc use are unlicensed, _howver_ are also secondary usage--or whatever it's called. there is a difference between primary service or user and secondary. I don't know all of the details, but I thought I'd throw that in there.

      --
      It's just me.
    8. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "900" isn't just one frequency. The range 902 to 928 MHz is in fact unlicensed, used mainly for cordless phones and some intra-home video links. The GSM band referred to as "900" is actually something like 930 to 985 MHz; i.e., it doesn't overlie the unlicensed band, and even if you had a real GSM base station in the unlicensed band your GSM cellphone would ignore it.

    9. Re:Yes, but it costs a *lot*. by StormKrow · · Score: 1

      morse code is going the way of the dinosaur...(if it hasn't already), and will no longer be required for the amateur license.

      --
      Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
  18. GSM gateways by papaia · · Score: 1

    May not be exactly what you're looking for, but I am investigating GSM solutions right now, for a slightly different reason: I want to make all my GSM-to-land calls appear "in the network", and eliminate the huge costs associated with cell-to-land calls. Here are a couple of links:
    http://www.westlakecommunications.co.uk/Bluetower. htm
    http://www.qiiq.com/products/productsGoldenGatePRI GSM.htm
    http://www.telular.com/products/product_index.asp? tech=GSM
    http://www.mobilecomms-technology.com/contractors/ gsm/eurotech1/
    (sorry - I did not have the time to "a href" beautify the above)

    --
    == With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
  19. How about POTS? by wintahmoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there an EASY way to route from POTS to VoIP and back? I'd like to be able to call my home phone number from my cell, and then punch in a number which will be dialed via VoIP.

    The same goes for the other way around, when somebody calls my VoIP number, I'd like it to forward the call using my home phone line to my cellphone.

    I know that this is possible, but what's the easiest way to achieve it?

    1. Re:How about POTS? by papaia · · Score: 1

      Somehow related to what you are asking for: I have a cell phone, with $10/month unlimited data plan, on which I have installed Skype. I have reasons to believe that any other VoIP soft-phone solution could be installed, if an appropriate client for the platform existed, thus the "hope" into VoIP that you are asking for.

      My provider could probably never figure out (if he would ever care) how I could keep a consulting business on a minimal dial plan ;)

      --
      == With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
    2. Re:How about POTS? by TheCow · · Score: 1

      Simple, purchase a Sipura 3000. You can register it with Free World Dialup, voicepulse, NuFone, or Asterisk (or anything else that speaks standard SIP). It allows you to dialin from the PSTN and then via a password or not get access to a VOIP network. Very configurable...

      Hope this helps.

    3. Re:How about POTS? by wintahmoot · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks!

    4. Re:How about POTS? by kfuq · · Score: 1

      make a GOTOIF statement that reads the callerid of your cell and sends you to another context/menu

      something like this..

      exten => s,1,Zapateller(answer|nocallerid)
      exten => s,2,Wait(2)
      exten => s,3,Answer
      exten => s,4,PrivacyManager
      exten => s,5,lookupCIDName
      exten => s,6,lookupBlacklist
      exten => s,7,GotoIF($[${CALLERIDNUM} = xxxxxxxxxx]?some:other:context,s,1:8)

      --
      iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
    5. Re:How about POTS? by lophophore · · Score: 1
      Yes. Absolutely. Asterisk is your friend, and can easily do this.

      More people should spend some time nerding out with Asterisk and other free VOIP technology. It's way cool.

      --
      there are 3 kinds of people:
      * those who can count
      * those who can't
  20. Is this what you want? by chill · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://store.voxilla.com/customer/product.php?prod uctid=16136

    Basically, get two phones and a plan with free mobile-to-mobile minutes. Leave one at home in the base station and connect it to Asterisk with a DTA.

    Call home with your mobile, then call again from there to where ever via VoIP. Basically a cell-to-VoIP gateway.

    There is a FAQ somewhere around that explains exactly how to do this.

      -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Is this what you want? by halfelven · · Score: 1

      So, that will only support one conversation at a time. What if I need more than one? (buy more cell phones?)

    2. Re:Is this what you want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES, I thought of this months ago but never really got serious about it. Any chance you can dig up that FAQ?

  21. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by g051051 · · Score: 1

    The article explains how to do what the poster asked for: make a call on the cell phone and route it through asterisk. It looks like the GSM gateway acts as an extension in the Asterisk PBX network, so you should be able to do anything that a locally attached phone is permitted to do (based on configuration). That inclues placing outgoing calls on the land line.

  22. GSM a bit outdated? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0

    I ould not recommend GSM anymore beause, come on, it's a little bit outdated, no? ;)

    I know that some companies want to use wifi as nexgeneration cell phone network. So i would simply look for a wifi-compatible smartphone and a sip-client for it. the rest should be no problem and you would even be able to use oter wifi access points (using encryption of course)

    I guess this will also be my plan for the future, even if i can't put off my tinf^H^H^H^Hnanotube beret because of the poor "all over the place" radiation. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  23. Re:Apparently, not this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, that routes calls through a cell phone. He wants a mini cell tower. He wants GSM to IP, not IP to GSM.

  24. Cheap Calling by xtrvd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have an 'unlimited incoming local calls' feature on my phone, combined with 100 minutes (practically nothing) of outbound calling per month. I pick up my mobile, dial a number, punch in an extension, and then hang up. This process takes about 5-6 seconds.
    After I hang up, my home phone number calls my mobile phone and gives me an IVR (Voice Menu) where I can dial out using VOIP long-distance.

    The call is free, because it looks like an incoming call from my home, but I'm using my home line to make the VOIP call outbound from my cell phone.

    This is my trick; the only inconvenience is that you have to dial a number BEFORE you make outbound calls, but I can live with it. =)

    -Jesse

    1. Re:Cheap Calling by Pandora's+Vox · · Score: 1

      this is pure genius. i am going to go out and by a cellphoen this weekend to do this with.

    2. Re:Cheap Calling by jjhall · · Score: 1

      Are you using Asterisk? If so, would you mind posting your dialplan and associated config information? I have a Nextel phone with free incoming and have thought about doing something similar.

      The other method I thought of for doing this is a WAP page that I can load on my phone's web browser with a simple form. Type in the number, the cell phone rings and then the call is placed to the remote party. This would prevent your "have to dial a number before you make your outbound call" annoyance.

      Jeremy

    3. Re:Cheap Calling by xtrvd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The parts of my extensions conf that you need to know are:
      exten => 123,1,Answer
      exten => 123,2,System(/etc/asterisk/callme)
      exten => 123,3,Hangup

      The 'callme' file is a bash script that looks alittle something like this:

      #!/bin/bash
      sleep 4
      umask 000
      (
                      echo "Channel: IAX2/loginname:password@provider/8885555555"
                      echo "Callerid: Magic"
                      echo "MaxRetries:1"
                      echo "RetryTime: 10"
                      echo "WaitTime: 30"
                      echo "Context: internal"
                      echo "Extension: 444" ; the extension of the IVR
                      echo "Priority: 1"
      ) > /var/spool/asterisk/outgoing/callme.call

      That will wait for 4 seconds before calling the mobile so that you have a chance to hang up after you press '123' after calling in.

      In my example, you use an IVR with the number '444' which forwards to the IVR 'callme-menu' presented as soon as you pick up your cell, here's the part from my extensions for that:

      [callme-menu]
      exten => s,1,Answer ; Answer the line
      exten => s,2,DigitTimeout,5 ; Set Digit Timeout to 5 sec
      exten => s,3,ResponseTimeout,7 ; Set response timeout to 7 sec
      exten => s,4,Wait(2) ; Wait two seconds to make sure speaker is at ear
      exten => s,5,Background(what-are-you-wearing) ; Greeting call
      exten => _9X.,1,SetCallerID(JESSE)
      exten => _9X.,2,Background(pls-wait-connect-call)
      exten => _9X.,3,Goto(outbound,${EXTEN:1},1)
      exten => _9X.,4,Congestion

      I hope this helps you. I think I'll put it on the wiki this weekend so more people can screw the system.

      =)

      -Jesse

    4. Re:Cheap Calling by jjhall · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much. I'll try to get the WAP page functionality working and I'll let you know if I get it to work decently.

      Jeremy

  25. When UMA becomes standard, maybe by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes and No.

    No, in most juristictions, it's illegal to operate your own base station on any of the frequencies supported by GSM (850, 900, 1800, and 1900MHz, I think 450MHz is coming on stream in various places too. But that's also a problem.)

    However, there's a new system called UMA that tunnels the GSM protocols through an IP connection provided by either an 802.11 base station or some form of bluetooth receiver. The system has some limitations in its present form, the major ones being:

    1. Few carriers support it. In the US, practically none do.
    2. Few phones are available that support it. In theory, most bluetooth supporting phones could be made to support it with a firmware update. But that's not likely to happen. I know the UK version of Motorola's RAZR V3 now supports the feature, but it's in a small class of phones and the US version doesn't yet.
    3. Each "base station" has to be registered by the GSM operator, I have NO IDEA why. That means plain old open WAPs in malls wouldn't provide a solution to poor coverage inside them, for instance, and you (probably) couldn't use the system to defeat roaming charges by using a Starbucks WiFi connection in the UK with your Cingular phone.
    It also isn't exactly what you've asked for. It's largely seen as a system to help phone users improve their reception and reduce their dependence on the capacity of the wide range GSM network. It's designed to be seamless, you can start a call on the 802.11 network, step "out of range", and the call will transfer to a nearby GSM tower just as it would if you were going out of range of any other GSM tower.

    By comparison, it looks like you're just after a way to turn a GSM phone into a cordless handset.

    I've covered the system in my journal. It'd be nice to see it better supported, and to see other standards also adopt it such as the CDMA ones. Much of the issues of capacity and poor reception would be dealt with if the system became a standard part of most people's mobile phones.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:When UMA becomes standard, maybe by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Cingular/Bellsouth will start an UMA trial later this year for people with Cingular phone service and Bellsouth DSL, and they'll be able to do UMA in their homes.

    2. Re:When UMA becomes standard, maybe by jodonoghue · · Score: 1

      UMA has only just passed through the standardization process - and in record time, it must be said - so it's no surprise that few devices support it as yet. It's only a matter of time (and unlikely to be a long time at that). It's very much a market driven standard.


      The 'base station' is registered with a GSM network because it uses GSM network components to support billing. Basically it terminates a GSM Gb interterface (which is another way of saying that it looks to a GSM network like a GPRS node), and voice (or other data) is carried as IP packets terminating at an SGSN.


      The UMA design is really quite clever - it will straightforwardly allow almost any IP-capable wireless technology to use the GPRS network and billing components. It would be easy to make an access box which could 'talk' to a CDMA phone, but it doesn't really (at least as currently implemented) map to CDMA as CDMA systems use an IS-41 (or completely different) network design.

    3. Re:When UMA becomes standard, maybe by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      he 'base station' is registered with a GSM network because it uses GSM network components to support billing. Basically it terminates a GSM Gb interterface (which is another way of saying that it looks to a GSM network like a GPRS node), and voice (or other data) is carried as IP packets terminating at an SGSN.
      I still don't really understand this. No GSM (that is, unencapsulated information, as opposed to data encapsulated in IP packets) information is terminated at the WAP, from what I can see. The WAP merely transfers IP packets to and from the handset, and to and from the Internet. The IP packets aren't decoded until they get to the network operator's network.

      If this isn't the case, and the base station really is interpreting the IP packets, then that seems to be a waste as there doesn't appear to be any reason to do so.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  26. Relevant Suggestion by dingletec · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a device called cellsocket that my company uses to connect regular analog telephones up to cellphones. You pick up the phone, hear a dial tone, then dial as you normally would, but it uses your cellphone for the connection. You could possibly connect something like this to your house POTS wiring and use your regular phones in the house while your cellphone sits and charges.

    As far as making VOIP calls, there is the Sipura-3000 which mentions something similar to what you are asking. The manual is located at:
    http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA-3000.pdf/
    You could purchase or set up an Asterisk server for this purpose, integrating a POTS line, Cell line,and various SIP services, etc. That will run into quite a bit of an expense and configuration though. A Digium card Wildcard TDM400P http://www.digum.com/ with a combination of FXO and FXS modules would probably be what you need.

    It's a lot of effort though, and possibly a lot of expense. I would try out the Sipura-3000 and a CellSocket type adapter first. I have 3 Sipura devices so far, and they work nicely, and are fairly easy to set up.

    --
    --dingletec--
    1. Re:Relevant Suggestion by dingletec · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the link on my previous post:

      http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA-3000.pdf

      I also misread your question, I assumed you were asking for something you would use personally.

      I was wrong, obviously.

      --
      --dingletec--
  27. DIY Cell by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Would it be possible to place a GSM transceiver within you home

    This sounds like nothing more than a DIY micro-cell, for people who feel the cell towers provided by the phone company aren't already good enough.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  28. This is old.... by The_Candyman · · Score: 1

    When I worked for L3 (Level 3) almost 5 years ago, we had implimented a similial solution that would let your GSM cell phone turn into a local extension on the PBX. Thus allowing to make various calls such as VoIP, internal (calling another extension) and outgoing calls. Granted I never was around the equiptment, so I couldn't tell you what it was, but just the fact that it was available many moons ago.

    1. Re:This is old.... by julesh · · Score: 1

      I recall visiting IBM's offices in Warwick, UK around '97 or '98; they had something similar then. It certainly isn't a new idea.

  29. nerds by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    This article nerdy... ...even by Slashdot standards.

  30. Seriously now by milktoastman · · Score: 1
    "Would it be possible to place a GSM transceiver within you home that can be tied into Asterisk in a way that would allow you to place calls from your GSM phone across your VOIP connection or though your local landline? "

    Now seriously...listen to yourself...how do you look yourself in the mirror each morning?

    1. Re:Seriously now by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      I do not know if filktoastman is joking or not.

      I will say, though, that this is a fantastic idea for say a construction site type application, or perhaps, if cost effective, (ie: that's the big question here) the home.

      And, yes, it is do-able, and being done, right now.

      Just google on the relevant terms.

  31. WhyGSM? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Why waste all that money on a GSM base station, when a WiFi/3G phone is so much cheaper? And has 10-1000x the bandwidth, with existing protocols, interop'ing with public/friends' hotspots? The Asterisk integration still makes perfect sense, especially when virtualizing one's telecom out of a home server.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  32. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by Trestop · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not really. The GSM gateway discussed is not a GSM cell - its just another GSM client. You can of course call it and be connected to your local PBX - but you'd do so using some GSM operator's cells, which is hardly what the post asked. You seem to be confusing GSM with peer-to-peer radio. I know peer-to-peer is all the rage now, but please, do get a clue.

  33. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by op12 · · Score: 0

    This is like attaching a cellphone to your asterisk.

    I attach disclaimers to my asterisks.

  34. Carriers don't like dual mode by Mobile+Unit+of+the+G · · Score: 1

    I live in a twisty little valley, so my Verizon phone works everywhere I go but home. It wouldn't be worth it for Verizon to put a tower in to serve my valley, because only a handful of people live there.

              European phone carriers have researched the possibility of a dual mode phone that switch from GSM to DECT (digital cordless) depending on what's available, but they never commercialized it. I think they don't want to lose control of their network.

    For people like me, the best answer would be a micro-cell that covers just a few hundred feet around my house. However, business and politics get in the way -- even if Verizon wanted to do it, I have a different carrier for my landline phone.

    1. Re:Carriers don't like dual mode by kju · · Score: 1

      European phone vendor Sagem has in fact marketed a GSM-DECT-Handset called Sagem DMC 830. Was not that successfull, however, mostly due to clumpsy quality. Also the DECT Module took place in the slot for the battery, so only a smaller (on much less lasting) battery was included.

    2. Re:Carriers don't like dual mode by julesh · · Score: 1

      European phone carriers have researched the possibility of a dual mode phone that switch from GSM to DECT (digital cordless) depending on what's available, but they never commercialized it.

      Ahem

  35. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by g051051 · · Score: 1

    He wants to "place calls from your GSM phone across your VOIP connection or though your local landline". You can do that with the gateway as described. Nothing is mentioned about setting up a private cell.

    And how am I confusing GSM with peer-to-peer radio? Why did you feel a need to be insulting, rather than provide useful information?

  36. Simple Solution - Big Payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty easy, you take this:
    http://www.2n.cz/products/gsm_gateways/voip.html

    And add your local equivalent "in network calling/call buddy/unlimited calling partner" plan for the mobile in the field and the SIM card in the gateway device. Your Mobile is now an office line, all unlimited calling to the PBX where the incoming/outgoing calls are handled..

  37. Rethink the problem and use bluetooth. by imagi · · Score: 1

    If it is just being able to make outgoing calls with your cellphone, then why not make them using the bluetooth audio channel that your phone probably supports. Have a look at the software on: http://crazygreek.co.uk/chan_bluetooth
    This allows you to pair your cellphone with your asterisk phone and make outgoing calls via bluetooth.

    1. Re:Rethink the problem and use bluetooth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of a software approach that's unstable, why not a hardware solution. http://www.uniden.com/productpop/00_productpop.cfm ?prd_code=ELBT595 Now I have not tested this gear but if it truly supports any Bluetooth enable handset. Then it would be possible to pair your GSM phone w/ Bluetooth capabilities to the base station. Then while at home you can use the cell phone as an additional handset for your home. Additionally you could just follow this article and find out how he did it using WiFI. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040930. html

  38. Easy to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty easy, you take this: http://www.2n.cz/products/gsm_gateways/voip.html And add your local equivalent "in network calling/call buddy/unlimited calling partner" plan for the mobile in the field and the SIM card in the gateway device. Your Mobile is now an office line, all unlimited incoming calling to the PBX where the incoming/outgoing calls are handled.. or dialing to the pbx and then out...

  39. Eureka by boomgopher · · Score: 1

    I have just integrated an asterix into "GSM":

    GS*M

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:Eureka by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      or... g*sm.

  40. Re:This is old.... NOKIA by maxrate · · Score: 2, Informative
    I remember NOKIA had a solution in '99 for this. We didn't go for it because our office only had 15 people, but it was neat-o.

    You walk into the building and your mobile would switch to pbx mode - local extension at your desk mobile style. Low output power too - no brain tumours.

  41. WiFi in, GSM out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    GSM might be still one of the most common mobile phone standards but it is the fastest declining one, making way to the fastest growing one ever which is WiFi in the flavors of 802.11b/g and very soon WiMax(802.16). Low-cost WiFi phones are already on the market.

    1. Re:WiFi in, GSM out by doubledoh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I think the next truly "killer app" will be global wimax/voip networks. I expect all mobile telecommunications to run over wimax/voip 5 years from now. Think unlimited calls for about 20 bucks a month to anywhere from anywhere.

      --
      I think, therefore I doh.
    2. Re:WiFi in, GSM out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked in the telecom field for over 5yrs.
      and that is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
      VoIP still sucks. and it is probably going to take 5 more years for the industry to get it right. wifi works in the 2Ghz range and the 850Mhz cellular freq goes through buildings easier.

  42. Actually, it won't cost so much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    GSM picocells will become available for home use. The problem, initially, is likely to be that although they'll talk IP over your broadband Internet connection they will be tied to a particular telco (who might even subsidise the hardware, I suppose). And unless the hardware is cryptographically authenticated, I don't expect it would be long before someone came up with an open source basestation controller, at which point what the OP wants would be possible. Spectrum licensing will be taken care of by the picocell vendor. The SIM card is a non-issue.

  43. Ode to illiteracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "within YOU HOME"?

    Oh boy.

  44. PicoCell and NanoCell - No SIP - You Want 2n by killercoder · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with PicoCell and Nanocell is twofold - cost and SIP Compatibility. What you want is something like this device from 2N.
    Voice Blue Lite

    This device is supposed to cost about 3500$ USD (only reference I could find online), and creates a mini-gsm cell backed by a SIP provider. This device has been tested with Asterisk.

    1. Re:PicoCell and NanoCell - No SIP - You Want 2n by kju · · Score: 1

      > and creates a mini-gsm cell backed by a SIP provider.

      Untrue. Reread the documentation provided on the webpage. This device is a client to the GSM network of your provider, like your mobile phone. It will connect to the network and receive calls and distribute them to local or remote (via sip) phones, and vice versa allows to call out over the gsm "phone".

    2. Re:PicoCell and NanoCell - No SIP - You Want 2n by killercoder · · Score: 1

      Before commenting it ain't possible read the link/page I posted. Here are the instructions for setting it up with Asterisk:

      http://www.2n.cz/news/press_releases/voiceblue_w ith_asterisk.html?

      Have a nice day

  45. Picocell by ewieling · · Score: 1

    It's called a Picocell and they are EXPENSIVE. They also require a landline to the carrier and that's EXTPENSIVE too.

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
  46. Look for integration with DECT or Bluetooth by stefanb · · Score: 1

    As many others have pointed out, running your own GSM network is pretty much out of the question, since you wanted to save some money, not brun through a couple million.

    Unsurprisingly, some vendors have already trialled products that allow a GSM handset to be used as a local wireless phone, too. I remember Sagem having one that would double as a DECT handset if in range of the DECT base station, but continue to be booked into the GSM network. More recently, people have put SIP and Skype software on smart phones that communicate with a host PC via Bluetooth or 802.11b/g. I'm too lazy right now to google them.

    As usual, the network operators are not thrilled by technology that drives revenue away from them, so don't expect such things to be easily available from or be possible on handsets from those operators.

  47. Use some imagination, all you naysayers. by hklingon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a general reply to all the +5 comments that are saying stuff like 'picocell' and 'well, you could modify xyz and ... but you'd still need to sign on to the provider's network'

    Look. It is very simple. Take advantage of the 'free calling to other members' most providers offer. I.e. Add a tmobile phone to your plan and make your plan a shared-minutes plan. Get free tmobile to tmoble. Make liberal use of the headset port.

    Take ANY GSM phone that has a good USB and headset interface. A bit of straightforward hacking (as asterisk already supports sound cards for in and outbound sound channels) gets the headset connected to the asterisk box. Now all you need to do is press buttons on the phone.

    Enter the usb interface, basically a com port in disguise. ATDT ring a bell? A lot of phones support this last time I checked. Most motorola phones for sure so you can dial folks in your bluetooth organizer with the click of a wand. Instead, you can just have Asterisk decode the DTMF and (with a dialing rule) when you've dialed 7 or 10 digits, it will encode it as an ATDT string, send to the phone, and connect the audio channels.

    Ta-Da. It works, by the way (though instead of a USB interface I just hacked the keypad interface as it was more convenient for me to do that with the equipment I have. My interface is on a com port and tied together with an Atmel microcontroller FYI I did this initially because I was annoyed I had to pay to call to check my VM on my office phone).

    1. Re:Use some imagination, all you naysayers. by maokh · · Score: 4, Informative
      Instead of taking apart a GSM cell phone, check out some of the (low cost) GSM modules instead.


      Sparkfun.com sells an OEM GSM module kit for $229 which contains antenna, module, PCB, camera, and USB interface. This OEM module, a Telit GM862, has full GSM and GRPS functionality, including audio and camera phone functions. You could easily adapt it to an astrisk system.


      I purchased one of these kits a while back, and you have enough functionality to create your own home-brew cellular phone.

    2. Re:Use some imagination, all you naysayers. by hklingon · · Score: 1

      That is really good to know, and probably great for a long-term solution. I had a low-end nokia I used for free though ;)

    3. Re:Use some imagination, all you naysayers. by |>>? · · Score: 1

      While I admire your reply, you're missing one thing. If there is limited or no mobile phone coverage where you are, this won't work.
      \

      --
      |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno..
    4. Re:Use some imagination, all you naysayers. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i wouldn't call over $200 cheap considering what phones go for

      i guess its a case of which is worth more to you? the time it would take you to hack a cellphone or the extra cost of getting a proper gsm module rather than a cellphone

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  48. I regret ... by Y2 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said, "I regret only that I have but one asterisk for my country"?

    --
    "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
  49. If you were going to do it by Stuart+Ward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The way to do it would be to use a software defined radio (SDR), I know that several manufactors are looking to use SDR for their latest UMTS (3G) basestations, and eventually for the phones as well. http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/ would be a good starting point, but you would need some specilised hardware to work at GSM frequencies.

  50. Well technicaly possible its politicaly nightmaris by zenst · · Score: 1

    We all have mobiles and landlines, and the ease and use of a mobile to dial and make calls does sometimes overide the use of landlines were we can just tap the green button for conveniance. Now with VOIP we have another optional way to save money.

    Now if you could just link the two I wondred and easily... Having thought about it the only neat way (least UK) would be to avail one of these tri-band phones, we use 900/1800 in the UK for networks but alot of phones handle the USA variation of 1900. Hmm what if you had a 1900 base station inyour house (low power) and set that as your preferes network with your normal operator network being next in lone.

    Then anytime your inrange of your house you would be dialing over your landline.

    DOwnsides to this simple (least from handset aspect and ease of use) are many. Main one being illegal use of 1900 frequency I can see and then there is the small aspects of you cant recieve mobile calls unless you get involved diverting calls when out of signal to yoru landline, semi negating the savings.

    Whilst a form of intergrated mobile/landline/VOIP would be neat a mojority of handsets are brought and reso0ld/sold by network operators and as such are dectated spec wise by said operators who amazingly enough seem to like that your kinda tied to making all your call over there networks and to offer break out to PSTN networks would be detramental to there profits. Lets face it there are a fair few handsets that have bluetooth but cant do the full range of profiles so you cant use your mobile as a mic/earpeace setup over bluetooth for VOIP calls. There are hacks but generaly all handsets are basterdised to squash any form of call managment that dont go over the network provider. Handsets locked to networks is mearly the icing on the cake. So many GSM and mobile standards get bastardised due to some factpr or another. 56bit encryption - ew yeah right and lets set x number of those bits to all 0's, you see the issue's. The technology is there and easily doable, as long as the providers can cash in on the market. Maybe when the network providers do landlines/mobiles packages then we might get somewere but then you can bet somebody will cry foul and the big mopnopoly commision gets involved to kill that off eventual due to all the other providers crying foul and slinging mud.

  51. Re:Apparently, yes, Actually,no by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

    Nothing is mentioned about setting up a private cell.

    Well, not in those words. But he did ask about using his normal GSM handset which would connect to a GSM transceiver connected to his asterix pbx, in other words a private cell.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  52. Done that! by directx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have one in the office right now. We have a Nokia GSM transceiver connected to the Asterisk PBX and we can call our VoIP numbers from our cell phones thru the Nokia - savings us a couple of pesos by having cell-to-cell calls instead of cell-to-landlines. The same goes true for VoIP calls to cell phones.

    1. Re:Done that! by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      Please post more details for we Asterisk users who want to replicate.

      Peace. Love. Linux.

      Jason

    2. Re:Done that! by flubbergust · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about these,http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,56023,00.h tml , products? Could please post some more about how this is done with Asterisk?

  53. mod parent up !! (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  54. Bass Ackward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooking a GSM terminal up to Asterisk is totally bass ackwards.

    What you really want is to have a handset that can roam across any available network, be it a private WiFi network or a public GSM/UMTS network.

    Then your don't have to reboot your phone or do something else crazy to get it work. Plus, since the network has to handle IP based calls, it now no longer matters WHAT or WHERE you happen to be making your call from.

    1. Re:Bass Ackward by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      What if you were a hospital and wanted all your doctors & nurses to use ordinary mobile phones to communicate (ie: make recordings, etc, etc) on the internal private PBX.

      This is a good idea, & from the reply posts, not very well understood (yet).

      By the way, Motorola is working on the device you described (as are many manufacturers, I just dont know of them yet).

      Cheers.

      Jason

  55. What about roaming? by genericacct · · Score: 1

    Let's say you have a Cingular phone and SIM. You can roam onto a T-Mobile tower, because Cingular has arranged to have T-Mobile permit it, and they bill your account through Cingular. Now, if you built your own tower (or picocell), you get to decide who accesses it, right? So you could make a list of SIM IDs that are permitted, which could be any of a number of GSM carriers worldwide. You wouldn't have to bill anyone, so you wouldn't have to communicate with their cell provider at all to complete the call.

    It's actually quite clever. The use of the frequencies is where you have to watch yourself. As long as you don't interfere with licensed users, there's a lot you can get away with...

    1. Re:What about roaming? by wfberg · · Score: 1

      The only problem would be authenticating the SIM cards, since you "can't" extract the shared secret key from them; the home network is always the one that authenticates SIMs - using challenge response - during normal roaming.

      You could try your luck with restricting/allowing access on the basis of IMEI number though (though IMEIs are famously spoofable, much like MAC adresses).

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    2. Re:What about roaming? by kaybi · · Score: 1

      except that agreement between T-Mobile and Cingular is no longer valid as part of the Cingular ATTWS merger.

    3. Re:What about roaming? by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      I (T-Mobile) roam on Cingular in some parts of Maine (between Augusta and Bangor on I-95).

  56. *blink* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well i guess terrorist wont be making many calls in the air

    1. Re:*blink* by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      Why wouldnt they?

      We see them using mobile phones to do IED detonations every day in Iraq right now.

  57. I'd advise this device by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    http://accessories.skype.com/item?SID=5d9ba1d6cf62 52723dd960807ee8ad5ac20:4515&sku=3045PH

    and btw, could you let me know how it goes ? I'd love to know how this thing performs ...

    1. Re:I'd advise this device by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

      This is not what the powster is talking about.

      What if you had a hospital and wanted all your doctors & nurses to use ordinary mobile phones to communicate (ie: make recordings, etc, etc) on the internal private PBX.

      This is a good iea & from the reply posts, not very well understood (yet).

      Skype's days are numbered, by the way.

  58. being tested by 3 universities right not by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

    Check out

    http://www.voip-news-net.com/2005/08/verisign_and_ un.html

    for a bit more on this "type" of thing, I dont know if theyre using Asterisk or not, they ought to be though, but this is happening.

    Hopefull this URL will be of use to someone.

    Peace.

    Jason

  59. Re:there's one in every story by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

    No, it does it to any long string. Try posting "thisisaverylongstringwithoutanyspacesorpunctuatio n". It it there to prevent page-widening by very long strings within tables. It's only obvious within URLs, though.

  60. I was wrong... by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

    Apparenly, that changed about 4 months back... Asterisk SS7 support became available in April.