Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swedish Company Trials Peer-to-Peer Cellphones

Posted by Zonk on from the we-can-hear-everybody-now dept.

Dr_Barnowl writes "A company named TerraNet is going through a trial period for a p2p based mobile telephony system. Phones are used to route calls onto other phones, constructing mesh networks of 'up to 20km'. The BBC reports on the natural tendency of the big telecoms providers to want to squash this. I can see other problems though. The advantages in an environment with sparse cell coverage are obvious, but network effects mean that the number of connections in a heavily populated mesh grow exponentially. What happens to your battery life when your phone becomes a node? And while the company is optimistic that they have a viable technology model from IP licensing, the demand for devices supporting this is going to be proportional to the number of devices that it can connect you to."

7 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And... by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > If your phone is a node how easy would it be to listen in on conversations compared to how the phone systems currently work?

    Probably a lot easier for another node to listen in. Probably a lot harder for the Government to listen in, until they write some tracking software.

    Unfortunately for anyone building a P2P wireless mesh network, the way you solve the first problem (casual eavesdroppers) involves crypto of sufficient strength to make government eavesdropping impractical.

    We're therefore presented with a technology that's in the interest of the consumer, but counter to the interests of the telcos and the government. No P2P wireless mesh networks will be permitted to proliferate.

  2. Mesh network thoughts by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been studying mesh networks, including Internet-based ones such as peercast networks, for quite some time. A few things to consider:

    1. The strength of nodes you can connect to should be based on their strength versus others. Strength should be rated by uplink connection speed (is one node connected to the web versus other nodes connected only to other nodes?), power availability (is one node connected to a power supply verses a battery?), recent packet loss history and recent downtime history.

    2. Node saturation: if a node with a lower network latency oversaturated? Connect to a less saturated, higher latency node.

    3. Data needs: are you sending voice/video or data? Real-time connections should take precedence over data, of course.

    The problem is way more complicated than it seems. For me, a perfect mesh/peercast network would allow data to navigate based on need as well as navigate to those who are the strongest nodes. Do current mesh networks consider these ideas? As far as I know, many of them don't.

  3. Power to the masses V0.1? by dysplay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Concerning the author's comment on battery life, could one potentially recycle an old phone to act as a node in this network? Seems many of us get a new one every few years anyway.

    If you can find a way to add privacy, then this could be a great way to return power to consumers and stick it to the man. Or at least have some leverage in convincing major companies to act more consume-friendly. I for one want to see lower prices and the end of the long-distance tax we have now.

  4. GPS by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Put a GPS receiver in each phone, then send location statistics with each call. The company will rapidly discover the optimum positions to place central nodes, reducing the need for phone-based relaying except in fringe areas.

    That and have lots of fun data to send to the NSA...

  5. doesn't sound like a 'new' idea... by PerfectCircle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a couple decades ago there was a lot of DARPA research into autonomous routing and re-configuration in support of then-called 'packet radio' networks.

    It doesn't seem like much more than VoIP over a ham packet radio network, only without having to be a geek to use it :-)

    1. Re:doesn't sound like a 'new' idea... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not familiar with DARPA's research, but I've read quite a few independent research studies on the topic over a decade or more.

      For me, the research is based on the idea of open bandwidth (unlicensed, low government regulation if any) to move towards software radios that can hop frequencies based on sending-power/frequency harmony, power-supply availability, bandwidth-needs, latency-needs and nearby mesh-capability.

      I'm known here as the anti-FCC guy, because my decade+ of study has led me to believe that software radios would be the most beneficial implementation of communication, ever, although it would totally destroy the regulated monopolize market for communications. It's crazy to me to think that bandwidth is wasted on broadcast TV, WiFi, AM/FM radio, etc, when all of those systems can work harmoniously together while still being independent, based on what data is actually transmitted.

      Your "home" telephone/cable/internet connection would quickly find the frequencies it needs based on its upstream link (or links, in a mesh situation), to prioritize what you need for your service. Since you're the one paying for the electricity to send, you could also cap your uplink bandwidth based on what you're willing to pay. Those who need maximum uplink bandwidth may pay significantly more to use a higher output to a uplink node further away with more bandwidth, while those who want "free" connections to the overall stream would have to cap their uplink power needs at a lower level. The receiving node might also be part of a co-op that charges for a connection, or they may be an open node for someone who is happy to share in the mesh. It seems like a virtually possible idea.

      Comcast/T-Mobile/Level3 could make their money by setting up nodes "everywhere" for a cost, while also setting a lower-level acceptance network for no cost to try to get people to see their options. Open source promoters might open their nodes up freely, and at any power level, for anyone, but also have to be willing to pay for their uplink power consumption for those using their systems. Everyone who wants could have QoS caps for unknown connectors, or open their QoS caps for those who are "known" on their network as users sharing their own systems openly, or to people within the same network.

      To me, it sounds like an excellent idea. Those who are in far-off lands without many nodes or many connections are still free to hire communications companies to provide T1/DSL/etc connections to the greater mesh network. In this case, we're talking about the option of meshing, just not wirelessly, and still having a connectino to the rest of the world. How continents connect is one concern, as well as how DNS would operate, but I think both of those answers would be taken care of in a market economy answer rather than a regulated one.

  6. A hybrid solution might be best by willy_me · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the problems with wireless grid networks is the latency involved. Having towers makes for much lower latency. The idea of a call being routed 100km over a grid where the nodes have a max range of 1km is crazy. That's a couple of hundred possible points of failure. The quality just won't be acceptable.

    But what about keeping the towers and just using a grid to connect the nodes that are a little out of range. Now that calls just have to traverse the grid to get to the nearest tower. Potential for error is greatly reduced along with latency.

    Areas with an existing infrastructure would benefit even though there is already full coverage. When one has a poor connection (say, in a basement building) the phone could opt to use the grid to get the message out and to the tower. Overall quality of service would increase.

    Areas without an infrastructure would benefit by requiring fewer towers. The more towers the better the quality of service - but for many areas just getting service is the main concern. In such areas only minimal infrastructure would be required. Additional infrastructure could be added in the future should they want to increase the quality of service.

    In addition, localization (ie, 911) and content monitoring are only minimally effected by such a system. Believe it or not, this is actually a good thing for most people.

    Just an idea,
    Willy