Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First Voice Call From a Free GSM Stack

Posted by timothy on from the but-it-takes-more-than-a-pdf-exploit dept.

zycx writes "As Dieter Spaar has pointed out in a mailing list post on the OsmocomBB developer list, he has managed to get a first alpha version of TCH (Traffic Channel) code released, supporting the FR and EFR GSM codecs. What this means, in human readable language: He can actually make voice calls from a mobile phone that runs the Free Software OsmocomBB GSM stack on its baseband processor. This is a major milestone in the history of the project."

65 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. GSM Full Rate patent by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought the GSM voice codecs were patented by Philips, as described in this page about an otherwise Free implementation of GSM FR.

    1. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No idea, but (a) that isn't what this is about, and (b) GSM-FR audio codecs have been distributed with free and proprietary audio packages for years.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is in fact the main codec used in most of my Asterisk systems. The implementation is 100% Free Software. Is it patent-free? No. But nobody has sued anybody so far, mainly because the big guys don't see its use in VoIP as a threat to their big-ass systems used in GSM networks. Now, this might be a different situation.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    3. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Codec patents are not legal everywhere. And the places where they are not legal will probably have a monopoly in a lot of awesome things that are to come.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Think an open source phone that can't have all it's data downloaded by the authorities. Or maybe a phone that you can change everything about. No more vendor lock bullshit.

    5. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      Philips might claim that their patent covers it, but only a court can make this determination.

      If we are going to talk about software and patents, then just about every bit of software in the world potentially infringes some patent, so it is hardly notable to say that this bit of software does.

      What is notable about the project is not the codecs, but the integration of a full GSM stack.

    6. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Almost right. You would also need an bunch of open-source cell towers and an open-source backbone network to connect them together and to the rest of the telcos, nevermind a rackstack full of licenses to operate all that.
      Leave anything in that list up to chance (read: COTS or outsourced) and you're back to square one: the Feds, foreign spyops and/or crooks _will_ have a way in. ...Oh yeah, you also need a platoon of volunteers to patrol all your cell sites and backbone 24/7 to keep the rodents, copper thieves, spies and crooks away from your gear.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    7. Re:GSM Full Rate patent by mikiN · · Score: 1

      whoops, think I misread GP's post when I typed up that sarcastic reply.

      To prevent your phone's data from being downloaded, you don't necessarily need an open source baseband, you just need to tightly control its communication with the rest of the OS. Turn it into a black box with just the antenna, power, dialing control, audio and a data channel connected to it. Get rid of the tight coupling with the OS already.

      Don't get me wrong, IMO open-source baseband software is uber-cool, but the Feds will never willingly approve its use on the mobile networks, they're just too brittle.

      Imagine what would happen when cool doodz start swapping millions of working ESN / MEID or IMEI / MSN / SIM data combos on the pirate bay? Instant telecommunications mayhem.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  2. Pardon me, but.... by WED+Fan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pardon me, but what does this really mean? Does this mean that we could develop our out cell phones, a kind of born unlocked? Would this allow us to create our own devices that include GSM without relying upon the industry providing us feature sets we don't want or need?

    Is this really historic, or just a really nerdy, geeky milestone?

    In other words: What will this do for me?

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Pardon me, but.... by pyr0r0ck3r · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I'm reading correctly, yes, eventually you could roll your own phone using completely open source stuff - hw and sw. What I'm less clear on is how the signal is being carried. Granted, I didn't read too in depth, but you still need a carrier to allow your phone on their network, no?

      --
      theres no place like 127.0.0.1
    2. Re:Pardon me, but.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What this means is that it is now theoretically possible to have a phone with zero closed source code. So far all phones have had at least proprietary radio module code.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Pardon me, but.... by tepples · · Score: 1

      you still need a carrier to allow your phone on their network, no?

      You must have GSM confused with CDMA2000. In GSM, as I understand it, carriers don't allow handsets on their network; they allow SIMs on their network.

    4. Re:Pardon me, but.... by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      You subscribe to a carrier and put the SIM card in your unlocked phone.
      At least this is how it works in Europe.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    5. Re:Pardon me, but.... by Gruturo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must have GSM confused with CDMA2000. In GSM, as I understand it, carriers don't allow handsets on their network; they allow SIMs on their network.

      Not quite. The phone has to be allowed as well, its maker and model are sort of embedded in its IMEI and there are blacklist (not just for stolen handsets, but also for models with critical radio flaws which would not work or even disrupt the network in their vicinity while operating).

      --

      Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
    6. Re:Pardon me, but.... by jack2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your phone could just LIE about it's IMEI, as i see it if it's all open source you can make it return whatever IMEI you want.

    7. Re:Pardon me, but.... by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bet you can fake the IMEI if you control the GSM stack.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    8. Re:Pardon me, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The GSM frequency bands are licensed spectrum. You can not legally operate a DIY device on these frequencies without prior approval of the license holders. (There is a loophole: some of the frequencies used for GSM in Europe overlap with amateur radio frequencies in the US, but then you have to operate your own "network" as well, not just the handset.)

    9. Re:Pardon me, but.... by tepples · · Score: 1

      You can not legally operate a DIY device on these frequencies without prior approval of the license holders

      As I understand it, the license holders are the carriers. I searched Google for get handset approved on t-mobile, but I couldn't find anything relevant.

    10. Re:Pardon me, but.... by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is illegal in some places, such as the UK.

    11. Re:Pardon me, but.... by JuniorJack · · Score: 1

      According to the wiki, it could be used only with openbts due to legal obstacles - FCC licensing and so on

    12. Re:Pardon me, but.... by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      If you start working on that phone now, you might even get a few months use out of it once you're finished. Don't expect too many GSM networks to still be around in a few years time.

    13. Re:Pardon me, but.... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that we could develop our out cell phones, a kind of born unlocked?

      Which you can get all day long now from china wholesalers, who can afford to build the devices. ( setting up to produce devices like a cell phone isn't exactly trivial ) Sounds more like just 'cool factor' to me unless I'm misunderstanding something.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    14. Re:Pardon me, but.... by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you start working on that phone now, you might even get a few months use out of it once you're finished. Don't expect too many GSM networks to still be around in a few years time.

      Keeping GSM turned on is the only way that can AT&T's Christo-inspired TV commercial can claim 97% coverage. There's no way that AT&T will have UMTS everywhere and that even the cheap GoPhone handsets will support UMTS by the time it deploys LTE.

    15. Re:Pardon me, but.... by schnell · · Score: 1

      Here's AT&T's handset approval and certification process as an example, and here is Verizon's. Nearly all carriers around the globe have them - some are very rigorous and demanding, while others are not much more than checking your CTIA and [your country's version of the FCC] radio performance certifications.

      Regarding your specific example of T-Mobile USA - their certification process is known to be really easy, which makes things less onerous for handset developers but also doesn't catch sometimes serious bugs and issues like the Nexus One 3G problems. AT&T and Verizon have much more rigorous device certification processes (more of a PITA but better QA), and Sprint is somewhere in between.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    16. Re:Pardon me, but.... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      All those data & authorisation are accessed via applications running on what is really a smart card.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:Pardon me, but.... by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's illegal only if you get caught. Which, if you don't cause significant billing or technical anomalies, is rather infinitesimally low chance. I'd say well-worth the risk.

    18. Re:Pardon me, but.... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that this "open phone" still needs a SIM issued from the carrier, like AT&T or T-Mobile?

      The phone also has to have an IMEI that the carrier recognizes, which means it can't be generated arbitrarily by this open phone, right? If so, can I clone the IMEI from a phone the carrier issued to me over to the open phone?

      And will this stack run on an Android phone?

      Other than those two dependencies, could I just switch over to an open phone I install on an Android phone available today?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Congratulations! by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like a pretty impressive feat. Shows that talented, dedicated individuals collaborating in a small group are still by far the most effective way to create software. All that "process" and "management" BS can do is decrease the performance of talented people. And with untalented ones, the final product will always suck, no matter what "process" or "management method" is used.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF are you smoking? This is open source catching up with what proprietary software has done for YEARS. And sorry but,

      All that "process" and "management" BS can do is decrease the performance of talented people.

      [citation-required]

      so agreed. he was just pandering to an attitude very common on slashdot and got rewarded with plus mod points

  4. Got more links about GSM patents? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you've any other links, I'd like to add them here:

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GSM

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
  5. First Call by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Mr Stallman, come here, I want to see you!".

    1. Re:First Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As far as I know, the primary reason why rms doesn't have a cell phone is because he doesn't want to be tracked , and not because it contains non-free software (though that may be an additional reason...):

      Police in the US use cell phones to track people's movements, real time. They can collect records of your past movements without meeting even the usual standard for a search warrant. Now courts are considering whether they must meet that standard for real-time tracking.

      This is why I do not have a cell phone: I don't want to give the police a record of everywhere I go. It's not that I have something specific to hide; rather, it's my duty as a citizen to resist the total surveillance state.

    2. Re:First Call by OutputLogic · · Score: 1

      Somebody is calling from a stack of free GSM

    3. Re:First Call by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this way of bootstrapping Stallman into phones could work - how will ge answer the first call?

      (yes, yes, POTS - but I imagine you have to search nowadays to find a phone which doesn't have some closed firmware)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:First Call by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Meh. I have a mobile phone and mainly leave it in my house when I go out, unless I am actively expecting a call. The police are welcome to track it - maybe if I decide to become a criminal I can use it as an alibi...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:First Call by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You can't be tracked if the phone is turned off... (heck, it doesn't even need to have a SIM card; still useful in emergency situations)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:First Call by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Is this the same phone that still dials 911 when off? Or do you remove the battery when you don't want to use it? (And looked inside it for another.)

    7. Re:First Call by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Turning it on for 112 is not so hard. And don't believe in too many conspiracy stories...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:First Call by OldeClegg · · Score: 1

      rofl wild applause!

  6. IMEI blacklisting practices by tepples · · Score: 1

    its maker and model are sort of embedded in its IMEI and there are blacklist (not just for stolen handsets, but also for models with critical radio flaws

    Thanks for pointing this out. But every time I searched Google for gsm imei blacklist plus some other keywords, there were so many results about stolen handsets that I couldn't find any related to radio problems. Can you provide a reference or other keywords that would help me learn more about how carriers manage their IMEI blacklists?

    1. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by Gruturo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The white/black/grey lists are held in the EIR (Equipment Identity Register), which may or may not exist at all (it's optional, some providers don't have one) and is sometimes integrated within the HLR

      This is an explanation (a bit dated, but still) of how to decode manufacturer code, country code, approval code etc from the IMEI: http://www.cellular.co.za/ieminumbers.htm

      More info (just relevant stuff which came up googling "imei hlr eir"):
      http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/wireless/TCH_WIR/612218-35166861
      http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/wireless/TCH_WIR/608687-35166861
      http://www.wordiq.com/definition/HLR#EIR

      Brief description of the (global?) IMEI DB at the gsmworld site: http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/programmes-and-initiatives/fraud-and-security/imei_database.htm

      --

      Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
    2. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by tepples · · Score: 1

      Thanks for mentioning EIR. I learned that the EIR splits IMEIs into three categories: black, gray, and white categories. Black IMEIs are supposed to be stolen or known to cause network problems, gray IMEIs are supposed to be those that may cause minor problems, and white IMEIs are supposed to be those certified by the network operator. What remains is how GSM networks, including the two major U.S. GSM networks, would classify unknown makes and models: would they be gray by default or black by default?

    3. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by J+Isaksson · · Score: 1

      Not black at least, I've been roaming with various European model cell phones while visiting the US without any problems.

    4. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Matters not. The IMEI is typically controlled by the radio firmware, not hardware, AFAIK. If you're writing your own firmware stack, it should be trivial to lie and claim to be supported hardware, and there's really very little the carrier can do about it (except in countries where doing so is illegal, of course).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by HybridJeff · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge whitelist phones are normally those branded and sold by the provider, greylist phones would include all unlocked devices ported for other providers and blacklisted devices are usually those reported as stolen or disabled for other reasons (for example if your provider provides a subsidized or free replacement for a phone you claim is broken).

    6. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you're writing your own firmware stack, it should be trivial to lie and claim to be supported hardware, and there's really very little the carrier can do about it (except in countries where doing so is illegal, of course).

      Brushing aside the legality of the misrepresentation, what could the carriers do about it? The only thing that I can think would be that they would have to implement a whitelist of known-good phones (individual phones, not phone models) and to check for duplicate appearances (so that if phone X appears in two separate places at once, one or both of them gets banned). That would imply either a severe (unacceptable) restriction on roaming, or regular checking of multi-billion record long databases. Non-trivial.

      The consequences when a new model - or even a simple new phone - comes out ... some sort of administrative registration process to get the numbers into the whitelist, wait for all copies of the database to be updated? Not good.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:IMEI blacklisting practices by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by 'unknown'.

      Unknown to the carrier is a no-brainer, they must be able to admit imported phones on their network (unless they sell only sim-locked contracts and allow no inbound roaming).
      I believe (haven't checked fully) that IMEIs for all GSM phones need to be registered with a central database before they're released into circulation at all.

      Depending on strictness, unregistered devices may not be allowed on the network at all (India) or be very restricted in available features.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  7. I live in USA, you insensitive clod! by tepples · · Score: 1

    Codec patents are not legal everywhere.

    I can't think of any company whose customers all have the finances to emigrate from software patent countries.

    1. Re:I live in USA, you insensitive clod! by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Why emigrate yourself when your phone (or other device) can become an immigrant, even if illegal? I think it is called a mail order.

  8. Well by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the all-knowing Wiki: "phase I of the GSM specifications were published in 1990"

    So, depending on your point of view:

    - it's taken 20 years to implement something that had a published standard and worldwide, cheap hardware examples used by millions of people every day.

    - the standards took 20 years for an outsider to be able to implement them independently.

    And we're still only talking alpha code with specialised hardware.

    1. Re:Well by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's been done dozens of times before.

      By people who had proprietary knowledge enabling them to use the hardware properly, and hardware to do it on.

      The software is not that special, and the system isn't either.

      It's constructing the electronics that are capable of doing all the things needed to get the job done that slows you down.

      Big companies have $billions to invest in making complex micro-gadgets that they can sell for a $thousand each other big companies who can find millions of little people to rent them for a $hundred a month to send sexts and tweets. You expect things to get done in that business model.

      People with the word "free" in their corporate charter, not so much.

      Besides, there were other things we wanted to get done.

    2. Re:Well by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the reasons it took 20 years is that for most of that time, you had to be (or pay) both a hardcore software dev guy and a hardcore RF guy to even think about trying. Now, GNU Radio and other low-cost SDR platforms have largely taken care of the RF side. That is something that will remain true no matter what kind of obscure protocols the carriers adopt for their next generation phones.

      Put another way, it's now just another software problem, and we all know how much that changes the development picture. Instead of 100 basement hackers around the world with the means to tackle problems like this, there are now 10,000,000.

  9. What could cause a 20 year delay ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... perhaps the first patents expired.

  10. New Famous Words? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

    'Herr Watson--hergekommen--Ich möchte Sie sehen.'

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  11. Mr Watson by PPH · · Score: 1

    Can you hear me now?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Unleash, the patent lawyers! by gnarlin · · Score: 1

    You can bet your sweet ass that ass soon ass this software stack gets stable and usable for normal people there will be swarms of lawyers from the big telecoms attacking this project.

    --
    A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    1. Re:Unleash, the patent lawyers! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The GSM spec was published 20 years ago, and will count as prior art to anything in it that wasn't patented before it was published, so it's unlikely that there are any patents outstanding in GSM...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:So what this means is by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    I love how whenever someone does something fricken awesome, like makes a way for you to set up your own phone network for free minus hardware there's always some dumb shit on slashdot ready to poop poop the whole thing.

  14. I would like to say: by tigerbody1 · · Score: 1

    Congralations to the team!

  15. Re:GPL IS *NOT* "FREE SOFTWARE" !!! by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

    You mean the GPL? That would be free software for the end user, no restrictions. If you become a distributor, then there are certain reasonable restrictions. So long as you don't distribute the code, you can do anything else you want with it anywhere, any time. Certainly that doesn't qualify as 'many limits', nor does it even apply to the user.
      Users are better served by the GPL. Distributors (particularly commercial distributors) arguably are better served by BSD/Apache-like licenses such as you reference.

    --
    -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  16. Re:So what this means is by sznupi · · Score: 1

    I would be a bit surprised if GSM goes away anytime soon. Most of the world is still on it, not even on 3G/UMTS - I expcet this one to go away sooner, replaced with LTE when all handsets (used by those who care about bandwith) will have it.

    But GSM...it looks like one of those "good enough" things, especially if you want to maintain wide coverage.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  17. Phreaking by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A new era of phreaking is just around the corner, with commodity hardware, free software, and the will to continue to hack service networks. We're not there yet, but it is looking more and more like we may get there. Not a modern day equivalent of the good ol' blue box yet, but we'll keep trying.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  18. This is illegal, you know by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why emigrate yourself when your phone (or other device) can become an immigrant, even if illegal?

    Because this is illegal, you know. You're out of pocket $200 for a product that got confiscated at the border.

  19. Legal schmegal... by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    The customs are a bunch of idiots who cannot recognize an op-amp from an ADC if they'd've stepped on a DIP one pins-up, barefoot. If they weren't, they wouldn't be working as low-level drones. Just get an offshore friend to take the thing apart and ship it declared as spare parts (send the plastic housing shell as a separate shipment, so the recognizable parts won't attract undue attention to the important parts), or get somebody to carry it in a luggage as a personal possession when traveling in. Works virtually every time.

  20. Re:So what this means is by silanea · · Score: 1

    With an open source GSM access point to go with your open source GSM stack you can create your own GSM network, both towers and handsets - if you can afford to ignore frequency spectrum regulations and and patent issues. Think developing countries that want to roll their own gear and not let foreign companies take their market. And GSM will be around for a long time. You would not believe what kinds of devices use it to communicate. Even if all handsets switched to UMTS today there should be sufficient demand to keep GSM alive, albeit not with today's coverage and probably with higher charges.

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.