Slashdot Mirror
Connecting Android Phones Without Carrier Networks
After disasters (or to minimize expensive data use generally, and take advantage of available Wi-Fi), bypassing the cell network is useful. But it's not something that handset makers bake into their phones. colinneagle writes with information on a project that tries to sidestep a dependence on the cellular carriers, if there is Wi-Fi near enough for at least some users: "The Smart Phone Ad-Hoc Networks (SPAN) project reconfigures the onboard Wi-Fi chip of a smartphone to act as a Wi-Fi router with other nearby similarly configured smartphones, creating an ad-hoc mesh network. These smartphones can then communicate with one another without an operational carrier network. SPAN intercepts all communications at the Global Handset Proxy so applications such as VoIP, Twitter, email etc., work normally."
I doubt the tyrants who control them will like that very much.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But in an ad-hoc mesh network made up of mobile phones, movement and changes are a constant factor, making the burden of maintaining reliable routing information difficult enough to a inspire a new routing project, called the Better-Approach-To-Mobile-Adhoc-Network (BATMAN).
The GODDAMN BATMAN!
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Warner owns the trademark for BATMAN, and I'm guessing this trademark is probably famous to qualify for dilution protection.
As far as i know only T-Mobile in the USA can use it. It is a nice feature when you are in a poor coverage area. Or traveling internationally.
That only works on rooted phones
Why wait for an disaster?
I won't go into details, you all know how to use Google. Most major manufacturers build in the ability to activate a smartphone without a carrier network, you just have to know the secret handshake. It's in there for testing. The wireless providers don't like you doing it, but the handset manufacturers don't care.
I doubt my battery on my phone will like it when you all download torrents off my unlimited bandwidth plan, or anyone else that walks near you. Once people start receiving those six strikes letters they will turn the feature off.
Let's see... an unprotected ad-hoc network that lets any and all traffic through. What could possibly go wrong?
#DeleteChrome
We already have http://www.servalproject.org/ available on google play.
While we are at it, can we make cell phones support WiFi for phone calls?
The phones already have the hardware to do this. People could make calls from places where cell reception sucks but they had Wifi internet. It would also reduce the burden on cell towers as people eliminate landlines and use their cell phones at home, where they probably already have WiFi routers. It also would eliminate the need for those stupid microcells: you could just use your regular wi-fi router for calls without needing to pay for their box.
If you're close enough to have an ad-hoc network on the crappy wifi signal a phone has, you're close enough to not need to use your phone to talk to them.
2) I thought the whole advantage of an Android phone is that it was not locked down like an iPhone, so could always be used to as a router to accept connections, i.e. tethering. That is what the ads and everyone on /. says when they say that iPhones suck.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Will there be a law against this faster than it can be implemented?
You mean that you're creating an internet of wireless devices. It's mostly useless, or at least just a curiosity or specialty tool, until it hits critical mass. Then it becomes a parallel internet, but requiring proximity to the network peers. It will even have a functional equivalence, as everybody in the middle of nowhere will still be fucked, but if you're clustered in a population hub, the connectivity will allow high bandwidth applications.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The project runs on Linux and on Nokia's N900 and N9 phones. I'm looking for help to port it to Symbian, Android, and iOS devices.
Yes, Android can tether, but that's not the point of this project. Standard tethering is mostly a spoke-hub type of model, where one user acts as the access point and others use said access point. The SPAN project appears to be about using WiFi to set up a mesh network when other means of communication are unavailable, so that everyone in the mesh can communicate to peers (or, if at least one user has access to the Internet, to anyone anywhere). This would allow for a much larger area of coverage when traditional networks are down. TFA references the events following the Haiti earthquakes as a potential use case. There are many possible issues to consider such as security, nodes moving around or dropping out of the network, etc.; but this still seems to be a pretty interesting new use of technology. I'll certainly give it a try.
This concept is very much like HMSS ad-hock mesh networks used in ham radio. Self-discovering, auto-configuration, and self-healing. Except we use old linksys routers, instead of cell phones, and operate under different FCC rules. YMMV
i was gong to suggest buying a linksys router and some netbooks or tablets, but agencies might not want to buy extra equipment; they want to use existing smartphones. although after a disaster internet access can be overloaded or even completely cut off. if an emergency agency wants internet access when there is little or no wifi or 2g/3g/4g cell phone service, they could use satellite internet. hookup a dual band g02.11 a/b/g/n router to the satellite modem. but satellite internet could be expensive. just a thought.
From the article: "Each smartphone in the network can operate up to about 100 feet away from its nearest neighbor. VoIP works over up to 5 hops."
By my maths, that gives phone calls over about 500 feet (152 metres). Point to point communication using cheap PMR446 radios would do a better job if the mobile network went down, with a range of up to a few kilometres in open space and a few hundred metres in the city (though channel collisions might be more of an issue than with VOIP over wifi). These are as cheap as £15 for a pair. Heck, I could probably just about shout over 150 metres :oP
I will grant that the key benefit of this approach is that it works with the phone you have, and working with the equipment you have is pretty much the only option for communication for the general populace in an emergency (such as the earthquake in Haiti that motivated this work). However, you would need to have a suitable ad-hoc VOIP system that can run on a local (not connected to the internet) network and ideally connect using mobile phone numbers as VOIP identities (a bit like a distributed version of Viber).
However, the article notes that the mobile infrastructure was still operational, just overwhelmed by sheer weight of traffic. It is therefore also likely that some internet connectivity remained as both often rely on similar backhaul connectivity. In this case, having phones that can connect to the mobile network via wifi access points (e.g. UMA) would also have helped, assuming that the network "crash" was a bandwidth or connection density issue and not a crash of the backend subscriber management systems. Orange in the UK have this technology deployed, but the number of compatible handsets is very low. As pointed out by others, offloading a portion of calls and data over internet connections makes sense for the operators in non-disaster conditions too, reducing contention for limited bandwidth. I for one would like to see UMA technology become standard in all wifi capable smartphones.
never heard of ham radio. did a search and found the American Radio Relay Leauge. http://www.arrl.org/what-is-amateur-radio
thought ham was related to a cut of meat in this instance. lol
thanks for teh info.
Lol, hacker pupae.
https://github.com/ProjectSPAN is actually where the SPAN code is hosted. The repo listed is outdated and really just for conference presentation materials. Thanks for the interest and or hate. - @m0nk_dot
This, in conjunction with a solar charger, would make a nice addition to anyone's emergency kit.
Walkie Phonies!
My car will bluetooth pair with a phone, and then I can get network access through the phone's data plan.
But, I don't want a phone, dammit. If I had a phone, people would call me. I get enough of that nonsense at work!
All I want is the ability to use my home wifi on the car console when I'm sitting in my driveway. Without paying any monthly bills other than the one I'm already paying for my home Internet connection.
Ask an amateur radio operator how to do it.
They've been actively helping in disaster situations since the early 1900s, digitally since the 70s.
So unless someone wants to patent an idea, just ask old HAMs for excellent working designs and units; it's a quick set of technological changes to use WiFi handheld devices.
Mine has it. I also have a service ( which will remain nameless so they don't get slammed ) where i get 1000+ minutes free a month ( which i don't use, as i don't normally call people voice ). AND it ties to my Google number so its all part of the same ecosystem. ( for better or worse.. i have tossed my eggs in the Google basket. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau
I'm trademarking this word right now.
He wants it to work with the regular phone dialing mechanism, not by firing up the Skype app and dialing from there.
After all, two people might be able to have a conversation without it getting routed through Langley first.
Reminds me of the Serval Batphone. In fact, this sounds like a slightly more ambitious version of the exact same premise (Disaster area phone-to-phone [heh, P2P] communication via mesh).
No he didn't miss the point...
I installed a wifi calling app (fongo - Canada ) and now when I dial a number on the regular phone pad it asks me if I want to use cellular, fongo or skype.
I haven't set it to choose one automatically yet.. getting my kicks in the meantime.
It made me realize that my phone is really just a computer with a cell radio that a program can use to make calls.
Don't tell me your fancy new phone can't run apps in the background.. what's this about "firing up" ? Just don't use Skype.. better options exist.
I'm guessing this trademark is probably famous to qualify for dilution protection.
it's not relevant here. It hasn't got anything to do with comic book characters.
A trademark deemed "famous" is protected from "dilution", or use by other parties even in unrelated fields of use.
isn't it a shame that the term has been around since long before the comic book was ever thought of?
What trademark law cares about with respect to priority is the "first use in commerce", that is, whether the term has been used as the distinctive name of a product or service. Did the first use of "Batman" in commerce occur before May 1939, when Detective Comics #27 was first published?
I don't want to use cellular, Fongo, or Skype. I want to use the existing regular dialing app, connecting through WiFi, to my router, to AT&T's service running on AT&T's servers. They have such servers, but the only software that connects to them is the software on the microcells that AT&T sells.