Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Tech Providing Mobile Communications In Developing Nations
An anonymous reader writes "A village in the West Papua central highlands runs a telecom network out of a box latched to a tree. The network runs on open source. 'OpenBTS, an all-software cellular transceiver, is at the heart of the network running on that box attached to a treetop. Someday, if those working with the technology have their way, it could do for mobile networks what TCP/IP and open source did for the Internet. The dream is to help mobile break free from the confines of telephone providers' locked-down spectrum, turning it into a platform for the development of a whole new range of applications that use spectrum "white space" to connect mobile devices of every kind. It could also democratize telecommunications around the world in unexpected ways. ... It is a 2G GSM system with two operating channels (GSM absolute radio-frequency channel numbers, or ARFCNs) in the 900MHz range, putting out 10 watts of signal power from an omnidirectional antenna. That gives the system a range of about five kilometers under ideal conditions, but in reality it averages about a three kilometer range because of vegetation and terrain (1.86 miles to 3.10 miles). The whole system is installed in a weatherproof box up a tree and draws less than 80 watts of power.'"
Because TFS claims this could revolutionize the world by letting mobile 'break free' from restricted spectrum.
Meanwhile, back in reality, in heavily congested areas you're lucky to get a signal twenty meters using omnidirectional antennas and public spectrum. And it would be even worse if power restrictions didn't keep transmission range short.
I realize Slashdot caters to the Libertarian fringe, but the whole reason we have 'locked-down spectrum' is to avoid the tragedy of the commons scenario that occurs when devices interfere at random and everybody keeps kicking the power higher and higher trying to shout over the crowd until the spectrum is no good to anyone.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
In plenty of remote or rural areas of the United States there's little to none mobile coverage. As large carriers are reaping profits from high speed networks in populated areas they don't care a lot about a few potential subscribers at a farm.
I have no problem with this technology. It could open up many small rural communities not "worth" reaching by conventional systems, and for that I applaud it.
But even many developing countries have high population density, and a disorganized system running on a narrow frequency band will quickly run into problems of scale.
And the summary's grandiose claims that this technology could "do for mobile networks what TCP/IP and open source did for the Internet...help mobile break free from the confines of telephone providers' locked-down spectrum...democratize telecommunications around the world" are patently ridiculous.
To use the /.-approved Vaguely Relevant Car Analogy(tm):
A village in the West Papua central highlands has built their own road. Despite being made of smoothed dirt and barely wide enough for one vehicle, it meets the needs of the twenty-some villagers. Proponents of the technology claim these independent 'dirt roads' could help free transit from the grip of the heavily regulated national road networks, and may soon democratize travel around the world.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?