Where Cellular Networks Don't Exist, People Are Building Their Own

New submitter TechCurmudgeon writes: According to a story at Wired, towns in Mexico that aren't served by the nation's telecom monopoly are taking matters in their own hands with the help of a non-profit and open source technology. "Strategically ignored by Mexico's major telecoms, Yaee is putting itself on the mobile communications grid with the help of a Oaxaca-based telecommunications non-profit called Rhizomatica." A locally-made tower is the backbone of Yaee's first cellular network. The town's network is composed of two antennas and an open-source base station from a Canadian company called NuRAN. Once Yaee gets the tower installed and the network online, its 500 citizens will, for the first time, be able to make cell phone calls from home, and for cheaper rates than almost anywhere else in Mexico.

Comments

what about spectrums rights?

[schlachter]

i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[ITRambo]

The linked article states "Armed with an experimental concession from the Mexican government that grants Rhizomatica access to coveted cellular spectrum all over the country," So, yes existing mobile companies care in Mexico. The government is not catering to them, but to the needs of it's citizens in sparsely populated areas. NIce.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine some of the cartels might if they use this network to resist them.

Which will be an ongoing problem into the foreseeable future until the western world wakes up, stops making excuses, and legalizes recreational drug use.

If the drug prohibition actually worked, the Zetas and others wouldn't have the funds to buy those rifles and grenades. It isn't working. Time to recognize that and move on to something that might work. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. The worst insanity is institutionalized insanity.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[SternisheFan]

Crime has gone down dramatically since pot was made legal in Colorado.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[IcyWolfy]

According to the latest Dec 2014 Reports in Colorado, they brought in $44 million for the time period 2014-01 to 2014-11.
Which although less than the planned 65 million (Nov brought in $7m so Dec could bring the total to $52 assuming monthly upward trend continues), is still a lot of revenue to fund schools, improve infrastructure and enforcement.

Though one still has to wonder how many cartels own pot dispensaries now :D

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[afidel]

The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.

Re:what about spectrums rights?

[Trailer Trash]

The other thing is that they are also freeing up a tremendous amount of tax dollars from the general fund by not arresting, trying, and housing non-violent drug offenders. My guess would be those savings absolutely dwarf the tax revenue. Also there's a societal benefit, fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs which should lead to a higher GDP.

Exactly! People don't seem to realize that jailing someone hurts the country twice - first in the direct costs to jail them ($20K/year and up) and second in the lost productivity since they can't contribute to the GDP. We have a GDP of $17T with 350M people. Or, a GDP of $17,000,000M with 350M people which works out to $48,500 per person. If jail costs the low end of $20K per year we're paying 2.5 times that much in lost productivity. The costs are staggering. Of course not everybody in jail would contribute to the GDP but there's no reason to believe that pot smokers wouldn't.

We need to seriously take that into consideration when looking at the best options to punish people for crimes, and when looking at what activities need to be punished in the first place.

Re: what about spectrums rights?

[Opportunist]

I'm torn between agreeing on the topic of what drugs to approve and which ones to keep illegal, but I can't agree to that statement: Somewhere you have to draw the line.

No you don't. There is no inherent logic in this statement. You do not HAVE to draw the line all the time somewhere. And even if you decide that you want to draw the line somewhere, why does my line have to be at the same place?

Moderation sure is a good thing and I tend to disagree with most radical, all-out suggestions, they're usually going overboard with something. But saying that WE we have to draw the line somewhere is simply not true. WE don't. You might, but who said I do? We also don't HAVE TO because, again, where you draw your line is by no means where I'd put mine.

Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow

[bill_mcgonigle]

The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts.

But the purpose of a government is to privatize profits and socialize risks. Other arrangements don't require violence to back them.

But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.

There's never been a permanent government in the history of the human race.