Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the teach-a-man-to-mobile-and-he'll-tweet-for-the-rest-of-his-life dept.

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.

23 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. what about spectrums rights? by schlachter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:what about spectrums rights? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      In point of fact, the company that sold this town its base-station has legal rights to the spectrum they're selling, granted by the Mexican government.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:what about spectrums rights? by ITRambo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:what about spectrums rights? by c · · Score: 2

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

      I imagine if you did this in the USA, you'd get sued for not waiting for the nearest local incumbent to provide the service.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:what about spectrums rights? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    5. Re:what about spectrums rights? by barbariccow · · Score: 2

      I recall colorado and washington reporting that they didn't get near as much as they thought from the taxing of marijuana.

      I've heard this topic discussed on radio. The conclusion was that Colorado had to set the "expectation" very high in the bill, otherwise if they exceeded that number they would have "overtaxed" and had to surrender the money. It is future-proofing it.

    6. Re:what about spectrums rights? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    7. Re:what about spectrums rights? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:what about spectrums rights? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Really? If my company started drug testing I'd be SO out of there in a minute. Not 'cause I smoke (sadly, this wonderful herb does little for me) but because it's none of their fucking business what I do in my spare time. Unless someone comes drunk/stoned to work, it's exactly NONE of their business.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:what about spectrums rights? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    10. Re: what about spectrums rights? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:what about spectrums rights? by afidel · · Score: 2

      The only job I've ever been drug tested for was one requiring clearance.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:what about spectrums rights? by ciaby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      Well, we do have licenses ;) And we're actually pushing for more spectrum, right now. Source: I'm _the_ Italian guy mentioned in TFA.

    13. Re: what about spectrums rights? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
      Sept 21, 2014: When Colorado cautiously legalized recreational marijuana, critics strongly warned it would lead to more crime throughout the state. But, in what could easily be considered a big slap-on-the-face to all marijuana haters, the overall crime rate actually plummeted. As reported by the state’s official website, crime data for Denver, the hub of legal pot sales in the state, shows that murders, assaults, rapes, burglaries, and other violent have crimes actually declined during the first three months of the year, compared with the same period for 2013.

      Though the overall reduction was only 10 percent, the impact is quite visible, claim proponents of marijuana consumption. According to the data obtained, homicides went down from 17 to 8, a massive 53 percent drop, automobile break-ins went down from 2,317 to 1,477 (36 percent), and sexual assaults from diminished to 95 from 110 (14 percent).

      http://www.inquisitr.com/14900...

      Violent Crime Down Since Colorado Legalized Marijuana

      When Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, critics of the idea warned it would lead to more crime throughout the state. But the impact has been just the opposite so far in the state’s largest city, which has seen violent crime go down.

      Crime data for Denver, the hub of legal pot sales in the state, shows murders, assaults, rapes, burglaries and other violent crimes declined during the first three months of the year, compared with the same period for 2013.

      Homicides went down from 17 to 8 (a 53% drop), automobile break-ins from 2,317 to 1,477 (down 36%) and sexual assaults from 110 to 95 (down 14%). Overall, violent and property crimes dropped more than 10% from last year to this year during the first quarter.

      Two types of property crime did go up—arson from 20 incidents to 47 (a 135% jump) and larceny from 2,133 to 2,287 (up 7%).

      http://www.allgov.com/news/unu...

  2. Try reading the article first by lommetennis · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Armed with an experimental concession from the Mexican government that grants Rhizomatica access to coveted cellular spectrum all over the country, Bloom is slowly but surely bringing coverage "

  3. ..cheaper than almost anywhere else in Mexico by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, that's not surprising since it's a virtual monopoly controlled by one of the world's richest men; Carlos Slim.

    {snip} Telmex, of which 49.1% is owned by Slim and his family, charges among the highest usage fees in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  4. Monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not sure why TFS mentions "monopoly". I have the choice of at least 4 different wireless vendors where I live - and it's not even in a large city. I think someone needs to consult their Webster's.

  5. We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allowed by caseih · · Score: 2

    This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada. I'm sure there are places where cell networks don't exist such as mountainous, remote areas. However this technology could never be deployed here, even on a small scale, because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd), and therefore the same companies that won't put up cell towers in certain out of the way places will also sue the life out of anyone who would dare put up a tower, even if they have no presence there whatsoever. And legally they would be exactly right. The spectrum should never ever have been sold off. Only licensed and regulated to prevent conflicts. But what's done is done. We all have to live with the consequences of this and many other short-sighted actions.

  6. Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    because we've decided the spectrum shall be privately owned (which is absurd)

    Not privately owned, licensed to private entities - subtle but huge difference.

    Do you really want to live in a world where there are no limits on spectrum usage? Loudest device wins? We wouldn't even have wifi...

  8. Re:We've sold the spectrum here; wouldn't be allow by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada.

    This sort of thing CAN work in the US, if we change a couple regulations and set up a procedure to accomplish it in an orderly manner. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.

    1) Is the area being served by any cell company? If the answer is no, proceed to #2
    2) Community organizes and petitions for an FCC waiver to set up a cell tower on specified frequencies.
    3) Cell companies can either respond by setting up a tower* or allowing the process to go forward, OR present data showing it is covered adequately (TBD)
    4) FCC Grants waiver and monitors the new cell tower as needed.

    *Must be maintained permanently to the "AVERAGE" capability of all cell towers owned by said company in the USA. Defined properly by regulation etc.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. Re:Open source base station? by ciaby · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gee... I didn't find links to the schematics and source code on their web site. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Where are they?

    Or..... maybe it's yet another click-bait article abusing the term "open source'.

    You're right, we are a bit messy right now. Code (rhizomatica specific): https://github.com/rhizomatica Open source GSM code: http://openbsc.osmocom.org/tra... Anything else I can help you with? :)

  10. Re:You just Know by ciaby · · Score: 2

    when the infra structure gets big enough for their to be enough profit in it Corporations will demand it be handed over to them.

    Unfortunately for you, we don't really make any kind of profit. It's a non-profit organization, and the license is directly tied to it (as in, we can't make a business out of it). You know, it's not like the whole world has to be like the US :-P