7 ms·

Cellular comms. are all complex, proprietary, closed standards by big telecoms companies. There are some projects trying to solve this: OpenRAN, OpenAirInterfac

Cellular comms. are all complex, proprietary, closed standards by big telecoms companies. There are some projects trying to solve this: OpenRAN, OpenAirInterface, O-RAN Alliance. This project tries to build an open solution following O-RAN standards for RAN software. It is targeting telecom. companies for their Radio Access Network (RAN). Their infrastructure is divided into the Core Network (like a simple internet network) and the Radio Access Network (base stations, antennas and all that stuff). Phones and tablets are User Equipment (UE), nothing to do with srsRAN.

leidenfrost 2y ago
Why can't I create an ad hoc 4/5g network between phones? Genuine question. It looks so closed and complex compared to more traditional comms like wifi or even ethernet.
- femto 2y ago
  The LTE protocol is asymmetric between towers (eNodeB) and phones (UE). You could build srsRAN and run a local eNodeB instance to form a local LTE network. Given that it has a radio that operates in the LTE bands, in theory you might be able to build srsRAN for a phone and run the necessary base station software (eNodeB and EPC) on a phone to form an "ad hoc" network. It wouldn't be truly ad hoc in that the network would still have a base station, just that it would be running on phone hardware. srsRAN wouldn't be running as an application, but would be replacing the firmware in the phone's LTE modem. Edit: Here is a paper by someone who has built an ad hoc LTE network. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.09262 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.09262 It does exactly the above: using srsRAN (which used to be called srsLTE) to run local base station software (eNodeB+EPC) to get around the asymmetry in the LTE protocol.
- bsder 2y ago
  > Why can't I create an ad hoc 4/5g network between phones? Because billing. All the complexity in cellular can be traced back to making the system secure the whole way back to SIM cards because there is actual money at stake if the system gets cracked.
  - throw5959 2y ago
    What about a "public good" mobile network without any billing, only fair QoS?
    - friendzis 2y ago
      There's limited bandwidth available in the space. 5G is "fast" compared to 4G because 4G effectively saturates terrestrial bandwidth available. Public, unauthenticated network would be too easily DDoSable.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    The complexity is actually down to mobility. You can turn your phone on anywhere and it'll work. You can have a call/data session while travelling hundreds of miles and it'll work (usually).
    - rusk 2y ago
      What you suggest could be accomplished with mesh networking. GP is correct in saying the reasons are orthogonal to functional reasons. Phone systems have always been centralised like this. Billing is one aspect, but lawful surveillance is another.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        With respect, if you think that mesh networking would have worked considering the scale and capacity needed, and relevant type of devices then I am afraid this is a case of not knowing what you don't know...
        throw5959 2y ago
        How do you solve cross talk in congested areas? Made worse by the fact that mesh networks have a significant communication overhead.
- kurokawad 2y ago
  AFAIK cellular comms aren’t designed to be ad hoc. They require base stations (whose placement is very studied) to build coverage “cells” (cellular). The network is responsible of delivering a QoS, it’s not a best-effort like WiFi. However, if I’m not mistaken 5G has V2V comms (Vehicle to Vehicle) specifically designed for self-driving cars, drones and IoT and that is the most “ad hoc” it can get
- solarboii 2y ago
  It's complexity is not completely unnecessary. Scale is a huge bitch. Networking between phones, without a common base station, is hard. Harder than WI-FI, because identity is managed centrally and the frecs in use require a license to name some "simple" problems. Cellular comms are not designed to handle this kind of scenario. There has been some work to add inter device connectivity lately, to support many interesting use cases. You can find more looking for "sidelink" or "PC5", but you will not find many phones that implement it. It seems to be mostly focused in vehicular use cases in V2V and V2X scenarios
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Last time I looked is because the chipset makers haven't implemented LTE Direct. There were a handful of phones with LTE Direct that were oriented towards first responders. 5G also has a peer mode, and I'm trying to figure out if it can be implemented in userspace or has to be done in firmware. My idea is that peer mode would be useful for replacing walkie-talkie or mesh messaging like Meshtastic since everyone has a phone. The range is supposed to be around a mile.
femto 2y ago
Complex: yes Proprietary, Closed Standards: no Here are all the 3GPP 4G/5G standards that govern cellular phone networks: https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies Also look under the "Specifications" drop down menu at the top of the page. Every release is listed. These standards being freely available is why SRS were able to write srsRAN. There is nothing stopping others from doing so either, apart from the amount of information that has to be understood and digested. Edit: Apart from complexity the other potential barrier is patents, but that's not a technical barrier.
- advael 2y ago
  While it's technically true that the specs are public, the implementation not being public is most of the issue being solved
- miki123211 2y ago
  Apart from complexity and patents, the other other barrier is licensing. Those technologies aren't terribly useful to use in your house like WiFi is, and even if they were, you need more government paperwork to do it. That means less hobbyist interest.
- kurokawad 2y ago
  The 3GPP spec is “available”, but the implementation in practice is closed. Stuff like the scheduler is what actually brings value to the company delivering a good service. Being closed, the interoperability of network components from different vendors is just impossible. That’s the point of O-RAN Alliance.
- blacklion 2y ago
  Patents equal proprietary.

leidenfrost 2y ago

Why can't I create an ad hoc 4/5g network between phones? Genuine question. It looks so closed and complex compared to more traditional comms like wifi or even ethernet.

femto 2y ago
The LTE protocol is asymmetric between towers (eNodeB) and phones (UE). You could build srsRAN and run a local eNodeB instance to form a local LTE network. Given that it has a radio that operates in the LTE bands, in theory you might be able to build srsRAN for a phone and run the necessary base station software (eNodeB and EPC) on a phone to form an "ad hoc" network. It wouldn't be truly ad hoc in that the network would still have a base station, just that it would be running on phone hardware. srsRAN wouldn't be running as an application, but would be replacing the firmware in the phone's LTE modem. Edit: Here is a paper by someone who has built an ad hoc LTE network. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.09262 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.09262 It does exactly the above: using srsRAN (which used to be called srsLTE) to run local base station software (eNodeB+EPC) to get around the asymmetry in the LTE protocol.
bsder 2y ago
> Why can't I create an ad hoc 4/5g network between phones? Because billing. All the complexity in cellular can be traced back to making the system secure the whole way back to SIM cards because there is actual money at stake if the system gets cracked.
- throw5959 2y ago
  What about a "public good" mobile network without any billing, only fair QoS?
  - friendzis 2y ago
    There's limited bandwidth available in the space. 5G is "fast" compared to 4G because 4G effectively saturates terrestrial bandwidth available. Public, unauthenticated network would be too easily DDoSable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  The complexity is actually down to mobility. You can turn your phone on anywhere and it'll work. You can have a call/data session while travelling hundreds of miles and it'll work (usually).
  - rusk 2y ago
    What you suggest could be accomplished with mesh networking. GP is correct in saying the reasons are orthogonal to functional reasons. Phone systems have always been centralised like this. Billing is one aspect, but lawful surveillance is another.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      With respect, if you think that mesh networking would have worked considering the scale and capacity needed, and relevant type of devices then I am afraid this is a case of not knowing what you don't know...
      - throw5959 2y ago
        How do you solve cross talk in congested areas? Made worse by the fact that mesh networks have a significant communication overhead.
kurokawad 2y ago
AFAIK cellular comms aren’t designed to be ad hoc. They require base stations (whose placement is very studied) to build coverage “cells” (cellular). The network is responsible of delivering a QoS, it’s not a best-effort like WiFi. However, if I’m not mistaken 5G has V2V comms (Vehicle to Vehicle) specifically designed for self-driving cars, drones and IoT and that is the most “ad hoc” it can get
solarboii 2y ago
It's complexity is not completely unnecessary. Scale is a huge bitch. Networking between phones, without a common base station, is hard. Harder than WI-FI, because identity is managed centrally and the frecs in use require a license to name some "simple" problems. Cellular comms are not designed to handle this kind of scenario. There has been some work to add inter device connectivity lately, to support many interesting use cases. You can find more looking for "sidelink" or "PC5", but you will not find many phones that implement it. It seems to be mostly focused in vehicular use cases in V2V and V2X scenarios
ianburrell 2y ago
Last time I looked is because the chipset makers haven't implemented LTE Direct. There were a handful of phones with LTE Direct that were oriented towards first responders. 5G also has a peer mode, and I'm trying to figure out if it can be implemented in userspace or has to be done in firmware. My idea is that peer mode would be useful for replacing walkie-talkie or mesh messaging like Meshtastic since everyone has a phone. The range is supposed to be around a mile.

femto 2y ago

Complex: yes Proprietary, Closed Standards: no Here are all the 3GPP 4G/5G standards that govern cellular phone networks: https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies Also look under the "Specifications" drop down menu at the top of the page. Every release is listed. These standards being freely available is why SRS were able to write srsRAN. There is nothing stopping others from doing so either, apart from the amount of information that has to be understood and digested. Edit: Apart from complexity the other potential barrier is patents, but that's not a technical barrier.

advael 2y ago
While it's technically true that the specs are public, the implementation not being public is most of the issue being solved
miki123211 2y ago
Apart from complexity and patents, the other other barrier is licensing. Those technologies aren't terribly useful to use in your house like WiFi is, and even if they were, you need more government paperwork to do it. That means less hobbyist interest.
kurokawad 2y ago
The 3GPP spec is “available”, but the implementation in practice is closed. Stuff like the scheduler is what actually brings value to the company delivering a good service. Being closed, the interoperability of network components from different vendors is just impossible. That’s the point of O-RAN Alliance.
blacklion 2y ago
Patents equal proprietary.