8 ms·
It's criminal that cell phones are bristling with incredibly advanced radio technology and yet they are by law not allowed to communicate directly with each oth
by modeless 9mo ago
It's criminal that cell phones are bristling with incredibly advanced radio technology and yet they are by law not allowed to communicate directly with each other over a distance of more than a couple hundred meters without assistance from a licensed and centrally controlled base station. Meanwhile a $10 walkie talkie using primitive stone-age radio technology can go many miles with zero infrastructure, but by law is not allowed to be used for data transmission. This is a choice our governments have made, not something inherent to the technology.
- bilsbie 9mo agoHam frequencies would work even better?
- digiown 9mo agoWill the walkie talkies work if there are hundreds in a small area all transmitting data with each other? Besides, there's just not that much bandwidth there.
- modeless 9mo agoWalkie talkies as licensed today wouldn't because they are required by law to use exclusively stone-age radio technology. But modern unlicensed radio technology is incredibly good at sharing scarce 2.4 Ghz spectrum. Sometimes devices do interfere with each other, but they remain useful and they are far better at sharing than any expert would have predicted years ago. Let the radio engineers try.
- kanbankaren 9mo agoIt is not as easy as you think. RF attenuation is proportional to frequency and at 2.4 GHz, it is very high. Also, the distance over which one could communicate depends on antenna height, so if both parties are at ground level, it is not feasible over a few hundred meters unless both are in wide open space. Source: ham operator who has played with long distance device to device communication without using a repeater.
- lxgr 9mo ago> RF attenuation is proportional to frequency and at 2.4 GHz, it is very high. Through building materials, foliage etc, but not in free space/line-of-sight. > Also, the distance over which one could communicate depends on antenna height, so if both parties are at ground level, it is not feasible over a few hundred meters unless both are in wide open space. Isn't it just the opposite? Antenna height is only the limiting factor with line-of-sight, otherwise NLOS considerations like attenuation by building materials, multipath propagation etc. start to matter much more. Modern radio standards are extremely good at that. Of course line-of-sight usually remains the ceiling, since there usually isn't much in the sky to helpfully reflect signals back down, at least with mobile transmitter compatible transmission levels (i.e. excluding shortwave).
- kanbankaren 9mo ago> Through building materials, foliage etc, but not in free space/line-of-sight. Yeah. Even in free space. For example, attenuation at 1 km for 144 MHz (ham VHF band) is about -76 dB while for 2.4 GHz, it is about -100 dB. That 24 dB drop could mean, the signal is below the noise floor of your receiver unless you increase the RF power output which means more battery drain. For example, BT audio gets cut just moving to the next room despite the RF power of BT transmitters being ~ 5mW( 7 dBm ) and at 10m, the attenuation is -60 dB(just free space loss which is ideal condition), so 53 dBm (7-60) at the receiver is usually sufficient, yet they struggle.
- lxgr 9mo agoNo, attenuation in vacuum is exactly the same, and the difference between humid air, dry air, and vacuum doesn't really matter at frequencies below a few GHz. > For example, attenuation at 1 km for 144 MHz (ham VHF band) is about -76 dB while for 2.4 GHz, it is about -100 dB. This is a common misunderstanding of the free-space path loss formula, which is expressed in terms of the idealized isotropic radiator, the length of which is frequency-dependent. In other words, this calculation is assuming a proportionally (much) smaller antenna for the 2.4 GHz case. With the same antenna size, the path loss is exactly the same. After all, where else should the radiated energy go?
- Workaccount2 9mo agoThis is great on paper until some jackass wants to access their home NAS over the public frequency range so they can watch anime all day at their desk, which only works when they use multiple channels at once. There are tons of cool things society could enjoy if it wasn't for a small handful of shameless actors.
- rm30 9mo agoThe smartphone is just an advanced walkie-talkie, currently limited only by the mobile operator, the law, the radio chipset, and the OS. In a true emergency, who can stop you from modifying that architecture? Once you treat the device as an independent radio node (using its DSP power to run custom modems) you can establish a mesh network with a range of several kilometers. We have a '4x4 car in our pockets; we’ve just been conditioned to treat it like a toy.
- catlifeonmars 9mo agoNot disagreeing with you, but you’re papering over a lot of complexity. Note that cellular radios are highly specialized and the filtering circuits are tuned to specific bands. It’s not exactly like having a software defined radio in your pocket. Next, at the modem level, you’ll need to implement and then sideload custom firmware. Finally, you’ll need to expose the right APDUs to the kernel to manage the whole thing. TBH it sounds like a fun side project, but my point is you need to repurpose a lot of different parts of the stack to accomplish what you want.
- rm30 9mo agoI was pushing on the walkie-talkie case to gain the maximum results from existing phones, that's a true emergency case. You’re absolutely right that the 5G/LTE baseband is a black-box nightmare to repurpose. But I’m not looking to hack the cellular modem; I’m looking for the dormant '4x4 car' already available. For instance, many chipsets have an integrated FM receiver that is essentially a high-sensitivity VHF radio. By taking the raw audio output and applying a Software Modem (AFSK/FSK) in the user-space, you bypass the kernel/firmware complexity entirely. You don’t need to sideload a modem driver if you treat the audio jack or the internal FM bus as your physical layer. The 'complexity' is real if you try to fight the manufacturer's fences, but it vanishes if you understand the full stack. A pair of wired headphones becomes your dipole antenna, and the phone's CPU becomes your DSP engine. It’s not about rebuilding the Ferrari; it’s about realizing there’s a VHF engine hidden in the chassis that doesn't need 'permission' to receive bits. You just need a software demodulator the catch them, but for sending you'll need an external transmitter (an USB SDR or jack-to-FM).
- jansper39 9mo agoPersonally, the additional complexity and overheads required for a P2P phone network is not worth while and I'm not sure it would fix that many problems that haven't already been fixed with walkie talkies.
- foltik 9mo agoNot worthwhile? “It’s too hard” isn’t a great argument for why our phones should just become useless during power outages, natural disasters, ..
- eddythompson80 9mo agoIt’s not “too hard”. It’s physically impossible without regulation. There is but one limited RF spectrum that we all share. One bad actor (intentional or misconfigured) can render the entire RF spectrum in their area unusable. The radius of their impact only depends on how much kWHs they have access to and it doesn’t take much to cripple radio communication in a large metropolitan area. Until some clever cookie can figure out some way to utilize string theory’s extra dimensions for sending signals and then every body can have their own dimension to mess with, collective regulation on broadcasters is the only feasible way. Nothing is stopping you from getting an HT for communication during power outages, natural disasters, etc. You just have to get a license to make sure you don’t actively harm everyone who is sharing the same spectrum with you especially during said natural disaster.
- AngryData 9mo agoTheoretically people could cripple RF comms on accident, in reality that almost never happens despite many people possessing devices able to do so. My mikrotik router will let me broadcast all sorts of illegal signals with a few clicks inside their GUI, and yet I never heard about problems with people crippling city blocks with bad router settings. Or from their weird microwave setups. Or trying to run and operate some dilapidated 60 year old radios.
- 9mo ago
- lormayna 9mo agoA walkie-talkie requires a big antenna and consume a lot more power than a cellphone.
- lxgr 9mo agoBoth not true. Both European PMR446 and the US FRS are limited to 0.5 W; GSM uses four times that. There are walkie-talkies with very small antennas too. The limiting factor is line-of-sight, in any case. If you're fine with less than real-time audio, you can get much, much smaller and low power.
- lormayna 9mo ago1) LTE frequencies are in the frequency intervals 600—900Mhz, or over the Ghz. Higher frequency means smaller antennas. 2) 5G cells are small and very dense, this means less power consumption. 3) LTE and 5G are based on CDMA, a technology that is way more efficient in term of bandwidth efficiency than the FM modulation used by a walkie talkie
- lxgr 9mo ago> 5G cells are small and very dense Not necessarily. In rural areas and using low frequencies, I believe they can even be larger than GSM. > LTE and 5G are based on CDMA No, the last CDMA based cell standards were 3G/UMTS and the Qualcomm equivalent (CDMA2000 or what it was). From then on, it’s all been OFDM.
- lormayna 9mo ago> In rural areas and using low frequencies, I believe they can even be larger than GSM. In Europe GSM is going to be dismantled. And techniques like beamforming and radio resource management reduce the power consumption for 5G base station and phones. > No, the last CDMA based cell standards were 3G/UMTS and the Qualcomm equivalent (CDMA2000 or what it was). From then on, it’s all been OFDM. Even if 5G is using more advanced modulations like OFDMA or NONA, the concept is the same if you compare the with FM used by walkie talkie: those are modulations way more effective in term of energy and information effiency than a traditional FM transmission
- squarefoot 9mo agoA small USB pluggable module that supports LoRa plus an app using Codec2 or similar low rate codec for voice encoding could fill the gap, although having it bundled with the phone would make it a lot less cumbersome to use. For non phone portable solutions, the LilyGo T-Deck Plus/Pro come to mind, but they're not phones so that would imply a 2nd device to carry around.
- londons_explore 9mo agoYet compared to the 5G radio that can do gigabit speed and 20+ kilometers of range....
- bri3d 9mo agoThe issue with this is that the entire architecture trades energy consumption on the eNodeB side for the handset side. One could make a cell phone where one handset was the eNB and one the handset (and, contrary to the parent post’s claim, there would be no issue getting this approved in an ISM band), but the one operating in eNB mode would have atrocious battery life. It also helps a lot to have one side of the transmission up on a tower with a giant high gain antenna :)
- squarefoot 9mo agoBut needs towers, which in some disaster situations could be not working, or in others simply not trustworthy. If 5G phones radio modules were modified to allow point to point communication, the usable range would still be a small fraction of what is attainable with towers and their high gain antenna arrays.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- vrighter 9mo agowhy does everyone keep suggesting lora for stuff like this? It could support one gsm connection. Not one per person, but one
- lxgr 9mo ago> Meanwhile a $10 walkie talkie using primitive stone-age radio technology can go many miles with zero infrastructure, but by law is not allowed to be used for data transmission. Is this even true? I still have two Gotennas from before they pivoted to military use cases, and they were legal to use both in the US and in Europe (on different bands auto-configured via GPS, as far as I remember). REI also currently stocks at least one set of walkie talkies [1] that can relay short messages from smartphones via Bluetooth. [1] https://www.rei.com/product/240874/motorola-talkabout-t803-2-way-radios-pair https://www.rei.com/product/240874/motorola-talkabout-t803-2...
- modeless 9mo agoWow, you're right, data is technically allowed on FRS frequencies. I didn't realize that. It's not unrestricted though. There are a lot of regulations that constrain how FRS radios can work, much more than for 2.4 Ghz.
- lxgr 9mo agoThere's also a slice of ISM spectrum available around 900-930 MHz in the US, and Europe has an equivalent one around 860 MHz, which is where the (unfortunately discontinued) Gotenna consumer device used to operate.
- sowbug 9mo agoYou might have conflated the prohibition on encrypted/coded communication with a blanket ban on data vs. voice. Those frequencies are supposed to be used for public communication, which has been interpreted as a requirement that anyone can listen in (as opposed to any member of the public privately communicating with any other member). See 47 CFR Part 95, plain language voice communication. These days, I'm not sure anyone would seriously rely on a system that sent only unencrypted point-to-point data, so for that use case your original point stands.
- oldgregg 9mo agoGet bought out by military control grid --> Instantly kill popular consumer devices.
- roboman 9mo agoPlease site the relevant sections of this supposed law you claim exists.
- shimman 9mo agoOr even better, where is the tech that can do this disregarding the law? Let's not act that something being illegal never stopped it from achieving mass adoption.
- fenwick67 9mo agoWell obviously cell phones have very powerful tx/rx so my question would be "what is stopping us from using this for p2p", I assume the answer is we don't have software access to the radio, and I assume that's for regulatory reasons but idk
- kyrofa 9mo agoThat's not actually true: cell phone rx/tx power is quite low. We can get away with that because all they need to do is get to the nearest tower, which has a ton of power, sensitive antennas, and is very tall. Amateur radios have far more power available to them, but any "p2p" (i.e. simplex in amateur radio) runs into normal RF issues, like obstacles and interference. If you used the existing radios in cell phones to communicate directly with other cell phones, you wouldn't get very far. Even amateur radios, with all their power, use repeaters to the same effect as cell towers.
- fenwick67 9mo agoSorry by power I meant in terms of capability not like, wattage
- catlifeonmars 9mo agoCheck your sources. The law you claim exists… which one is it?
- mannyv 9mo agoFile this under "lies that someone said on the interwebs."
- ianburrell 9mo agoIt isn't a law thing, but I'm disappointed that LTE Direct didn't go anywhere. That let's cell phone talk to each other over range up a km. The problem is that there LTE Direct requires implementation in the radio firmware, and the companies only did it for government phones. There is also 5G Device-to-Device and I haven't found out if that is supported more widely. There would also need to be frequency allocation, something CBRS (3.5GHz) would work but would be nice to get something with longer range. You aren't going to get longer ranges with phone, the power and antenna are too limited. Walkie-walkie have bigger antennas (the stubby FRS sort of suck) and more power. Also, walkie-talkie don't have much bandwidth so the data rates would suck.
- salawat 9mo agoIt's a business model thing, which seems to supplant law these days. Can't meter P2P. Intermediation to prevent usurpation of network effects is the name of the game in the modern day. No one will say that, but it's the quiet part left explicitly unsaid. The negative space of the incentive structure, if you will.
- dzhiurgis 9mo agoA alternative example of this is how Apple doesn't have a way to browse your iPhone's gallery without syncing to their super slow iCloud first.
- Aloha 9mo agoThere is nothing stopping a phone manufacturer from putting a 900 MHz ISM radio in their hardware. Also, the walkie talkies certainly can legally do data transmission.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- coppsilgold 9mo agoMany WiFi chips can be put into monitor mode (process all the data packets it can detect over the air) and inject packets for transmissions themselves. This pathway is typically unoptimized and would offer poor bandwidth but it is enough for text and audio. You would need root to do this, and implement your own protocol on top of it with forward error correcting codes.
- powersjcb 9mo agoI’ve been tangentially involved in experimenting with Meshtastic and trying to scale it for large events like Burning Man, on the order of 2000–3000 nodes on a single frequency. Node to node mesh communication is cool and it works surprisingly well at small scale, but the moment we brought high powered repeaters online the difference was night and day. Coverage, reliability, and usability all jumped instantly. It makes the tradeoff really obvious. Mesh is great for bootstrapping and local traffic, but once you care about real data propagation at scale, centralized infrastructure wins almost every time. Airtime is scarce, coordination matters, and having a small number of well placed high sites beats thousands of mediocre relays. I still think there’s room for novelty P2P protocols, but mostly as an optimization layer on top of infrastructure, not as the foundation. Every time you push on this problem hard enough, you end up rediscovering the client router model for a reason.
- modeless 9mo agoOf course there's no reason to use a mesh when infrastructure is available. That's not why a mesh would be useful. But it doesn't even need to be a mesh to be a useful feature. Walkie talkies aren't a mesh and they remain useful.
- theshrike79 9mo agoOn the other hand a "high powered repeater" for Meshtastic is just the same board with a bigger more optimised antenna. You can get solar powered ones for under 100€ and slap them wherever you want pretty easily. (But please don't unless you know what you're doing, adding useless router nodes makes the network worse, not better)
- Buttons840 9mo agoHAM radios can transmit data I think. They just can't do encrypted transmissions. (I'm open to correction on this.)
- theshrike79 9mo agoThey _can_, they're just not allowed to. It's a tradeoff, they can use higher transmission frequencies than regular folk, but also have to do it in the open.