3 ms·
I have worked for a moment in company writing some GSM infrastructure sofware, and my first thought after reading the article is that it neglects the fact, that
by akavel 14y ago
I have worked for a moment in company writing some GSM infrastructure sofware, and my first thought after reading the article is that it neglects the fact, that nodes of mobile network are expected to pass broad and comprehensive reliability tests (both the software and the hardware). That, I'd say, can make a ton of a difference, compared to a simple proof-of-concept.
On the other hand, any proof-of-concept is always welcome, interesting, and can lead to new great developments.
- wmf 14y agoI think having the "I'm paying a million dollars for certification?" conversation is a step up from the old days of enterprise or carrier equipment where they'd essentially say "It costs a million dollars. Take it or leave it." Projects like Asterisk and OpenBTS have revealed that there's not as much magic there as people thought.
- Swannie 14y agoIIRC OpenBTS was developed by a small group of GSM software experts, with many years GSM experience between them, and GSM essentially being a frozen standard now. Still an achievement, sure... makes me wonder why pico cells aren't everywhere offering an alternative carrier. (Guess WiFi stayed good enough, and we have moved to over the top apps that don't need cell network).
- gnaffle 14y agoIsn't the reason mostly that the spectrum is licensed? So the only ones that can actually set up a picocell are the ones that own spectrum, and they don't have a good reason to do so (except in remote areas / on boats).
- Swannie 14y agoIIRC the guys behind OpenBTS ran a small cell at Burning Man, letting attendees call each other. Pretty robust!