3 ms·
"That complexity is exactly one of the reasons why it's not easy to write your own baseband implementation. The list of standards that describe just GSM is unim
by Procrastes 13y ago
"That complexity is exactly one of the reasons why it's not easy to write your own baseband implementation. The list of standards that describe just GSM is unimaginably long - and that's only GSM. Now you need to add UMTS, HSDPA, and so on, and so forth. And, of course, everything is covered by a ridiculously complex set of patents. To top it all off, communication authorities require baseband software to be certified."
This is HN.
I don't think implementing a replacement is all that daunting given enough time and money. I wonder if there's a business model that will pay for it?
- JoshTriplett 13y agoPeople are already working on Open Source implementations, both on the phone side and on the tower side. See http://osmocom.org/ http://osmocom.org/ .
- Zigurd 13y agoA 2G baseband implementation is probably not too hard. Making 3G and all the mobile data protocol variants and LTE inter-operate reliably is probably harder. The irony is that LTE invites a look at a minimal "layer 2 only" baseband and doing everything else in the higher-level OS, but, instead, baseband code just gets hairier.
- toyg 13y agoIt's not a technological problem as much as a political one. Baseband processors implement umpteen standards (politics) and have to be certified by communication authorities (_big_ politics). And what is the point of building a more secure implementation, if all these tools must (by law and by standard) have backdoors for local authorities anyway?
- gonzo 13y agoI got a chance to look inside Fabrice Bellard's LTE eNodeb code. http://www.bellard.org/lte/ http://www.bellard.org/lte/ It runs on an i7.