5 ms·

Future Smartphones Won’t Need Cell Towers to Connect

78 points by cjdulberger 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tokenadult 12y ago
So something like "push to talk" is coming back to mobile phones. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, maybe push-to-talk has never gone away.[1] (It's not a feature offered by my cell phone carrier.) The article kindly submitted here with the interesting new news about phone-to-phone LTE communication reports, "In theory, LTE Direct could be used to create communication apps that route all data from device to device. Some chat apps can already use Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to link up nearby phones, but LTE Direct could offer extended range and better performance. However, carriers will control which devices on their networks can use LTE Direct because it uses the same radio spectrum as conventional cellular links. Wireless carriers might even gain a new stream of revenue by charging companies that want to offer services or apps using the technology, Qualcomm says." As usual, the actual implementation of this service will be all about carrier policies and business agreements. [1] http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/PushtoTalk/faq.html http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/PushtoTalk/faq.h...
jewel 12y ago
This would be fantastic for disaster situations if coupled with the right software. If the radios can speak on unlicenced spectrum, it'd open up even more possibilities. For example, you could have a "cellular" connection on all your devices, and not just your cell phone. See http://stevenjewel.com/2014/01/android-mesh/ http://stevenjewel.com/2014/01/android-mesh/ for some of my ramblings along these same lines from earlier this year.
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  Have you seen the Serval project? There may have been a talk at LCAU this year about adding a little USB dongle to extend mesh networks over 433MHz(?)
benguild 12y ago
Nice! I’m sure Japan and South Korea would be awesome early deployment targets since nearly everywhere has such blazing fast internet to use as a backbone.
drcube 12y ago
Isn't this just a cellular mesh network? How does it compare to wifi mesh networking as far as range, security and usefulness? I'd like to see more of these decentralized alternatives to monopoly infrastructure providers, I'm just not sure how feasible they are.
- rayiner 12y ago
  LTE Direct is more about service discovery than data transfer. As for mesh networking, it's hard. Routing becomes extremely complicated, especially when you're talking about mobile nodes. I used to work on protocol design for cognitive radios, where you have the added complexity of not having guaranteed spectrum. Mesh networks have certain advantages there,[1] but when we moved to a base station model things got exponentially simpler. Distributed mesh networks are interesting in theory, but you have to be willing to pay a huge tax in terms of overhead and complexity. [1] Say you have two nodes that, locally, never have common channels available. If you had a third node that shared at least one common channel with each, you could have it flip between the common channels to route data between nodes that otherwise can't talk to each other.
sbierwagen 12y ago
I much prefer GAN (Wifi Calling) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network) to LTE Direct. LTE runs on licensed spectrum, which means the licenseholder (the cell network) can squeeze you for as much money as they want. Unlicensed spectrum is always cheaper, and you hardly need LTE's range advantage for femtocells. Why use licensed spectrum for short-range stuff? I also find it suspicious that this article emphasizes how much buy-in LTE Direct has from gigantic corporations, without making much of a case for why actual endusers would like it. A good clue is that there's no equivalent for Wifi MAC randomization (which iOS 8 does by default) in LTE Direct: spoofing your IMEI is a federal crime. There's no way to avoid being tracked by LTE Direct femtocells, short of shutting off your phone and sticking it in a metal box.
- zwieback 12y ago
  Not defending phone operators but the problem with unlicensed spectrum is precisely that it's unlicensed. You're power limited and everyone and his uncle messes up the spectrum.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The problem with unlicensed spectrum is the same as for anarchist utopia. There's essentially a single rule (maximum power limit, but even that is poorly enforced), but lots of anti-social behaviors are possible even abiding by that rule. There has been some very good work in how to add more structure and rules to unlicensed while keeping its good qualities: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4111&context=flr; http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=411... http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1542658&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1542658 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=154265...
    - lupin_sansei 12y ago
      You might find the history of unlicensed spectrum interesting http://mises.org/daily/1662 http://mises.org/daily/1662 TLDR: in the 1920s spectrum was treated as a homesteadable property right, which you could use to stop others interfering with you and could trade.
linker3000 12y ago
"Some see the technology as a potential new channel for targeted promotions or advertising." A fair amount of the article is devoted to the potential for advertising, tracking and 'user experience' - which often equates to 'we will encourage you to buy something'. I hope this feature has an 'off' switch or a set of granular user preferences.
- Animats 12y ago
  It probably means that, like some "free" WiFi services, you have to watch an ad before you get to connect.
wahsd 12y ago
With facebook working on mesh-networking we can be assured that it will be corrupted and heinous. I don't quite understand how the tech community could just simply capitulate freedom, liberty, and anonymity to a malevolent demon like Facebook.

78 points by cjdulberger 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

So something like "push to talk" is coming back to mobile phones. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, maybe push-to-talk has never gone away.[1] (It's not a feature offered by my cell phone carrier.) The article kindly submitted here with the interesting new news about phone-to-phone LTE communication reports, "In theory, LTE Direct could be used to create communication apps that route all data from device to device. Some chat apps can already use Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to link up nearby phones, but LTE Direct could offer extended range and better performance. However, carriers will control which devices on their networks can use LTE Direct because it uses the same radio spectrum as conventional cellular links. Wireless carriers might even gain a new stream of revenue by charging companies that want to offer services or apps using the technology, Qualcomm says." As usual, the actual implementation of this service will be all about carrier policies and business agreements. [1] http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/PushtoTalk/faq.html http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/PushtoTalk/faq.h...

jewel 12y ago

This would be fantastic for disaster situations if coupled with the right software. If the radios can speak on unlicenced spectrum, it'd open up even more possibilities. For example, you could have a "cellular" connection on all your devices, and not just your cell phone. See http://stevenjewel.com/2014/01/android-mesh/ http://stevenjewel.com/2014/01/android-mesh/ for some of my ramblings along these same lines from earlier this year.

voltagex_ 12y ago
Have you seen the Serval project? There may have been a talk at LCAU this year about adding a little USB dongle to extend mesh networks over 433MHz(?)

benguild 12y ago

Nice! I’m sure Japan and South Korea would be awesome early deployment targets since nearly everywhere has such blazing fast internet to use as a backbone.

drcube 12y ago

Isn't this just a cellular mesh network? How does it compare to wifi mesh networking as far as range, security and usefulness? I'd like to see more of these decentralized alternatives to monopoly infrastructure providers, I'm just not sure how feasible they are.

rayiner 12y ago
LTE Direct is more about service discovery than data transfer. As for mesh networking, it's hard. Routing becomes extremely complicated, especially when you're talking about mobile nodes. I used to work on protocol design for cognitive radios, where you have the added complexity of not having guaranteed spectrum. Mesh networks have certain advantages there,[1] but when we moved to a base station model things got exponentially simpler. Distributed mesh networks are interesting in theory, but you have to be willing to pay a huge tax in terms of overhead and complexity. [1] Say you have two nodes that, locally, never have common channels available. If you had a third node that shared at least one common channel with each, you could have it flip between the common channels to route data between nodes that otherwise can't talk to each other.

sbierwagen 12y ago

I much prefer GAN (Wifi Calling) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network) to LTE Direct. LTE runs on licensed spectrum, which means the licenseholder (the cell network) can squeeze you for as much money as they want. Unlicensed spectrum is always cheaper, and you hardly need LTE's range advantage for femtocells. Why use licensed spectrum for short-range stuff? I also find it suspicious that this article emphasizes how much buy-in LTE Direct has from gigantic corporations, without making much of a case for why actual endusers would like it. A good clue is that there's no equivalent for Wifi MAC randomization (which iOS 8 does by default) in LTE Direct: spoofing your IMEI is a federal crime. There's no way to avoid being tracked by LTE Direct femtocells, short of shutting off your phone and sticking it in a metal box.

zwieback 12y ago
Not defending phone operators but the problem with unlicensed spectrum is precisely that it's unlicensed. You're power limited and everyone and his uncle messes up the spectrum.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The problem with unlicensed spectrum is the same as for anarchist utopia. There's essentially a single rule (maximum power limit, but even that is poorly enforced), but lots of anti-social behaviors are possible even abiding by that rule. There has been some very good work in how to add more structure and rules to unlicensed while keeping its good qualities: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4111&context=flr; http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=411... http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1542658&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1542658 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=154265...
  - lupin_sansei 12y ago
    You might find the history of unlicensed spectrum interesting http://mises.org/daily/1662 http://mises.org/daily/1662 TLDR: in the 1920s spectrum was treated as a homesteadable property right, which you could use to stop others interfering with you and could trade.

linker3000 12y ago

"Some see the technology as a potential new channel for targeted promotions or advertising." A fair amount of the article is devoted to the potential for advertising, tracking and 'user experience' - which often equates to 'we will encourage you to buy something'. I hope this feature has an 'off' switch or a set of granular user preferences.

Animats 12y ago
It probably means that, like some "free" WiFi services, you have to watch an ad before you get to connect.

wahsd 12y ago

With facebook working on mesh-networking we can be assured that it will be corrupted and heinous. I don't quite understand how the tech community could just simply capitulate freedom, liberty, and anonymity to a malevolent demon like Facebook.