Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
i presume bastards = telcos call your congresscritter, explain why spectrum should be licensed off in a fair way, to organisations who won't abuse it. educate people why most current telcos are bad. invent a new, cheap technology that has the features you want and doesn't need att to work On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your explanation. So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) There has to be something that we could do from the base to get rid of the bastards. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Nelson Castillo wrote: On 8/6/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: Run an open Wifi node. It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. It's also hard to prove it was you. A Friend says he always leaves Wifi open. You don't care if it's hard to prove it was you, to some extent. You care about the consequences to you due to not being able to instantly disprove it's not you to someone in a uniform that may have kicked in your door at 5AM. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8 Aug 2007, at 00:38, Ian Stirling wrote: You don't care if it's hard to prove it was you, to some extent. You care about the consequences to you due to not being able to instantly disprove it's not you to someone in a uniform that may have kicked in your door at 5AM. Well the crime will be traced to an IP address, if you are the only person living at that residence you'll have a struggle on your hands to prove it wasn't you. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On ti, 2007-08-07 at 12:14 +0200, Luca Dionisi wrote: If I understand correctly, the real big problem, as for legal issues and technical issues, is the GSM protocol. Using WiFi for a similar goal should be fine, though. The problem is that you can reach much shorter distances without the help of someone else's spot. [...] Do I mistake again? Not really, though I think I should again remind you that the _reason_ you get good range for your power with GSM is _because_ the towers centrally controls the frequencies and timeslots that the handsets use for transmissions, and everybody plays by those rules. And also, wrt. mesh networking, you still don't really want to allow your phone, while it's mobile, to work as a bridge in the mesh; otherwise the battery would be dead in no time. But sure, advocate lots of open access points and perhaps putting the phone in mesh mode if it's hooked up to external power. And still there will be severe scalability issues, but what the hey, it's possible for _some_ N, right? :] -- Mikko J Rauhala [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Helsinki ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem could be worked out. And, BTW, I think that having to recharge the phone batteries once a day is a price that I would pay if it allows for a free communication channel with a whole city. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : The problem is that you can reach much shorter distances without the help of someone else's spot. Yep. Wimax has a better range, it's designed to replace last mile technology, ie. the phone line or cable between your local telco exchange and your house. But it's never been designed with mobile phones in mind AFAIK. Another technology would be satellite phone technology, however this again won't be open, won't be low power and satellite bandwidth is even more restricted than GSM. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Yep. Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is the only needed spot. If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem could be worked out. Are you sure that I'm advocating the wrong way to go? It's not just consumption of power, transmission strength as well. Would you really feel safe placing a mobile device to your head that is transmitting a signal 10 or more times stronger than with GSM? Not such an issue if you mandate a headset, but it's still a health concern. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/7/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Yep. Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is the only needed spot. If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem could be worked out. Are you sure that I'm advocating the wrong way to go? It's not just consumption of power, transmission strength as well. Would you really feel safe placing a mobile device to your head that is transmitting a signal 10 or more times stronger than with GSM? Not such an issue if you mandate a headset, but it's still a health concern. When you make a call (or answer) then the phone could go automatically in a mode that doesn't participate in the mesh. Solved. Or the signal is so much stronger also when it serves only you? Then working with a laptop on wifi for 8 hours is dangerous? I think there is some FUD in this issue. And the bastards (you know who I mean) spread it well. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 13:07, Luca Dionisi wrote: On 8/7/07, Mikko J Rauhala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And also, wrt. mesh networking, you still don't really want to allow your phone, while it's mobile, to work as a bridge in the mesh; otherwise the battery would be dead in no time. But sure, advocate lots of open access points and perhaps putting the phone in mesh mode if it's hooked up to external power. And still there will be severe scalability issues, but what the hey, it's possible for _some_ N, right? :] Yep. Anyway I would insist in finding a solution that doesn't rely heavily in access points. It would be a showstopper. IMHO we could reach the needed adoption level only if the mobile phone (that everyone nowadays carries with him) is the only needed spot. If the mesh protocol is smart, I think the consumption problem could be worked out. Of course thing can always be optimised, but i doubt that will be sufficient. Your idea boils down to replacing GSM towers with a handfull of NEOs. That whould roughly mean that all the power consumed a GSM tower now needs to be provided by the batteries of these NEOs. Thats not something trivial. And there will be added complexity because the system will have to cope with all the NEOs moving around, constantly changing routes from A to B etc. It may not be impossible, but it's not going to be easy. Apart from that, systems like this are like public roads. With just a few users there is no problem at all, but when things get crowded you will need some rules or it will become a useless mess. AVee ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
ti, 2007-08-07 kello 17:34 +0200, Luca Dionisi kirjoitti: I don't know for sure if they write sentences like that one without having a clue. They probably don't, you just don't have a clue what they're actually talking about (for example, not talking about power). Anyway, let me try to be helpful here in giving you some personal insight about yourself: You obviously lack all necessary technical background to understand the issues properly at all. Your obvious hatred of telcos doesn't exactly help, since it apparently completely blinds you to rational arguments why schemes such as the one you're proposing are extremely difficult to scale in sane ways, let alone with limited power. And no, dismissing them as telco FUD without any grounds isn't a proper argument. Thank you, have a nice day, and let's get back to this when you understand what a radio is and how it's different from a p2p network, shall we? HTH and cheers. -- Mikko Rauhala - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - URL:http://www.iki.fi/mjr/ Transhumanist - WTA member - URL:http://www.transhumanism.org/ Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - URL:http://www.singinst.org/ ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/8/07, Mikko Rauhala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They probably don't, you just don't have a clue what they're actually talking about (for example, not talking about power). Anyway, let me try to be helpful here in giving you some personal insight about yourself: You obviously lack all necessary technical background to understand the issues properly at all. Your obvious hatred of telcos doesn't exactly help, since it apparently completely blinds you to rational arguments why schemes such as the one you're proposing are extremely difficult to scale in sane ways, let alone with limited power. And no, dismissing them as telco FUD without any grounds isn't a proper argument. Thank you, have a nice day, and let's get back to this when you understand what a radio is and how it's different from a p2p network, shall we? HTH and cheers. hey, take it easy i for one was interested in what luca had to say, the discussion that evolved, and i've learned something because of it your attitude is really helping. he might not know anything (i doubt it, he appears to have done some research), but dismissing his input because of it is short-sighted. a new pair of eyes with a different slant can often be useful. this list is not about personal improvement, it's about a phone and an OS. keep it to that and anyway, the telcos are bastards, are screwing us and many would agree with luca's sentiments. i found out last week that i get charged NZ$10/MB (about $8US) for GPRS data - that's not justified, and isn't customer oriented, it's money-grabbing ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 7 Aug 2007, at 22:34, Robin Paulson wrote: i for one was interested in what luca had to say, the discussion that evolved, and i've learned something because of it The idea was a good one, but not feasible at this time and not with Moko hardware. The Neo1973 is an open device but it can't defy physics. and anyway, the telcos are bastards, are screwing us and many would agree with luca's sentiments. i found out last week that i get charged NZ$10/MB (about $8US) for GPRS data - that's not justified, and isn't customer oriented, it's money-grabbing True, plus their plans don't make sense. SMS messages cost a fortune for 160 bytes. But hey, they're a business and businesses are all about making money. Competition is what drives down costs usually. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Hi all, I have a likely silly question. I'm wondering why is it that in the mobile phone world there has not been a revolution similar to the P2P that we have seen in the internet, What's the real problem? What you propose is illegal due to the restrictions on radio transmissions. There isn't really an unlicenced frequency band you can use for mobile phones. You would have to design a phone which uses wifi/wimax communication to talk to other phones and build up an adhoc cell network. The problem is you would be relying on someone near to you, if you were in a quiet area then one person's phone going offline would mean you would lose your connection. Also, the power drain of having a radio transmitter (eg. Wifi) switched on all the time with an active would be huge. It just isn't going to happen anytime soon (IMHO). --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi wrote: Hi all, I have a likely silly question. I'm wondering why is it that in the mobile phone world there has not been a revolution similar to the P2P that we have seen in the internet, e.g. with emule or bittorrent, that is where the users are benefitting from each other instead of relying in a centralized service provider. Neglecting the illegality that others have addressed. There seems to be a fundamentally flawed mental model that some people have. Radio waves are not like the internet. To make a computer analogy, they are like having everyone within several kilometers on one unswitched ethernet network. Consider a thousand people in a smallish room. If they are all silent, and speak only on an agreed schedule, everyone can easily hear everyone else, without raising their voice. (transmission power) However, this only gives so much bandwidth (words/minute) before the channel becomes saturated. If you don't have an agreed schedule, any two people in the room conversing will mean that you can't really hear someone if they are further away than the two people talking. This is a reduction in range due to interference. If everyone talks at once, you can only hear your neighbours. This is when communication with people other than your neighbours becomes impossible. Also, you can't meaningfully pass messages to other people - without a drastic crash in bandwidth, as every member of the network between you and the person you want to message is also passing messages for dozens of others. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you propose is illegal due to the restrictions on radio transmissions. ... The problem is you would be relying on someone near to you, ... Also, the power drain of having a radio transmitter (eg. Wifi) switched on all the time... Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an incremental adoption of emule. For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in a movement starting from the base. On 8/6/07, Sébastien Lorquet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel that building a network architecture relying on others users to transmit critical data streams could raise a lot of security and speed issues. There are protocols for anonymity. On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you can't do is use the GSM frequencies for this kind of thing, first because you don't have access to the GSM chip firmware, ... Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. On 8/6/07, Torfinn Ingolfsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, for the GSM network at least, the current devices simply cannot talk to each other directly, ech needs to talk to a base station. Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an incremental adoption of emule. Yes, but on a mobile device? For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in a movement starting from the base. Simple fact is if you produce an open mobile and start breaking laws with it then its days are numbered. Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. Partly, but the chips are often built around a protocol. So if you are changing the protocol then you can't use a device that implements a protocol in hardware. Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? Limitation of the silicon. It's like trying to use a sound chip for graphics, or a dial up model for ADSL. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Ok, good points for sure. But similar points have not stopped an incremental adoption of emule. Yes, but on a mobile device? For the legal aspect, since our representatives have demonstrated that they care about consumers' interests less than zero, I hope in a movement starting from the base. Simple fact is if you produce an open mobile and start breaking laws with it then its days are numbered. I was thinking of a door left open for third-party apps. Well, then it IS a matter of hardware openness too. Partly, but the chips are often built around a protocol. So if you are changing the protocol then you can't use a device that implements a protocol in hardware. Is this a existing limitation also for GPRS or UMTS? Limitation of the silicon. It's like trying to use a sound chip for graphics, or a dial up model for ADSL. Sad. I was sure it was a silly question. Well, then the openmoko revolution is not as big a revolution as I thought. Still it is big! ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Mikko J Rauhala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is that you must be a 1) criminal 2) sociopath to even want to do this thing with the GSM radio in particular, even if you could. The wifi on GTA02 on the other hand will be capable of this sort of thing (legally and ethically), therefore not really a hardware openness issue, IMAO. Just that there would still be the practical problems indicated by me and others. Ok for techie problems and we have to stick with the reality of closed firmware. I don't agree with the idea of waiting for what we'll be able to do legally and ethically with wifi. What about WiMax? What if (quite likely) the telcos win the WiMax auctions? Bye bye ethics! I would support a cooperative network solution. Speed and bandwidth issues would be worked out soon. But I guess at the moment it is just a dream. ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Cedric Cellier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : I find the idea of cooperative network elegant. But it's the same as setting your wifi to be open and setting it to repeat any connections from any other router in the area. The potential for hacking/disruption is large, place a rogue device in the matrix of phones and you could cause loss of service for people I dunno, maybe people would like to do that? there's always some disruptive people out there, see the recent case of GPS/RDS hacking where people could inject false traffic information. --- G O Jones ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
Earlier someone said: I think you described just about every tech-savy teenager out there... On 8/7/07, Luca Dionisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your explanation. So, what are the current proposal for starting the real revolution? I'm getting bored and frustrated. :) There has to be something that we could do from the base to get rid of the bastards. Or to put it another way, there is a lot of suggestion out in the community that young people ( in schools for example) are becoming more violent. This is just the manifestation of the same problem in the tech area. It is something that has always been there, but magnified by the improvement in communications. I think we have a duty to work peacefully toward improvement of these problems on all levels, rather than find ways to accommodate our aggressive instincts. Note that this is not an easy way out; it involves fundamental changes in understanding of what rights individuals have in society, starting with parents. And it will take a century or so; we may not have time. clare, who is pessimistic about people, religion, politics, climate change etc ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
I guess you can't have a revolution without breaking some laws... ;) On 8/7/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: Run an open Wifi node. It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. But anyway, on the topic of wifi, is anyone planning any Wifi tools? easily sharing data like music, ringtones, browser links, contact card etc? ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: What's the real scope of hardware openness?
On 8/6/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Aug 2007, at 23:58, Ortwin Regel wrote: Run an open Wifi node. It's becoming less and less of a good idea to do that these days. You are responsible for any activity on your connection, so if someone commits a crime you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't you. It's also hard to prove it was you. A Friend says he always leaves Wifi open. http://wiki.freaks-unidos.net/weblogs/azul/open-your-wifi http://opwifi.com/ What if a lot of people leave Wifi open? Regards.- -- http://arhuaco.org http://emQbit.com ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
