Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

volkfi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#111

Post by ansible »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #71
ac29 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with 900MHz radios and infrastructure, here's my thoughts: > The frequencies are what I'm confused by as well. To have a half mile range at relatively low powers it would need to be a low frequency band. > I'm guessing they haven't bought licenses from the FCC, so my bet is that they're using the 900 MHz ISM band. Seems likely, and probably even works in controlled tests over relatively short distances. 900MHz…

> cell carriers have access to better bands, and far better infrastructure What would be the best band for this kind of infrastructure? ( Disregarding any existing FCC licenses )

> What would be the best band for this kind of infrastructure? ( Disregarding any existing FCC licenses )

The frequency bands that have been licensed for cellular infrastructure.

Its all a trade-off. Higher frequencies get you better data bandwidth, but require more power and get attenuated more by stuff (buildings, trees). Lower frequencies get you much better range for a given power level and better building penetration, but lower data bandwidth.

Exceptions to this are the "crap" bands, like 2.4GHz and 60GHz. Microwave ovens (which are great interferers, BTW) use 2.4GHz because it is absorbed by water. Great for heating your food. No so great trying to transmit data in an outdoor environment with rain and fog.

60GHz gets absorbed by the oxygen in the atmosphere, so that's another band that's only good for very short ranges.

The bands the cellular carriers have now are a good trade-off between power requirements, data bandwidth, and other issues (like absorption). The ISM bands exist basically because nobody would pay to use them.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#112

Post by ErikHuisman »

marijn wrote: post #109
int_19h wrote: post #20

This makes a bit more sense: "Every Volk phone has a SIM card slot and supports use on traditional LTE networks. However, a SIM is not necessary and the phone will always prioritize the Volk network first. The Volk network works as such: every Volk user gets a special router with their phone. The router acts as a wireless Qi charging pad also. The router connects to your existing internet via Ethernet or something si…

> If there are no routers or Volk phones nearby to hop to, you'll either not have service, have to use Wifi, or fallback to LTE if you have a SIM card installed and it has active service. That does make the "Global Coverage: Our network is everywhere our users are" claim a bit dodgy, no? Sure, you'll have coverage in the middle of the desert—if there happens to be a chain of Volk phones from there to the nearest poin…

It is hard to create coverage from nothing. So they made an hybrid form. "Bring your own coverage unless there is coverage". Something is better than nothing i guess. Even with this hybrid version i think chances are very slim one node will meet another and create a tiny chain by pure coincidence.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#113

Post by sliken »

ixwt wrote: post #96
sliken wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay $0.05 per GB or so at home ($60 per TB). I'd happily sell my data at a small profit just to offset whatever the equipment is that's required. Someone else on this thread mentioned gotenna, which seemed like a similarly cool idea. Unfortunately they rejected the idea of allowing gotenna internet gotenna via a gateway I offered to write. They already have a unique id per device and I was going to use a DHT to all…

This would be a great feature for gotenna. Especially if places near where you would be using a gotenna have internet access.

Well the gotenna network is pretty slow, and internet is not particularly friendly to store and forward with high latencies. I was thinking more along the lines of sharing your location (like APRS) and SMS/IM type traffic. That way you could have cover a large area with minimal infrastructure.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#114

Post by sliken »

mirashii wrote: post #107
sliken wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it the opposite way. You have no coverage, are trying to get a message out and the nearest gateway is miles away. A moving car/train is close to you for plenty of time to transfer a few 100 bytes, and someone in the car/train has a mesh aware widget. It stores a copy and waits to go near a gateway where it upload it for you. Sure, it's not as nice as a WAN connection, but the average cellular contract is pre…

Ah, but now you're talking about solving an additional problem, delay tolerant networking, on top of mesh networking. This adds a whole new layer of complexity on top of the mesh network, and would probably only work as you say for a subset of services that are made to handle this type of unreliable network. Also many common delay tolerant network implementations rely on message replication to increase the probabilit…

Indeed, seems only practical for things like SMS/IM type traffic where even a Long/LAT + 30 character message every few minutes would be quite useful.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#115

Post by angott »

rocqua wrote: post #72
a3_nm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would your call be routed just via one single phone?

Are you going to send the message over more than one route? That doubles the required bandwidth over the entire mesh.

This is similar to Multipath TCP, for anybody interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipath_TCP

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#116

Post by Tazmanian »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #42
sliken wrote: post #23

I'd happily put a large omnidirectional wifi antenna on my roof to help out with something like this.... if I could get a fair rate for the bandwidth used. My city has 70k people or so, and is perfectly flat. Similarly I'd be willing to help with any p2p type wireless, with a radio, antenna, and raspberry Pi or similar. Sadly most p2p wireless internet gateways are proprietary.

I've always wondered about this as well. Get independent hobbyists to setup micro wifi networks. Run all traffic through a vpn or some sort so the operator doesn't risk their IP/ISP banning their service. Monetize the whole thing on a pay as you go service. $1/gb and give 70 cents of that to the independent operators. The big telecoms already have these little mini-wifi networks in bigger cities that you can get acce…

Have been trying to do that for many years now first with the EFF scheme "openwireless.org", then with soprani.ca. https://wom.community/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/operatives. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/595zg5/sopranica-...

Even have a good VPN supplier picked out.

But these people are always talk and theory, never a simple blueprint for a standardized design.

Guess it's always like this :( I'm not terribly impressed with the Tor organization either.

The public really needs a way to bypass these lying thieving carriers and these gubmint bullshit artists wanting to keep their jobs. But without some sort of credible leadership - such alternatives will never exist.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#117

Post by ac29 »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #71
ac29 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with 900MHz radios and infrastructure, here's my thoughts: > The frequencies are what I'm confused by as well. To have a half mile range at relatively low powers it would need to be a low frequency band. > I'm guessing they haven't bought licenses from the FCC, so my bet is that they're using the 900 MHz ISM band. Seems likely, and probably even works in controlled tests over relatively short distances. 900MHz…

> cell carriers have access to better bands, and far better infrastructure What would be the best band for this kind of infrastructure? ( Disregarding any existing FCC licenses )

The biggest advantage to the cellular bands is that they are exclusively licensed, so noise is a non-issue, or at least an issue that you are in control of, since you are the only one allowed to build infrastructure in a given area.

Cell carriers have a wide variety of bands they can deploy, from frequencies above 1GHz, which doesn't propagate well through free space or obstructions, but allows for high-density, high-bandwidth use, to frequencies below 1GHz (600, 700 and 800MHz bands in the US), which propagate well in free space and reasonably well around and through obstructions (but cant be deployed with as high a density, since signals propagate well).

That being said, the infrastructure is the biggest advantage.

My gut says that absent FCC regulations and allocations, for wide area coverage something like 500-900 MHz is an ideal spot between propagation and required antenna size. Guess where TV stations are (historically at least)?

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#119

Post by acct1771 »

onion2k wrote: post #84
int_19h wrote: post #20

This makes a bit more sense: "Every Volk phone has a SIM card slot and supports use on traditional LTE networks. However, a SIM is not necessary and the phone will always prioritize the Volk network first. The Volk network works as such: every Volk user gets a special router with their phone. The router acts as a wireless Qi charging pad also. The router connects to your existing internet via Ethernet or something si…

If a router isn't nearby, the phone will try to find another Volk phone to use as a hop, until it finally reaches a router. If my volkfi phone is acting as a relay for someone else's phone to hop to an available router isn't that going to run my phone's battery down? That's not going to be a nice experience if I'm unlucky enough to be a relay for a lot of people.

Better push for fast adoption.

Re: Volk Fi: Distributed network smartphone

#120

Post by acct1771 »

TomMarius wrote: post #46
anonymous5133 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a genius idea to me. In theory at least.

Practicality is an issue though. Mostly because of our current regulation, must be said.

If government regulates away personal sovereignty, you just tell a hundred million people they have personal sovereignty, and watch them decide if it's worth it to impede.
Post reply on HN