21–29 of 29 posts
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22540066
I think selling it as a communicator for skiing/hiking is maybe a better idea than as a disaster radio, solely because a disaster radio is never really going to be used. If it's a useful, well used system that happens to be highly resiliant, that makes it much more likely to be available when a disaster hits.
This sounds similar to this project: https://www.meshtastic.org/ which was featured on HN a few weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22540066 I think selling it as a communicator for skiing/hiking is maybe a better idea than as a disaster radio, solely because a disaster radio is never really going to be used. If it's a useful, well used system that happens to be highly resiliant, that makes it much more l…
* use off the shelf hardware, so user can just buy a finished device from China * make it cheap * Make something useful for people in general (without disaster) - then they will have it when the disaster happens.
Mostly what we need is fewer restrictions on some better radio frequencies. Legalizing encrypted Ham radio would be a good start. If there was an ecosystem of infrastructure around those frequencies, we would have no problem whatsoever building robust mesh networks with higher bandwidth that could operate uninterrupted through crisis scenarios. As it is, we've been left with scraps; and this article describes an amaz…
I used to think that allowing encrypted ham radio would be a good idea, but the more I think about it, it isn't. It's supposed to be a place for radio hobbyist experimentation. To permit encryption there would see it used for commercial applications pretending to be hobbyists, and other exploitation outside its purpose. I feel that other solutions would be better, for example having bands for community mesh networkin…
This would just be part of the ecosystem. We've already learned to coexist in the shorter-range wifi spectrum. There's no reason only hobbyists should be able to access the spectrum, since that means that commercial applications would be disallowed from operating with robust tools when crisis comes.
What exactly is wrong with commercial use coexisting with hobbyist use? And what is the experimentation supposed to lead to? If we allow commercial application, then we might actually see an effective mesh network set up. I mean, if I could build a meshnet in the Ham radio spectrum and sell access, I'd do it: I'd be able to build it right, it would be reliable, and people would be glad it existed. But it's not worth the years of effort if it can't be commercial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s sad that the likelihood of legal encrypted Ham is decreasing. This would be such a fun and useful platform to start spinning up services on.
We should build the services anyway. We can design radios that use spread-spectrum / low-probability-of-intercept / below-the-noise-floor techniques that can make the services both harder to identify, and (more importantly) far, far less likely to interfere with anything else on the same frequencies, which is what the FCC actually cares about. If this is useful, and if people actually want to use it, they will, and t…
I'm with you on this idea.
This sounds similar to this project: https://www.meshtastic.org/ which was featured on HN a few weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22540066 I think selling it as a communicator for skiing/hiking is maybe a better idea than as a disaster radio, solely because a disaster radio is never really going to be used. If it's a useful, well used system that happens to be highly resiliant, that makes it much more l…
yep - I'm one of the meshtastic devs and that was our thought as well. * use off the shelf hardware, so user can just buy a finished device from China * make it cheap * Make something useful for people in general (without disaster) - then they will have it when the disaster happens.
The idea was not only to provide another msg app but a platform that can easily be used for different applications. One use-case in the paper is the chat app, the dtn part is not directly connected to the chat app but also uses the LoRa modem.
The modem firmware (initially developed in 2017/2018) is even more general purpose and is currently used in many different ways in different projects and prototypes. The main selling point is that one can easily connect cheap LoRa hardware to smartphones and desktop computers without microcontroller programming or providing specific device drivers. Thus, the same modem can be used for messaging as well as environmental monitoring or other IoT applications without the need to reprogram the LoRa modules.
This sounds quite similar to GoTenna, which was founded back in 2013 and has had multiple successful kickstarters. https://gotenna.com/
GoTenna is definitely similar in its use-case and appearance. The problem with GoTenna is similar to FireChat for offline communication: they are closed ecosystems, single purpose and cannot easily be changed to fit specific needs. If you need something consumer-grade, ready to use: go for GoTenna (or Sonnet or maybe even a Garmin InReach or Spot X).
We propose different proof of concepts in the paper that are nowhere near the product quality of commercial solutions. Also, the chat application is single-hop and does not yet use a DTN underlay, at least not in the published version.
But all code is open and can easily be extended. Even better, the rf95modem firmware is designed to be used as-is. Once loaded on a LoRa board anyone can implement anything over device-to-device LoRa, be it a msg app, local news broadcast, IoT monitoring. This works via AT commands over USB serial interface, local esp32 WiFi or BLE.
This sounds quite similar to GoTenna, which was founded back in 2013 and has had multiple successful kickstarters. https://gotenna.com/
One of the paper's authors here. GoTenna is definitely similar in its use-case and appearance. The problem with GoTenna is similar to FireChat for offline communication: they are closed ecosystems, single purpose and cannot easily be changed to fit specific needs. If you need something consumer-grade, ready to use: go for GoTenna (or Sonnet or maybe even a Garmin InReach or Spot X). We propose different proof of conc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s sad that the likelihood of legal encrypted Ham is decreasing. This would be such a fun and useful platform to start spinning up services on.
We should build the services anyway. We can design radios that use spread-spectrum / low-probability-of-intercept / below-the-noise-floor techniques that can make the services both harder to identify, and (more importantly) far, far less likely to interfere with anything else on the same frequencies, which is what the FCC actually cares about. If this is useful, and if people actually want to use it, they will, and t…
Not sure why I defaulted to defeatism on this topic. Guess it’s time I add a new hobby.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think that allowing encrypted ham radio would be a good idea, but the more I think about it, it isn't. It's supposed to be a place for radio hobbyist experimentation. To permit encryption there would see it used for commercial applications pretending to be hobbyists, and other exploitation outside its purpose. I feel that other solutions would be better, for example having bands for community mesh networkin…
> commercial applications This would just be part of the ecosystem. We've already learned to coexist in the shorter-range wifi spectrum. There's no reason only hobbyists should be able to access the spectrum, since that means that commercial applications would be disallowed from operating with robust tools when crisis comes. What exactly is wrong with commercial use coexisting with hobbyist use? And what is the exper…
If you want to design and build something meshy, go for it. If you're licensed and obeying the rules, you can use the ham radio spectrum for your experimentation. I'd encourage that. But when you want to take it commercial by selling access, licence some spectrum to use for it and then you don't have to use callsigns, can use encryption, etc to your heart's content.
The purpose of the ham band allocations is to be a place where people can experiment with radio (or ragchew if that's more their thing), they're qualified to some degree so are less likely to interfere with others doing the same, and they're not being stomped on by companies using it as a space to do their ISP wireless data backhaul or whatever.
By "build a meshnet in the Ham radio spectrum and sell access" you're taking something that's a public good (with some conditions) that others had access to and reselling it, making it harder for others to do the same.