Swedish Company Trials Peer-to-Peer Cellphones

Dr_Barnowl writes "A company named TerraNet is going through a trial period for a p2p based mobile telephony system. Phones are used to route calls onto other phones, constructing mesh networks of 'up to 20km'. The BBC reports on the natural tendency of the big telecoms providers to want to squash this. I can see other problems though. The advantages in an environment with sparse cell coverage are obvious, but network effects mean that the number of connections in a heavily populated mesh grow exponentially. What happens to your battery life when your phone becomes a node? And while the company is optimistic that they have a viable technology model from IP licensing, the demand for devices supporting this is going to be proportional to the number of devices that it can connect you to."

Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Crazy Taco (1083423)]

This brings to mind some major privacy concerns too. Who besides me doesn't want my conversation getting routed through someone else's phone?

Re:

[cromar (1103585)]

Just throw some DRM in them suckers.

Re:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Uh, no. You're thinking of plain old encryption, not DRM -- "DRM" refers specifically to the situation where the intended recipient and attacker are the same person, which is not the case here. Also, normal encryption works fine; it's only DRM that's mathematically-impossible snakeoil.

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[vertinox (846076)]

This brings to mind some major privacy concerns too. Who besides me doesn't want my conversation getting routed through someone else's phone?

Do you use IRC, Skype, or some type of chat software?

Maybe say... Internet forums?

Then your conversations are already being routed through someone else's hardware. You can always use encryption though in all cases.

Re:

[Da Fokka (94074)]

Now that your head has been forcibly removed from your ass, please try to contribute something relevant to the discussion.

You started with a reasonable point, so why this remark? Just because the internet allows you to say things you would never say face to face, doesn't mean it's right to do so.

Re:Privacy Concerns Anyone?

[Neil Watson (60859)]

The phone call is already going through the air for anyone one with the will and know-how to intercept.

Re:

[JoshRosenbaum (841551)]

I know people will say, "Well, we'll encrypt the message", but when my phone is a man in the middle, good luck transfering the key without me finding a way to get it.

You wouldn't use a single key for this. You'd use public/private keys. It doesn't matter if you're in the middle using public/private keys. An easy example is https which is ssl over http. There are plenty of points that are traveled through, but it's always encrypted.

Read about public key crypto here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-ke [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Pollardito (781263)]

You wouldn't use a single key for this. You'd use public/private keys. It doesn't matter if you're in the middle using public/private keys.

your link contains this under Weaknesses:

Another potential security vulnerability in using asymmetric keys is the possibility of a man in the middle attack, in which communication of public keys is intercepted by a third party and modified to provide different public keys instead. Encrypted messages and responses must also be intercepted, decrypted and re-encrypted by the attacker using the correct public keys for different communication segments in all instances to avoid suspicion. This attack may seem to

Re:

[Cajun Hell (725246)]

This brings to mind some major privacy concerns too

It's good that it brings those concerns to mind. Just remember that it didn't create those concerns. Your conversations were already insecure.

Nothing is ever going to happen -- phone calls routed through your worst enemy, government listening to every single conversation without a warrant, Qeng Ho traders lurking at L1 checking out how much alien Viagra our planets needs, or p2p telecom systems -- which makes things worse. We already have this problem

Re:

[ChrisA90278 (905188)]

"Who besides me doesn't want my conversation getting routed through someone else's phone"

Your cell phone already broadcasts the conversation through the air.

Re:Do you hold nuclear security codes?

[apparently (756613)]

What on earth makes you think other people would want to listen to your phone conversations?

Gee, I dunno, most people's internet traffic is pretty fucking boring, but it doesn't stop the script kiddies from firing up their favorite wireless sniffer and eavesdropping. Why ever would I be concerned about someone eavesdropping on a phone call? Is that seriously the most sound "counterargument" you could come up with?

Re:

[Lesrahpem (687242)]

You can sniff cell phone calls using little more than a HAM radio. This technology doesn't make it any easier or harder. In fact, I don't think this way of routing calls has any security/privacy implications which aren't already an issue with normal cellphone call routing, with the exception that this method makes it harder to eavesdrop on a specific phone call, since the calls don't go through any central point.

Re:

[apparently (756613)]

Why would I care? Because my private matters, whether it be a credit card number, the status of an illness, or the fact that my house will be vacant while I'm on vacation, are none of anyone's business?
What about when I receive a call? How do I know if the conversation is going to turn from mundane to private?

Not exponentially

[f97tosc (578893)]

... but network effects mean that the number of connections in a heavily populated mesh grow exponentially.

No, quadratically with the number of phones.

Re:

[markov_chain (202465)]

Also, given random connection pairs, and uniform distribution in some 2d area, one can show the capacity across a line bisecting the area is more or less proportional to 1/sqrt(n). This is probably pretty realistic, unfortunately.

Re:

[rxmd (205533)]

... but network effects mean that the number of connections in a heavily populated mesh grow exponentially.

No, quadratically with the number of phones.

Assuming that most connections are between two phones, and that while a connection is open the participating phones mostly don't phone any other phones, in a real-world situation the bounds are even lower. Assuming only 1:1 connections, the worst case would be a topology with all phones in a row, one in the middle, and everybody on the left calling someon

What happens to battery life:

[GroeFaZ (850443)]

Obviously the battery will be drained to zero in the blink of an eye, possibly dieing a violent, flaming death if enough energy was stored the moment you switched on the phone. Thankfully, your investigative question posed in TFS alerted their engineers to the problem so they can start working around this problem. Then again, maybe they were already aware of the problem and resorted to the wonderful method of self-regulating systems. The more cell phones burn up, the less dense the network will be. A beatiful design indeed.

Your average p2p text message

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

With every text message being based on text messages sent by other users, here is your average p2p text message:

lol omg wtf roflmao bff jill bff jill bff jill

It's an effective way to make sure your messages are completely devoid of any content.

Mesh network thoughts

[dada21 (163177)]

I've been studying mesh networks, including Internet-based ones such as peercast networks, for quite some time. A few things to consider:

1. The strength of nodes you can connect to should be based on their strength versus others. Strength should be rated by uplink connection speed (is one node connected to the web versus other nodes connected only to other nodes?), power availability (is one node connected to a power supply verses a battery?), recent packet loss history and recent downtime history.

2. Node saturation: if a node with a lower network latency oversaturated? Connect to a less saturated, higher latency node.

3. Data needs: are you sending voice/video or data? Real-time connections should take precedence over data, of course.

The problem is way more complicated than it seems. For me, a perfect mesh/peercast network would allow data to navigate based on need as well as navigate to those who are the strongest nodes. Do current mesh networks consider these ideas? As far as I know, many of them don't.

doesn't sound like a 'new' idea...

[PerfectCircle (209093)]

a couple decades ago there was a lot of DARPA research into autonomous routing and re-configuration in support of then-called 'packet radio' networks.

It doesn't seem like much more than VoIP over a ham packet radio network, only without having to be a geek to use it :-)

Re:

[dada21 (163177)]

I'm not familiar with DARPA's research, but I've read quite a few independent research studies on the topic over a decade or more.

For me, the research is based on the idea of open bandwidth (unlicensed, low government regulation if any) to move towards software radios that can hop frequencies based on sending-power/frequency harmony, power-supply availability, bandwidth-needs, latency-needs and nearby mesh-capability.

I'm known here as the anti-FCC guy, because my decade+ of study has led me to believe that

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

It gets really messy once you get past the network problems.
How do start with a useful quality of service? You will need x phones distributed over a given area?
How do you deal with Christmas day and or Mothers day when every body is calling?
This would really be the pits in sparsely populated areas because you could never be sure that the mesh has enough nodes to be functional.
In heavily populated areas it is probably cheaper to put in small towers and use the microwave links and or fiber that is already the

countdown to filesharing

[rucs_hack (784150)]

I'd give it a year after this implemented and people will be routinely sharing music over this system.

Then there will be uproar from the music police, and they will insist on such draconian anti piracy measures that the technology will become all but unusable.

Or am I being pessimistic.

Power to the masses V0.1?

[dysplay (1026828)]

Concerning the author's comment on battery life, could one potentially recycle an old phone to act as a node in this network? Seems many of us get a new one every few years anyway.

If you can find a way to add privacy, then this could be a great way to return power to consumers and stick it to the man. Or at least have some leverage in convincing major companies to act more consume-friendly. I for one want to see lower prices and the end of the long-distance tax we have now.

Re:

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

One could even imagine a completely separate node product, that would be lacking in features and mobility, but would run from grid power and would have much better range. This could be used by citizen organizations to improve coverage in some places, or maybe for households that want to improve coverage in their own neighborhood. It wouldn't even necessarily cost more than the mobile phone version.

Re:

[tekiegreg (674773)]

Hmmm even as it is, why couldn't a cell phone company do just that, sell cheap antennas that relay to bigger antennas? Make them sensitive to signal so they shutdown if the signal is too loud but otherwise for say a few bucks you can buy a repeater that would strenghten your signal out to the more remote antennas. FCC probably has an issue with this I take it....

Niche Power

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

What happens to your battery life when your phone becomes a node?

Other than the unpredictable reliability of mesh density required to get service, that battery cost is a certain problem.

But if their routing protocol includes battery costs, so battery wear across the whole network is evened, then that problem could be alleviated. It might even offer a way for people to be compensated for contributing to the network, perhaps just by keeping their phone recharged. Getting power to the towers is probably the bi

Re:

[Dr_Barnowl (709838)]

I knocked this one around with a colleague a bit after posting. We thought that an old phone plugged into its charger permanently would make an excellent local node, with your phone only configured to peer with it.

The protocol could make allowances for battery levels (as pointed out elsewhere on the thread), and if you were plugged in you should be fair game.

I also thought that it would make a great, cheap, ad-hoc communications node for expeditions into areas with no coverage. Even if you can't persuade so

How About A Home P2P Network First

[Nymz (905908)]

I would like to see a p2p wifi network, but not neccessarily on portable phones first, but instead on home computers. You'd think that scenario would be easier to create, maintain, and depend upon, but I guess the demand isn't there yet. I'm thinking the driver for such a change might come from a lack of net neutrality, where people are not only throttled in their communications, but cut off entirely.

Re:

[rs79 (71822)]

" I would like to see a p2p wifi network, but not neccessarily on portable phones first, but instead on home computers"

You're late. It was called UUCP.

Re:

[rubypossum (693765)]

I absolutely agree. Cisco (Linksys) or Belkin could instantly create such a network if they incorporated the functionality into their 802.11abgn routers. Add an anonymous secure networking protocol that throttled usage based on resources (and gave priority to the connection owner.) This is what causes people to close off routers after all (read jackasses who bittorrent all day long on your open connection.)

If every router was open we'd already have the system in place. Then you could use a Skype phone or si

Any role for Open Source Software?

[bogaboga (793279)]

This is a very exciting development. I wonder whether there will be a role for OSS. What would it take to develop "Open Source" hardware powered by OSS to exploit this idea fully?

I am tired of my cell phone provider myself, mainly because of contracts and hidden fees/costs.

GPS

[TheSHAD0W (258774)]

Put a GPS receiver in each phone, then send location statistics with each call. The company will rapidly discover the optimum positions to place central nodes, reducing the need for phone-based relaying except in fringe areas.

That and have lots of fun data to send to the NSA...

That's not a scientific attitude!

[ishmalius (153450)]

Dr_Barnowl is apparently leaving his scientific method behind when he makes assumptions about whether these things are viable. The "proof is in the pudding," as they say. The final judgment of this cell-mesh is: does it work?

It seems inevitable

[llZENll (545605)]

In the future every device will be part of a wireless mesh network, both acting as a server and client, make it 802 compliant and you have an awesome platform. There is a chicken and egg problem though, enough users need to have devices in order for the network to work, and most people won't want the device unless there are enough to support a reliable network. Piggy backing onto current cell and wireless networks is the way to solve this, relying on them when you don't have enough nodes to connect to, wh

To everyone worried about privacy

[allthingscode (642676)]

We're talking about cell phones. You're out in public talking with 100 people around you and you're worried about privacy?!! If you want privacy wait until you get home.

Longer battery life is the bonus

[kanweg (771128)]

Because phones are much closer to each other than telecom towers, and the energy to transmit goes up quadratically with the distance, I think there is no issue of the batteries dying in a blink. However, when you're on the road (driving), you may not be in touch with enough other phones, and the connection may suck.

Bert

Scaling laws

[Baldrson (78598)]

The scaling laws relating to battery power cited in the article are off. Power use per capita is driven by packet rate through one's phone times the power required to relay the packet. As density increases, power drops off with a square law while the number of packets per capita doesn't increase linearly, nor even quadratically, let alone exponentially, just because the population density increases. Indeed, given that human interaction is more direct the more dense the population, there is reason to beli

A hybrid solution might be best

[willy_me (212994)]

One of the problems with wireless grid networks is the latency involved. Having towers makes for much lower latency. The idea of a call being routed 100km over a grid where the nodes have a max range of 1km is crazy. That's a couple of hundred possible points of failure. The quality just won't be acceptable.

But what about keeping the towers and just using a grid to connect the nodes that are a little out of range. Now that calls just have to traverse the grid to get to the nearest tower. Potential for error is greatly reduced along with latency.

Areas with an existing infrastructure would benefit even though there is already full coverage. When one has a poor connection (say, in a basement building) the phone could opt to use the grid to get the message out and to the tower. Overall quality of service would increase.

Areas without an infrastructure would benefit by requiring fewer towers. The more towers the better the quality of service - but for many areas just getting service is the main concern. In such areas only minimal infrastructure would be required. Additional infrastructure could be added in the future should they want to increase the quality of service.

In addition, localization (ie, 911) and content monitoring are only minimally effected by such a system. Believe it or not, this is actually a good thing for most people.

Just an idea,
Willy

Correction: p2p *portable* phone

[belg4mit (152620)]

Cause they ain't exactly cells anymore are they?

Re:And...

[Tackhead (54550)]

> If your phone is a node how easy would it be to listen in on conversations compared to how the phone systems currently work?

Probably a lot easier for another node to listen in. Probably a lot harder for the Government to listen in, until they write some tracking software.

Unfortunately for anyone building a P2P wireless mesh network, the way you solve the first problem (casual eavesdroppers) involves crypto of sufficient strength to make government eavesdropping impractical.

We're therefore presented with a technology that's in the interest of the consumer, but counter to the interests of the telcos and the government. No P2P wireless mesh networks will be permitted to proliferate.

Re:

[ChrisA90278 (905188)]

"If your phone is a node how easy would it be to listen in on conversations compared to how the phone systems currently work?"

It may be harder to listen in because second by second your phone could be switching the path it is using through the network.

Encrytion would solve the entire problem for all types of phone networks

Re:

[toQDuj (806112)]

and yet, you use the internet..

Re:

[flyingfsck (986395)]

PTT phones are already available. These provide simple point to point comms between handsets - walkie talkie mode. The Mesh is the logical next step.

Re:

[rabbit994 (686936)]

PTT Phones (Nextel is best example) do use the network. Even if you PTT someone next to you, the actual "call" goes from your phone to tower, then tower to phone. If phones are not on the same tower, it goes phone -wireless-> Tower -copper-> Tower -wireless-> phone.

For the ones offering "off network" PTT use FRS frequencies for communication so range is limited to other headsets within 1 mile or so. (Depending on conditions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

If you were able to make calls from one phone to another without getting routed through the existing cell network, you'd be able to make calls for free, in essence.

With many providers, mobile-to-mobile calls within the same network are free. This provider would presumably still be able to track things once they connect through the telco to the outside world, and that's what would need tracking.

If I'm right (which happens occasionally) this would bring us to another point.. how long before someone hacks out how to become a member of this "mesh" without having to leave it, and therefore get charged? This has the pontential to be huge, and the decentralized aspect ma

Re:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

If you were able to make calls from one phone to another without getting routed through the existing cell network, you'd be able to make calls for free, in essence.

So what's the problem? The telco wouldn't be able to meter because they're not using the network, but the telco also shouldn't meter for exactly the same reason! If the call isn't using any of the telco's resources, it should be "free!"

In other words, this sounds like a perfectly great idea to me, and much more in line with how the airwaves, be

Re:

[flyingfsck (986395)]

You already have PTT mode Stateside. A mesh is just a more complicated version of the same thing.

Re:

[multipart/mixed (163409)]

IIRC, iDEN PTT works through the BSS, which is both the very antithesis of a mesh, and an easy entry point for CALEA.

Or am I missing something?

Re:Sick of concern about identity theft.

[rs79 (71822)]

" I am so sick of everyone one being oh so concerned about identity theft"

No shit. I'd PAY somebody to be me.