Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
What did you do during your summer holidays? I was building my own GSM network!
I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system that could do what I have right now on my table :). The first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal interfaces.
In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in touch with the openbts project and try to build their base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been really helpful with hardware purchases!.
Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a different one :D. The base station uses a piece of hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication system where components that have typically been implemented in hardware are now implemented using software in a PC.
We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
-aep
PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
I'm very interest for your GSM base station for developing countries. I'll like to know more about and look how I can do it in Cameroon (Central African Region).
Waiting your prompt reply. Thanks.
Jonas KEMAJOU SYAPZE Directeur OPED - Organisation pour l'Environnement et le Développement Durable B.P. 12 675 Yaoundé - Cameroun Tel: +237 77 60 23 83 / 22 00 35 06 E-mail: oped_...@yahoo.fr / jksya...@yahoo.com
--- En date de : Lun 24.8.09, Alberto Escudero-Pascual (lists) <aep.li...@it46.se> a écrit :
De: Alberto Escudero-Pascual (lists) <aep.li...@it46.se>
Objet: Open GSM Base Station for Developing regions! Looking for a trial
À: village-telco-dev@googlegroups.com
Date: Lundi 24 Août 2009, 13h31
Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
building my own GSM network!
I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
interfaces.
In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
touch with the openbts project and try to build their
base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
really helpful with hardware purchases!.
Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
system where components that have typically been
implemented in hardware are now implemented using
software in a PC.
We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
-aep
PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
Congratulations Alberto, there is nothing like that "first phone call"
experience on brand new telephony hardware.
A few months ago I was in a remote part of East Timor. This place had
electricity just a few hours a day and virtually no other services.
Suddenly my friends GSM handset beeped and there was a text from his
wife all the way for Australia. Nothing else worked but GSM worked just
fine........
GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
propagates well over long distances without line of site issues. Now we
can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and software
components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
Cheers,
David
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:31 +0200, Alberto Escudero-Pascual (lists)
wrote:
> Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
> What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
> building my own GSM network!
> I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
> call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
> studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
> that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
> first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
> KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
> in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
> replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
> open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
> container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
> stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
> interfaces.
> In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
> Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
> to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
> infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
> was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
> touch with the openbts project and try to build their
> base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
> a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
> really helpful with hardware purchases!.
> Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
> different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
> hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
> system where components that have typically been
> implemented in hardware are now implemented using
> software in a PC.
> We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
> developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
> -aep
> PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
Very very interesting. One major challenge will be to find a surrogate
network that would be will to allow a test. openbts operates on a licensed
frequency and this guys are no where near being kind in Nigeria or West
Africa for that matter. Anyway I'm open to any help to make this project go
forward. Good job guys.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Alberto Escudero-Pascual (lists) <
> Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
> What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
> building my own GSM network!
> I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
> call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
> studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
> that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
> first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
> KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
> in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
> replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
> open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
> container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
> stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
> interfaces.
> In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
> Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
> to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
> infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
> was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
> touch with the openbts project and try to build their
> base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
> a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
> really helpful with hardware purchases!.
> Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
> different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
> hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
> system where components that have typically been
> implemented in hardware are now implemented using
> software in a PC.
> We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
> developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
> -aep
> PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
Definitely licensing is an issue but should not be a show-stopper. There
is plenty of bandwidth available in rural areas in the 850 and 900 GSM
bands. GSM handsets are some cheap and battery efficient that at least we
should give it a try :)
/aep
-- Stopping junk mailers is good for the environment
> Very very interesting. One major challenge will be to find a surrogate
> network that would be will to allow a test. openbts operates on a
> licensed
> frequency and this guys are no where near being kind in Nigeria or West
> Africa for that matter. Anyway I'm open to any help to make this project
> go
> forward. Good job guys.
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Alberto Escudero-Pascual (lists) <
> aep.li...@it46.se> wrote:
>> Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
>> What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
>> building my own GSM network!
>> I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
>> call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
>> studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
>> that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
>> first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
>> KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
>> in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
>> replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
>> open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
>> container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
>> stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
>> interfaces.
>> In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
>> Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
>> to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
>> infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
>> was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
>> touch with the openbts project and try to build their
>> base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
>> a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
>> really helpful with hardware purchases!.
>> Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
>> different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
>> hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
>> system where components that have typically been
>> implemented in hardware are now implemented using
>> software in a PC.
>> We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
>> developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
>> -aep
>> PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
> -> Localized GSM network and using VOIP for backhaul to service > providers.
This is where the openBTS project is needed! Wicked Alberto!!
They set up this openBTS on the "burning man" festical a year or two back. Then they connected an Asterisk with VoIP to it and to the leased lines. They had it up and running and suddenly noticed that people were using it to call home.... (the GSM phone just attaced to the network, no more questions asked about roaming....)
> -> Localized VOIP network and using GSM for backhaul to service > providers.
This is is very easy to do today and no need of the openBTS. You get TeleS GSM gateways (4 channel for about 750 euro) or other cheaper models They do direct SIP Trunking and even analog ports if you want to. Then just point your OpenSER og Asterisk to a trunk to the GSM gateway and you are up and running. There are larger communitites connectiong a local PBX with hunderds of phones to a GSM "backbone".
I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low- cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it > propagates well over long distances without line of site issues. > Now we > can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and > software > components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business > models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
As soon as you are recovered from Burning Man, we will like to hear more
about the experience, specially how did it go with more power in the base
station (LNA, Duplexer, etc).
Did the SMS server scale ok?
I am very eager to get a showcase running in a developing region. But I
will definitely like to see something of the 3 Kms radius to make a case.
Even it is a trial for a small period of time, i think it is worth to try
it out.
/aep
PD. Full credits should go to the openbts gang!! I just see the potential
of the toy. Will start working integrating with a2billing soon!
<Antoine> When it comes to backhaul we are currently considering a low
cost GSM USB gadget known as the mobigater. Giovanni from celliax.org is
completing as we talk the port of celliax to freeswitch
-- Stopping junk mailers is good for the environment
> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low-
> cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
>> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
>> propagates well over long distances without line of site issues.
>> Now we
>> can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
>> software
>> components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
>> models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
> David A. Burgess
> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an OpenBTS
in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
However there are many powerful business, political, and social forces
blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend large
chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter and
their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
They _must_ have a mobile.
Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build a
competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is open
and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My hope
is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs -
no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people are
using.
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
> David -
> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low- > cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
> > GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
> > propagates well over long distances without line of site issues. > > Now we
> > can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
> > software
> > components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
> > models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
> David A. Burgess
> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
> You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an OpenBTS
> in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
> technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
> Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
> However there are many powerful business, political, and social forces
> blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
> profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend large
> chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter and
> their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
> They _must_ have a mobile.
> Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
> Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
> Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build a
> competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is open
> and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My hope
> is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs -
> no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people are
> using.
> Cheers,
> David
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
> > David -
> > I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low-
> > cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
> > properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
> > regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
> > governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
> > had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
> > accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
> > when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
> > be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
> > and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
> > On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Rowe wrote:
> > > GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
> > > propagates well over long distances without line of site issues.
> > > Now we
> > > can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
> > > software
> > > components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
> > > models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
> > David A. Burgess
> > Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
Since overcoming the regulatory environment may prove the biggest hurdle, I am curious to hear from people on this list if anyone has any valuable input on which countries may provide the more lenient regulation to try this out. I know this is what Alberto essentially asked in the first place, but I would enjoy fostering the discussion on the list if people have any thoughts.
> You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an OpenBTS
> in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
> technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
> Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
> However there are many powerful business, political, and social forces
> blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
> profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend large
> chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter and
> their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
> They _must_ have a mobile.
> Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
> Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
> Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build a
> competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is open
> and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My hope
> is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs -
> no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people are
> using.
> Cheers,
> David
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
>> David -
>> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low- >> cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
>> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
>> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
>> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
>> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
>> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
>> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
>> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
>> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
>>> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
>>> propagates well over long distances without line of site issues. >>> Now we
>>> can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
>>> software
>>> components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
>>> models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
>> David A. Burgess
>> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
> Since overcoming the regulatory environment may prove the biggest
> hurdle, I am curious to hear from people on this list if anyone has any
> valuable input on which countries may provide the more lenient
> regulation to try this out. I know this is what Alberto essentially
> asked in the first place, but I would enjoy fostering the discussion on
> the list if people have any thoughts.
> Best,
> V.
> En/na David Rowe ha escrit:
>> Hi David,
>> You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an OpenBTS
>> in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
>> technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
>> Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
>> However there are many powerful business, political, and social forces
>> blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
>> profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend large
>> chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter and
>> their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
>> They _must_ have a mobile.
>> Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
>> Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
>> Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build a
>> competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is open
>> and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My hope
>> is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs -
>> no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people are
>> using.
>> Cheers,
>> David
>> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
>>> David -
>>> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low-
>>> cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
>>> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
>>> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
>>> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
>>> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
>>> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
>>> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
>>> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
>>> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
>>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Rowe wrote:
>>>> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
>>>> propagates well over long distances without line of site issues.
>>>> Now we
>>>> can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
>>>> software
>>>> components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
>>>> models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
>>> David A. Burgess
>>> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
> A good alternative is to try to obtain a license for a trial in several
> countries. I wonder if this is something doable in South Africa.
> Any other countries where we have the right contacts?
> -aep
> --
> Stopping junk mailers is good for the environment
> > Since overcoming the regulatory environment may prove the biggest
> > hurdle, I am curious to hear from people on this list if anyone has any
> > valuable input on which countries may provide the more lenient
> > regulation to try this out. I know this is what Alberto essentially
> > asked in the first place, but I would enjoy fostering the discussion on
> > the list if people have any thoughts.
> > Best,
> > V.
> > En/na David Rowe ha escrit:
> >> Hi David,
> >> You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an OpenBTS
> >> in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
> >> technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
> >> Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
> >> However there are many powerful business, political, and social forces
> >> blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
> >> profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend large
> >> chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter and
> >> their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
> >> They _must_ have a mobile.
> >> Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
> >> Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
> >> Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build a
> >> competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is open
> >> and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My hope
> >> is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs -
> >> no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people are
> >> using.
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
> >> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
> >>> David -
> >>> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low-
> >>> cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
> >>> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are purely
> >>> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
> >>> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
> >>> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
> >>> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what happens
> >>> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
> >>> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a blog
> >>> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
> >>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Rowe wrote:
> >>>> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
> >>>> propagates well over long distances without line of site issues.
> >>>> Now we
> >>>> can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
> >>>> software
> >>>> components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
> >>>> models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
> >>> David A. Burgess
> >>> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
> I will pass this on to some south african telco lawyers and see what the
> say.
> What are the spectral ranges that you can use.
> Kindest
> Rael
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Alberto Escudero
> <aep.li...@it46.se>wrote:
>> A good alternative is to try to obtain a license for a trial in several
>> countries. I wonder if this is something doable in South Africa.
>> Any other countries where we have the right contacts?
>> -aep
>> --
>> Stopping junk mailers is good for the environment
>> > Since overcoming the regulatory environment may prove the biggest
>> > hurdle, I am curious to hear from people on this list if anyone has
>> any
>> > valuable input on which countries may provide the more lenient
>> > regulation to try this out. I know this is what Alberto essentially
>> > asked in the first place, but I would enjoy fostering the discussion
>> on
>> > the list if people have any thoughts.
>> > Best,
>> > V.
>> > En/na David Rowe ha escrit:
>> >> Hi David,
>> >> You know in my ideal world anyone would be able to roll out an
>> OpenBTS
>> >> in either urban or rural areas, and become a village telco. It's
>> >> technically feasible and with OpenBTS the capital costs are not high.
>> >> Then everyone in the world would have 1 cent phone calls.
>> >> However there are many powerful business, political, and social
>> forces
>> >> blocking the way. Mobile phones businesses are just _sooooo_
>> >> profitable. Mobile phones are so addictive that poor people spend
>> large
>> >> chunks of their income on service. I even see this in my daughter
>> and
>> >> their teenage friends - 30% of their income on pre-paid mobile calls.
>> >> They _must_ have a mobile.
>> >> Hence the need for some competition. Which in my mind is what the
>> >> Village Telco/Mesh Potato is all about.
>> >> Despite using Wifi which has some disadvantages we are going to build
>> a
>> >> competing system to GSM. In many countries the regulatory road is
>> open
>> >> and there is a huge market for reasonably priced phone calls. My
>> hope
>> >> is that this competition will ultimately help lower phone call costs
>> -
>> >> no matter what technology (GSM or Village Telco/Mesh Potato) people
>> are
>> >> using.
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> David
>> >> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 07:22 -0700, David A. Burgess wrote:
>> >>> David -
>> >>> I personally believe that GSM is the best candidate technology low-
>> >>> cost rural service, given an implementation of the network that is
>> >>> properly adapted to the application. The problems with it are
>> purely
>> >>> regulatory, not technical. The core question is whether or not
>> >>> governments are serious about universal service. Telcos have long
>> >>> had economic excuses for limiting service and governments have
>> >>> accepted those arguments. It will be interesting to see what
>> happens
>> >>> when those excuses are removed, and politics and greed will have to
>> >>> be used more nakedly to maintain the current situation. I keep a
>> blog
>> >>> and I put all of my standard arguments and speeches there now:
>> >>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:37 PM, David Rowe wrote:
>> >>>> GSM is a fine system: the handsets are cheap, and unlike Wifi it
>> >>>> propagates well over long distances without line of site issues.
>> >>>> Now we
>> >>>> can make even GSM base stations using open source hardware and
>> >>>> software
>> >>>> components. The only problem is that GSM seems to attract business
>> >>>> models that are too expensive for the people who really need them.
>> >>> David A. Burgess
>> >>> Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc.
Hum, have you ever seen any phones which support this band?
From what I know there are almost no equipment which support
it.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:42, Mike Jensen<lankam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any chance of 450Mhz?
> Mike
> Alberto Escudero wrote, On 28/08/2009 12:17:
>> The current boards seems to work better in GSM-850 and GSM-900. I am not
>> sure that is possible to run the toy in 1800 or 1900 Mhz.
>> David B?
>> -aep
-- Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
SIPez LLC.
SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting
http://www.SIPez.com tel: +1 (617) 273-4000
Well after further research it seems indeed that 450Mhz has been talked about for extended range in rural areas by Sony/Ericsson/Nokia since 2005, but almost nothing done anywhere on GSM, although much more on CDMA... Mike
> Hum, have you ever seen any phones which support this band? >>From what I know there are almost no equipment which support > it.
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:42, Mike Jensen<lankam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Any chance of 450Mhz? >> Mike
>> Alberto Escudero wrote, On 28/08/2009 12:17: >>> The current boards seems to work better in GSM-850 and GSM-900. I am not >>> sure that is possible to run the toy in 1800 or 1900 Mhz.
Other companies also trying to "break" the licensing hurdle.... the makers of femtocells products... (BTW: Alberto, excellent job! )
Femtocells: Vendor adopts 'direct to consumer' sales strategy
By Paul Rasmussen Comment | Forward In an unusual switch, the Edinburgh-based femtocell developer, HSL, has adopted a sales strategy that involves cutting out the mobile operator and selling the micro base station direct to the consumer.
This move, seen by some as high-risk, comes after Vodafone's launch of its own femtocell product was received by subscribers with huge disinterest. Also, given the marketing power of Vodafone, HSL is strangely not attempting to undercut on price--its product, with a rather consumer-friendly branding of HSL 2.75G, is priced very similar to Vodafone's Home Gateway device at around €180.
However, the company claims that its femtocell can work with any network operator, or even multiple network operators, over a user's own broadband connection. But, to do this, HSL needs radio spectrum in which to operate, and integration into the network-operator's back end infrastructure--neither of which is trivial.
HSL believes it can overcome these hurdles by persuading possible consumers to register their interest on the company's web site. Using this, HSL plans to convince mobile operators to route calls through their network--why they should provide this service is not detailed by HSL.
However, MD and technical director of HSL, Mark Hay, said that the installation and use of the network would not cost operators very much and would allow them to manage their service better so that customers receive the best coverage that is possible given their locations.
The company has confirmed that it is pursuing agreements with operators in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Oceania with regard to its femtocell product.
I am not really sure of the advantages of 450 Mhz vs 850 Mhz. Link budget
is definitely better but I am not sure that Cells can get larger as there
is some limiting factors in the GSM timing.
The testbed I have builds a small Cell of 20-50 meters, enough for testing
and not bothering anyone.
The USRP board provides nice scanning features that allows you to choose a
channel that is not occupied. Picture attached for the curious!
-aep
-- Stopping junk mailers is good for the environment
> Well after further research it seems indeed that 450Mhz has been talked
> about for extended range in rural areas by Sony/Ericsson/Nokia since
> 2005, but almost nothing done anywhere on GSM, although much more on
> CDMA...
> Mike
> Alexander Chemeris wrote, On 29/08/2009 07:04:
>> Hum, have you ever seen any phones which support this band?
>>>From what I know there are almost no equipment which support
>> it.
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:42, Mike Jensen<lankam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Any chance of 450Mhz?
>>> Mike
>>> Alberto Escudero wrote, On 28/08/2009 12:17:
>>>> The current boards seems to work better in GSM-850 and GSM-900. I am
>>>> not
>>>> sure that is possible to run the toy in 1800 or 1900 Mhz.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:24, Alberto Escudero<aep.li...@it46.se> wrote: > I am not really sure of the advantages of 450 Mhz vs 850 Mhz. Link budget > is definitely better but I am not sure that Cells can get larger as there > is some limiting factors in the GSM timing.
I think they can emit less power at least, i.e. be cheaper, as amplifiers and other RF stuff is actually much more costly then DSP part.
> The USRP board provides nice scanning features that allows you to choose a > channel that is not occupied. Picture attached for the curious!
Yeah, I'm using this to choose ARFCN for me too :) But I think we should rather use beacon scanner - something similar to what mobile does when searching for BS. Then we'll be able to get a full list of BSs and used ARFCNs nearby and choose a free one (semi-)autoamtically.
Also one should keep in mind that sequential ARFCNs can't be used becauase of frequency band overlap - ARFCNs are spaced by 200kHz, but have bandwidth of 270.833kHz. I.e. if you see ARFCN 5 occupied, you cannot use ARFCNs 4 and 6.
And, sure, you should keep in mind, that license holders still will be very unhappy and you may get a big troubles with autorities if they find you.
[@Alex: And, sure, you should keep in mind, that license holders still will
be very unhappy and you may get a big troubles with autorities if they find
you.]
This 'live' testing is best done in some reasonably remote locality, which
is in fact available in most countries, but almost certainly not available
without a license. From what I have seen, even those countries that offer
some amount of 'open license' experimental permission do not allow it in
these highly commercial bands.
In India, actually, technically, any 'testing', at any frequency, can be
carried out in a privately owned compound, provided the signal does not
'leak' out and attract unwanted attention. I unfortunately do not have
access to a rural college/school, or else I would have suggested this be
done here.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Chemeris <
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:24, Alberto Escudero<aep.li...@it46.se> wrote:
> > I am not really sure of the advantages of 450 Mhz vs 850 Mhz. Link budget
> > is definitely better but I am not sure that Cells can get larger as there
> > is some limiting factors in the GSM timing.
> I think they can emit less power at least, i.e. be cheaper, as amplifiers
> and other RF stuff is actually much more costly then DSP part.
> > The USRP board provides nice scanning features that allows you to choose
> a
> > channel that is not occupied. Picture attached for the curious!
> Yeah, I'm using this to choose ARFCN for me too :)
> But I think we should rather use beacon scanner - something similar
> to what mobile does when searching for BS. Then we'll be able to get
> a full list of BSs and used ARFCNs nearby and choose a free one
> (semi-)autoamtically.
> Also one should keep in mind that sequential ARFCNs can't be used
> becauase of frequency band overlap - ARFCNs are spaced by 200kHz,
> but have bandwidth of 270.833kHz. I.e. if you see ARFCN 5 occupied,
> you cannot use ARFCNs 4 and 6.
> And, sure, you should keep in mind, that license holders still will be
> very unhappy and you may get a big troubles with autorities if they
> find you.
I am happy to let you know that FreeSWITCH route calls from OpenBTS, the
open base station based on the Universal Software Radio USRP. Yes! Calls
from a standard handset to a GSM base station connected to FreeSWITCH
> Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
> What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
> building my own GSM network!
> I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
> call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
> studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
> that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
> first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
> KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
> in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
> replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
> open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
> container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
> stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
> interfaces.
> In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
> Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
> to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
> infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
> was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
> touch with the openbts project and try to build their
> base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
> a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
> really helpful with hardware purchases!.
> Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
> different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
> hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
> system where components that have typically been
> implemented in hardware are now implemented using
> software in a PC.
> We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
> developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
> -aep
> PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
Hi and thank Alberto,
Well thank you very mush for all what you do to develop telecommunication in
the world and particular for african's country. Well let me know i can
visited one of this instllation or follow workshop about this.
Am working in one similar project in Cameroon to provide universalle
telecommunicaiton services for rurals zones and poors. So let me know how to
deploy this praticaly.
Regards
Josselin
> I am happy to let you know that FreeSWITCH route calls from OpenBTS, the
> open base station based on the Universal Software Radio USRP. Yes! Calls
> from a standard handset to a GSM base station connected to FreeSWITCH
> > Low cost open GSM base station for developing countries
> > What did you do during your summer holidays? I was
> > building my own GSM network!
> > I have been waiting almost 20 years to make this phone
> > call!. Back in the 90's when I started my engineering
> > studies and discovered GNU/Linux, dreamed with a system
> > that could do what I have right now on my table :). The
> > first attempt was in 2001 when I was completing my PhD at
> > KTH in Sweden. During those years a group of researchers
> > in the Laboratory started to explore the possibility of
> > replacing as much of the GSM architecture (BSC, MSC) for
> > open source software. Although we had a commercial GSM
> > container with plenty of noisy equipment, the project got
> > stuck trying to find documentation for the GSM internal
> > interfaces.
> > In December 2008, I attended a conference about Mobile
> > Service in Developing Regions. I was very surprised not
> > to see anyone addressing the need of opening the GSM
> > infrastructure (hardware and software). Christmas period
> > was a good time for new projects so I decided to get in
> > touch with the openbts project and try to build their
> > base station. Assembling all the necessary hardware took
> > a bit of time! David Burguess from openbts has been
> > really helpful with hardware purchases!.
> > Yes! It does work, and that first phone call felt like a
> > different one :D. The base station uses a piece of
> > hardware known as USRP. The USRP is a radio communication
> > system where components that have typically been
> > implemented in hardware are now implemented using
> > software in a PC.
> > We are looking for sponsors for a deployment in a
> > developing region! Interested? Drop us a line!
> > -aep
> > PD. Thanks to the openbts folks for a great project!
|
