This may not be precisely on target, but let us not forget that we were able to, within a very short period of time, re-engineer the standards for POTS to build something that had never been done before and never since, a modular circuit switch. This was apparently shot down due to political rivalries, but I am sure there are many on this list who harbour the suspicion that some parts of politics get paid for by business imperatives, and there are no free lunches.
My point is that if the need was recognised, it might be possible to build a wireless circuit switch that was fairly impervious to competing base stations using the same frequencies. Just off the top of my head, perhaps an increased overhead in encryption or pgp-type tokens might be the way to go. Overhead is less critical in small networks, IMHO, and data throughputs at microwave frequencies might forgive the imposition. In any case, a completed connection can use a short token password, having used something heavier to maintain service integrity in handshaking prior to call completion. This would assume that most users get some cell tower or other within reach (mostly closer than 8km, ideally), and that the number of competing towers is limited. In fact, it would allow 'foreign' towers to provide location information, which would lower the gross radiation overhead from gsm.
Alternatively, a model might use billing as a differentiator, with handsets emitting a service token that determines billing no matter whose cell tower does the work at the last mile. But collaboration and cooperation are not, so far, considered a Corporate Social Responsibility.
I am sure there are many other possibilities, but without a determined national policy on independent communications we have no scope for a 1980s style CDOT. Sadly, that same outfit is now being used by the private sector-fueled New Security Regime to build intrusive tools to further weaken independent communications. Our Technology Missions in telecom are today (stewarded by the same man who promised us telecom independence in POTS!) focused on spending public money to reinvent the wheel retread operation already done (putting in dark fiber) in large part by industry and service sectors (private telecom, railways and roads).
Globally, other than the very artisan-like initiatives for WiFi-style global connectivity, most of which focus on the needs of very small and disempowered communities, there is no pushback against the present model of industry-led, personal privacy/security weakening communication technologies. We don't hear much these days from our resident tele-conomist Andy Banerjee, but I suspect he might have thrown some light on the present trend towards inflating costs through the introduction of unneeded overheads (I'm not even counting our noble netas!) and creation of scarcity in open resources. I, for one, don't think this is Development.
And now that I have vicariously introduced the subject of developmental economics, may I say that the virtues of creating centralised kitties (including the use of economy-sapping auctions) for development spending, over that of deploying and encouraging growth at the last mile to spur self-development and innovation, are not clear. What is the case for the top-down model and which country has actually gained from it? Were all material resources as inexhaustible as spectrum, and our planet blessed with some magical energy cancelling field, we might be able to sustain the antediluvian model of industrial activity that fueled the UK and USA's march to control the planet's resources, but left in its wake an unsustainable employment ethic. But they aren't.
Finally, as for invincible security in gsm, a small anecdote. Yesterday, I get a call from a lady obviously expecting somebody well known to her to come collect her from the airport, as per plan. I politely told her (unknown number on my phone screen) that she had the wrong number and disconnected, thinking the voice sounded familiar. A few minutes later my brother calls, tells me it was my sister-in-law at the airport waiting for him, and that she had selected his name from her address book, or speed dialled him. Our names are not similar enough for her to accidentally click on the wrong name (instead of the one most familiar to her!). We don't use the same service providers, we don't live in the same city (thankfully, at least we're in the same country, so saved on isd charges), and we don't have similar sets of numbers. And her name didn't show up on my screen, so the calling number was some random allocation. The fault could be her device, or it
could be a goof-up at the switch. I tend to think it is the switch.
Vickram
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.