[HN Gopher] The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Ope...
___________________________________________________________________
The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators
Author : hasheddan
Score : 114 points
Date : 2025-02-26 11:55 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.golioth.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.golioth.io)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| > The number one reason we see customers opt to not use cellular
| when > another connectivity option is on the table is due to
| concerns around > cost and reliability.
|
| For "reliability" read "availability". Cellular networks are
| profitable because carriers serve customers that are easy to
| serve and leave the rest alone. Vehicle 2 Vehicle communications
| mediated by cellular is a non-starter because people drive a lot
| in places where cell phones don't work. Wireless internet has
| been a false hope that's spoiled realistic plans for universal
| service because it's only affordable in _markets that are already
| served_. Large-scale government and corporate IoT programs find
| that 20% or more of stations are in places without service, etc.
| amluto wrote:
| On top of this, there are markets that are not well covered due
| to local politics. I can go just a few blocks away into a
| neighborhood that has plenty of density to be interesting to
| the major carriers but has basically no usable cellular data. A
| couple years ago, there was a big fight between Crown Castle
| (big cellular network contractor) and the local government.
| Crown Castle wanted to build cell towers. The residents wanted
| service but didn't want cell towers in their back yard. The
| government tried, and failed, to avoid issuing permits, because
| federal law sensibly prevents local government from effectively
| prohibiting the construction of cell towers.
|
| Win? No! The local government is very proud of itself for
| having pulled a rabbit out of its hat. It turns out that a cell
| tower is useless without backhaul, and the government rolled
| out so much red tape that Crown Castle determined that they
| would never recover the costs of installing the backhaul and
| abandoned the entire project. The local government somehow
| considers this to be a victory.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| What I remember in the 3G era was that my MVNO phone [1]
| worked great in medium sized cites like Rochester, NY but
| poorly in places with lower density and even worse in the
| highest density places like NYC and Hollywood. 4G had the
| capacity to serve super density urban areas really well.
|
| [1] I've got a suspicion that Tracfones ride the back of the
| bus and get worse service than you'd get with a premium-
| priced plan.
| Delphiza wrote:
| As part of our IoT offerings, we tried quite hard to build
| devices with mobile connectivity about 7 years ago. This was just
| as low power 5G, NB-IoT and similar technologies were going to
| become a thing. We gave up because it was too much effort for
| little return, and it was better to focus on doing things with
| data, rather than collecting it. Even getting prototypes up with
| powered fanless PCs (SBCs) and Mini-PCIe or M.2 modems was harder
| than it should have been - you would think it would be easy with
| off-the-shelf devices and drivers.
|
| Small Internet connected devices are still needed, despite the
| perception that IoT is dead. Mobile networks and the modem supply
| chain are definitely holding the market back. On the plus side,
| for stationary powered devices most people are happy to connect
| to wi-fi. For low power devices, LoRa, with private gateways,
| seems to be a standard. Mobile that is used in outdoor vehicle
| and asset tracking is still stuck with fighting with modems as
| per OP.
| jon-wood wrote:
| You might want to take another look, I went through a similar
| process a couple of years ago, and am now doing it again
| because our original equipment supplier decided they'd like a
| life (RIP PC Engines). There's a thriving industry of companies
| providing fanless ARM based machines either shipping with LTE
| modems, or with M2 & SIM slots on the board to provide your
| own.
|
| We install in industrial environments where an accessible
| internet connection is far from a given, having LTE on all our
| devices means that we can almost always give the device a way
| to call home. I can strongly recommend Compulab's devices,
| which you can purchase as a fully assembled unit that just
| needs a SIM card put in it (I can't recommend the Linux
| distribution they run, but you're free to flash them with
| whatever you'd like).
| sumtechguy wrote:
| > There's a thriving industry of companies providing fanless
| ARM based machines either shipping with LTE modems, or with
| M2 & SIM slots on the board to provide your own
|
| When I did this about 10 years ago we had quite a number to
| pick from. Build your own was possible. But that was only
| because of our organization had the capability and expertise
| to do it. We settled on 3 off the shelf ones. That was
| dependent on cost and number of I/O the customer was needing.
|
| DiY basically is 'first make your own computer with the
| ARM/MIPS/x86 chipsets' then 'spin your own special firmware
| for it'. Then 'build your own ground up linux distro or
| similar with compiler chain and SDK to work with it'. You may
| be able to get someone to sell/give you a reference
| layout/SDK. Then after all of that. You are now ready to add
| in a modem. Also prepare for the certifications of all the
| mobile networks you want to run on. Plus software for you to
| interact with the cell modem. Oh also you need to work on
| getting yourself provisioned correctly in the mobile
| networks. When you do for five devices it is a couple hours
| of playing with an API. But you probably want hundreds of
| them so be prepared for managing that, plus billing. Oh also
| you need to manage EoL for your parts. Many IoT installations
| are looking at you hanging around for 10+ years.
| astrobe_ wrote:
| > Also prepare for the certifications of all the mobile
| networks you want to run on
|
| AFAIK the modem maker actually does this. You would rather
| check that the chip is certified for what you need before
| you buy.
|
| > also you need to work on getting yourself provisioned
| correctly in the mobile networks
|
| AFAIK also, this is a service provided by "virtual
| operators", companies that pass deals with the main
| operators and provide advanced services for machine-to-
| machine uses, for instance.
|
| But perhaps these didn't exist 10 years ago. Things really
| started to move where I operate when they EoL'd copper
| wires.
| Delphiza wrote:
| Thanks... I'll have another look. I always assumed that
| device/modem supply would catch up, but they always seemed
| held back by the established mobile network operators. Also,
| covid-related supply-chain issues stopped a lot of products
| in their tracks. We would waited up to a year for modems in
| some cases. I suppose that has all flushed through the system
| by now.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Seconding this about Compulab. If they made a box with a
| Marvell CN9130 it would be really nice.
| jlarocco wrote:
| Why mobile connectivity instead of Bluetooth?
|
| As an end user, I prefer my devices use Bluetooth and a hub
| device like a phone or laptop, rather than each one have a
| direct mobile connection.
| crote wrote:
| Because these aren't regular consumer gadgets. Think more
| like "lamppost mounted traffic counter", Bluetooth
| connectivity to a smartphone would be completely useless.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > The patents are referred to as Standards Essential Patents, or
| SEPs. Because of this arrangement, a vendor like Nordic probably
| can't open source their modem firmware even if they wanted to.
|
| Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware? The
| IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and trade
| secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and cannot)
| grant a patent license to those licensed standards-essential
| patents. It only imperils your implementation of the modem
| firmware, not the whole patent spec.
|
| To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed code,
| even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that they are
| licensing. OpenH264 _does_ ship with an additional patent
| sublicense that applies if you are using their build and
| installing it in a specific way, but that is particular to MPEG-
| LA 's licensing structure[1]. Publishing an implementation of a
| patent you are licensing does not automatically sublicense the
| patent.
|
| [0] Laws that grant the ability to dictate the conduct of your
| competitors
|
| [1] Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty fee cap to shield
| FOSS entities from having to take a license, basically, by paying
| for them.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I suspect a big reason is that there's middleware: some of this
| stuff is so complex, that like video games, there's probably a
| cottage industry of companies selling partially implemented
| bits and pieces, or licensing across companies of source code,
| or companies only licensing the patents if you agree to never
| release code. There's also the IP angle: if you do manage to
| figure it out, there's no honor helping Huawei.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > I suspect a big reason is that there's middleware
|
| I'd bet it's simpler. Saying "yes" to the 'can we share this
| outside of this company?' Question means a lot of work and
| meetings and red tape and somebody is going to have to rope
| in legal and ... and ... and ...
|
| Or, "no, get back to work".
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| True, but who owns most of the patents? Some of the most
| litigious companies on earth (Qualcomm, Broadcom, Cisco).
| How many legal cases are more expensive than patent
| litigation?
|
| Also, it's very simple: Imagine you approach Qualcomm. The
| script probably goes something like this:
|
| "Sure, we'll license you that patent, for $0.92 per device,
| a $25K per month maintenance fee, and compliance with our
| terms and conditions - chiefly, don't license this patent
| to anyone else, and don't share the source code of your
| implementation."
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| I honestly just figured it was spectrum licensing. You can't
| sell devices that can broadcast at power on just any old
| frequency. At a hardware level these modems are capable of
| going well outside the bounds of mobile device regulations.
| See all the 'turn xyz into a software defined radio' hacks
| that have been done before on other devices on the market.
|
| So the firmware is locked down. To do otherwise will break
| spectrum licensing as the device then becomes capable of
| doing things outside the original licensed purpose.
| ndiddy wrote:
| That's probably it, the FCC won't let you sell a device
| that has a user-accessible method to violate wireless
| regulations. At most, they could release the source code
| but not the signing keys so end-users could inspect but not
| change the firmware.
| crote wrote:
| Wouldn't the FCC come into play at a later level? We're
| talking about providing source code to _device
| developers_ , not end users. As long as the device
| developers ensure the products they release are locked
| down, the FCC shouldn't care about it - they only look at
| the final product as sold to end users.
| PinkSheep wrote:
| I'm not too keen on this topic, but router firmware
| usually asked YOU, what country you (it, the router)
| resides in to allow or block additional frequencies. No
| source required.
|
| And then Intel still goes and makes their "automatic
| geolocation for frequency policy based on neighboring
| APs" mechanism the default and only policy in their
| wireless Wi-Fi drivers.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > So the firmware is locked down. To do otherwise will
| break spectrum licensing as the device then becomes capable
| of doing things outside the original licensed purpose.
|
| So what. Take pretty much any older transceiver, swap out
| the quartz(es) and suddenly what used to be a ham radio can
| now communicate with police radios, or a commercial radio
| can be converted for ham use.
|
| Yes, of course the former case is illegal and the latter
| legal as long as you don't transmit without a callsign and
| a ham license. But still, radio manufacturers were not
| required to stop people from doing such mods - to the
| contrary, up until the 90s it was commonplace to have
| detailed schematics and BOMs in radios, and it was just as
| commonplace for people to mod their radios.
|
| I don't get why the FCC is putting up so much pressure on
| locking down devices ffs.
| burnte wrote:
| > Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware?
|
| Contracts and money.
|
| > The IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and
| trade secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and
| cannot) grant a patent license to those licensed standards-
| essential patents. It only imperils your implementation of the
| modem firmware, not the whole patent spec.
|
| Publishing the source to the firmware would allow people to
| make use of patented tech without paying for it even though it
| would be illegal to do so. Also, your license may simply
| stipulate that you cannot publish or share your code in anyway
| outside the company.
|
| > To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed
| code, even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that
| they are licensing. > Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty
| fee cap to shield FOSS entities from having to take a license,
| basically, by paying for them.
|
| As you point out here, Cisco is paying for it. They publish
| open code, and to ensure the LA doesn't come after them,
| they're paying additional money.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| There's also the possibility of trade secrets being involved.
| An example hypothetical: Maybe Qualcomm has tons of lab data
| showing signal performance and integrity for any given
| channel, band, power level, general environment (urban,
| suburban, rural), device position, device altitude, etc.
|
| You might want to use that data, and algorithms derived from
| it, to improve your device's battery life. That data
| obviously cannot be patented, and while the lab data would be
| copyrighted and not part of the finished product, Qualcomm
| would understandably be mighty particular about any open-
| source code implementing the conclusions.
| p_l wrote:
| MPEG-LA also explicitly _used to_ (I do not know current
| state) consider open source "some assembly required"
| releases to be non-infringing.
|
| It was product incorporating the patented tech, i.e. ready to
| use binaries, that required licensing.
|
| Cisco paid the licensing fees to enable easily downloadable
| h.264 codec for certain projects, but you could legally build
| it from source yourself.
|
| IIRC h.265 had similar licensing
| aftbit wrote:
| Wow that was quite the technical deep dive! I bet there's not one
| person in the world who understands all the interactions in this
| system.
| linuxguy2 wrote:
| I too greatly enjoyed the article. Love those deep
| troubleshooting write-ups!
| awelkie wrote:
| I think the miserable state of cellular modems ultimately comes
| from the power dynamics of private spectrum. The 3GPP protocols
| are complex because they're not really beholden to the
| implementers, but rather to the network operators. The operators
| are fine with additional complexity if it serves their interests,
| and the cost will just be passed on to the OEMs. The network
| operators have all the power because they're the ones with the
| licenses.
|
| WiFi tends to be simpler in part because the protocol authors are
| working more in the interest of the implementers, since it's
| really they who decide whether to adopt or not. Obviously a gross
| simplification but I think it's at the heart of the problem.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Vendors wrote those standards though, not the operators. They
| are complex because it's a defensive moat against competition
| imho
| tinktank wrote:
| They are complex because, usually, they are a union of
| everything every vendor in the consortium has done and/or
| wants to do.
| astrobe_ wrote:
| Looking at the _overview_ of the architecture on the
| network side [1] tells the tale, I think.
|
| My take is that telecom operators forcefully had to evolve
| from Morse and copper to IP and radio, hacking stuff left
| and right every step of the way.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multimedia_Subsystem#A
| rchit...
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Long time ago i worked on WiMAX devices which was a
| competing standard for the term "4g" from ieee and while
| it was simpler it wasn't a whole lot simpler and
| performance sucked, so there's that
| hasheddan wrote:
| Hey folks, author here. Appreciate the comments and discussion on
| the post! Happy to continue the discussion or answer any follow-
| on questions folks have about our investigation and resolution.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| Good read thanks. To the point of having a open platform, they
| would probably lose their monopoly. I could then just spin up
| my own mobile network and provide service like a wifi network
| with any credentials and do what I want.
|
| I guess there needs to be a big initial effort with lots of
| maintaining afterwards. If everything goes as expected the AIs
| could provide that in the future.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| The complaint is that people cannot connect, and that hardware
| vendors dont want to go down the pit of other peoples sh*(blobs).
|
| Magnificent article. Clearly shows his expertise going down the
| sh*/rabbit hole, the more I read, the more dismal it got.
|
| Clearly the way to get around the technical side of the DNS bug,
| is to do what cell providers do: Start the device in the office
| of the provider, and let the DNS resolve there, and if it does
| not work, get a ticket started right then and there.
|
| Out in the field... use another devices Wifi, and do the same
| thing.
|
| If you cannot get cell phone service or Wifi, then ( I literally
| took about 45 mins on the phone to T-Mobile, which immediately
| refused to take responsibility, and also refused to put
| _anything_ in writing: Then their recommendation is to get a
| satellite link with, StarLink!. I would rather be slapped in the
| face with a cold fish.
|
| Cell phone service providers all let this happen, until of course
| they almost all sold out to T-Moble. ( LifeLine, Assurnace, etc..
| )
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-26 23:01 UTC)