22 Jul
2013
22 Jul
'13
11:01 a.m.
I was planning to buy one of these devices:
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Samsung_Galaxy_S_4?id=samsung…
but discovered that (1) they are available in the U.S. only, and (2) not
surprisingly, they are designed for North American frequencies, i.e., 1700 MHz
rather than the 1800 MHz bands used in Australia by the major carriers.
The advantage, of course, is that the Google devices have unlocked boot
loaders so you can replace the firmware yourself, if needed - and I might need
it, for various reasons.
So if one is looking for an LTE-capable phone with an unlocked boot loader
that supports Australian frequency bands, am I right that there are no options
on the market at the moment? I can afford to wait a little longer - the
equivalent of the above device with the right frequencies supported would be
ideal of course.
22 Jul
22 Jul
12:44 p.m.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason White wrote:
I was planning to buy one of these devices:
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Samsung_Galaxy_S_4?id=samsung…
but discovered that (1) they are available in the U.S. only, and (2) not
surprisingly, they are designed for North American frequencies, i.e., 1700 MHz
rather than the 1800 MHz bands used in Australia by the major carriers.
Hah! I was just talking about this at morning coffee (morning tea,
pfffft. We're not British here, and most of us here aren't even of
British ancestry. Plus, we have good taste).
The advantage, of course, is that the Google devices
have unlocked boot
loaders so you can replace the firmware yourself, if needed - and I might need
it, for various reasons.
So, on a related topic, where the hell do you get your images from? Do
people really go and download an image file from some random thread on xda
forums? Surely people here find a more trusted source where NSA haven't
tampered with the image before re-posting?
That and the post about "no, we can't allow you to fix the broken
permission model" thread just reminds me that phones are a different
culture to Free culture. Bah, get off my lawn.
--
Tim Connors
25 Jul
25 Jul
8:12 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:44:54PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason White wrote:
http://get.cm/
?
The advantage, of course, is that the Google
devices have unlocked boot
loaders so you can replace the firmware yourself, if needed - and I might need
it, for various reasons.
So, on a related topic, where the hell do you get your
images from? Do people really go and download an image file from some
random thread on xda
forums?
many people download and run random apps... are you really surprised
that they do the same with their os's? do they even know the difference?
the paranoid amongst us take more care and either go via reputable
sources (eg. the above or AOSP), or build roms for themselves.
on supported devices, and if you only want to make a few changes to an
os, then building is pretty easy and there are good guides. eg.
http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Development
Re: xda
my biggest beef is that many xda folks seem to only pump out binaries
(with tipjars attached) and don't have src available. not good for the
future of the android community in general IMHO. the android ecosystem
is certainly not like the traditional FOSS world.
cheers,
robin
22 Jul
22 Jul
2:33 p.m.
Quoting Jason White (jason(a)jasonjgw.net):
I was planning to buy one of these devices:
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Samsung_Galaxy_S_4?id=samsung…
but discovered that (1) they are available in the U.S. only, and (2) not
surprisingly, they are designed for North American frequencies, i.e., 1700 MHz
rather than the 1800 MHz bands used in Australia by the major carriers.
My own antique Motorola RAZR V3 non-smartphone (bought directly from
Motorola USA) is a quad-band GSM device, the classic 'world phone'.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a modern smart LTE-capable world phone
with an unlocked bootloader?
On that question (which is not the one you asked, but somewhat related),
I read:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390355,00.asp
LTE May Kill the World Phone
New 4G LTE networks are being built on so many frequency bands that it
will be very difficult to build true world phones, and LTE phones'
battery life and signal quality will suffer, Informa Telecoms and Media
research analyst Malik Saadi said after releasing a report this week.
The Informa report reiterates what many in the wireless industry already
know: LTE is being launched on too many frequency bands for phone
builders to cover all of them. Here in the U.S., launches so far have
focused on the 700Mhz and 1700Mhz bands. That's not too bad.
But to roam to Europe, the Informa report says, your phone will need to
support 800, 2600, and maybe 1800. To travel in Asia, you're looking at
700, 800, 1800, 2100, 2300, or 2600, depending on where you go. Japan
has a 1500 band just for that country.
The Informa press release also doesn't mention LightSquared's
particular 1500Mhz band, or the possibility that Clearwire may implement
LTE in 2500Mhz.
"There is no way you can support all of the 22 [LTE] bands in a single
device," Saadi said. Remember phone makers need to add all of the 3G
bands too, as well as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and GPS antennas.
The best bet for U.S. phones will be quad-band LTE devices that support
700, AWS, 2100, and 2600, giving them some coverage in countries
worldwide. But those roaming phones won't have anywhere near the
coverage or signal quality of local phones which support all the local
bands.
[...]
So if one is looking for an LTE-capable phone with an
unlocked boot loader
that supports Australian frequency bands, am I right that there are no options
on the market at the moment? I can afford to wait a little longer - the
equivalent of the above device with the right frequencies supported would be
ideal of course.
So it would. Sorry, don't have a specific one to suggest. I'm just a
bit depressed that it's going to no longer be possible to have a single
phone compatible with all GSM-based networks everywhere -- _if_ you are
using cellular data in accordance with the latest standards.
(Yes, I do fly a lot, and that's admittedly an edge case.)
3 p.m.
Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> wrote:
My own antique Motorola RAZR V3 non-smartphone (bought directly from
Motorola USA) is a quad-band GSM device, the classic
'world phone'.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a modern smart LTE-capable world phone
with an unlocked bootloader?
On that question (which is not the one you asked, but somewhat related),
I read:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390355,00.asp
[snip]
There are, apparently, 40 distinct frequency bands recognized in the
standards.
these two articles summarize the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-UTRA#Frequency_bands_and_channel_bandwidths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks
I also found the following article informative:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/design/communications/4g-lte-may-hit-…
Having looked at several recent phone specifications, the best I could find
were models supporting six LTE bands. At the moment, this isn't a major
problem: the phone will just fall back to a slower protocol on one of the
supported bands if it can't connect to LTE. The result would be slower IP
connectivity in some countries and with some carriers - hardly a major problem
for most people if you're only there for a short period.
9:08 p.m.
The problem gets worse.
Today, in AU, we have 1800MHz, soon we'll have other frequencies when
the analogue TV signals are completely switched off and freed up.
LTE needs to be supported on many different frequencies as you say.
Some radio / chipsets though .... are "programmable", so that they can
support more of a range -- switchable by software settings; I can't find
the reference now though, but I don't think any currently available
phone has this feature.
I expect that we'll keep seeing new phones, and we'll keep needing to
replace them just for the radio capability, if nothing else is important
enough. It makes the switch from analogue mobile to digital look
insignificant.
Bottom line is that any phone you get today, may not have the radio
support you need in 2 or 3 years time.
And of course the whole NSA set of problems is something else to
consider. Perhaps we need to switch over to Firefox Mobile OS. Android
has it's problems as does iOS ... need I say more?
"iOS is a proprietary operating system whose source code is not
available for auditing by third parties. You should entrust neither your
communications nor your data to a closed source device." -- according to
prism-break.org
My solution to the problem is simple, use a separate radio that does
nothing more than provide data, absolutely nothing more than a secure
hotspot -- possibly better if via Tor as well. Then use a phone device
that can use fully encrypted comms, end to end. Get the best phone that
can support this setup and never use it as a /normal/ mobile.
Cheers
A.
23 Jul
23 Jul
9:16 a.m.
On 22 July 2013 21:08, Andrew McGlashan <
andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Today, in AU, we have 1800MHz, soon we'll have
other frequencies when
the analogue TV signals are completely switched off and freed up.
In a way, it is amazing that international 3G phones work so well. Somehow
governments from around the world managed to agree on 4 standard set of
frequencies.
Maybe one day something will be similar for 4G, will believe it when it
happens.
And of course the whole NSA set of problems is something else to
consider. Perhaps we need to switch over to Firefox
Mobile OS. Android
has it's problems as does iOS ... need I say more?
It will be really interesting to see what happens with Firefox Mobile OS.
There will always be trade-offs, e.g. if you want you phone to receive
email automatically, that implies it will be connecting to a remote server,
and that remote server can log your IP address.
--
Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au>
9:28 a.m.
Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
In a way, it is amazing that international 3G phones
work so well. Somehow
governments from around the world managed to agree on 4 standard set of
frequencies.
I don't know to what extent it was a matter of agreement, and to what extent
it was just good luck in regard to the availability of spectrum.
Maybe one day something will be similar for 4G, will
believe it when it
happens.
Indeed so. Ultimately, however, the GSM frequencies should migrate to LTE
(note that LTE supports both voice and data - it's used only for IP data at
the moment).
And of course the whole NSA set of problems is
something else to
And Ubuntu Touch as well.
Neither of these has any accessibility options (no braille or speech support),
whereas Android does. Frankly, for my own personal use, I don't much care
about the "NSA problem". I'm not going to use mobile phones and mobile
carriers for anything confidential - I'd use ZRTP over a SIP connection from a
Linux host instead.
consider. Perhaps we need to switch over to
Firefox Mobile OS. Android
has it's problems as does iOS ... need I say more?
It will be really interesting to see what happens with Firefox Mobile OS. 
10:46 a.m.
Jason White wrote:
Indeed so. Ultimately, however, the GSM frequencies
should migrate
to LTE (note that LTE supports both voice and data - it's used only
for IP data at the moment).
I thought the *point* of 4G was that it used packet switching for
everything. Are you saying that LTE is basically still using the 2G
or 3G infrastructure for voice, instead of using VoIP?
10:43 a.m.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
LTE needs to be supported on many different
frequencies as you say.
Some radio / chipsets though .... are "programmable", so that they can
support more of a range -- switchable by software settings; I can't find
the reference now though, but I don't think any currently available
phone has this feature.
I was wondering about this -- why can't phone transceivers just switch
frequency? I built an FM receiver from a kit once, and you changed
frequency by screwing an iron core into a wound wire coil. If you
screwed it past the radio stations you could get the telly audio.
The only reason I can think of that a cellphone's transceiver couldn't
do the same thing, is 1) the FCC are scared of consumers using
(pre-built) programmable transceivers to "shoot down planes and
stuff"; and 2) it'd cost the hardware vendor an extra twenty cents per
unit.
I expect that we'll keep seeing new phones, and
we'll keep needing to
replace them just for the radio capability, if nothing else is important
enough.
Given that a smartphone is basically an ordinary computer and a
completely separate black box transceiver that you talk flipping AT
over serial to, maybe they should just made that a removable module,
like the nonvolatile storage.
And of course the whole NSA set of problems is
something else to
consider. Perhaps we need to switch over to Firefox Mobile OS. Android
has it's problems as does iOS ... need I say more?
I'm not sure I trust MoCo much more -- they're on Google's payroll,
after all. They're also working for Turkish intelligence:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/sefa-pr11.pdf (p.2)
My solution to the problem is simple, use a separate
radio that does
nothing more than provide data, absolutely nothing more than a secure
hotspot -- possibly better if via Tor as well. Then use a phone device
that can use fully encrypted comms, end to end. Get the best phone that
can support this setup and never use it as a /normal/ mobile.
Just to double-check - you're talking about an LTE-to-802.11 bridge,
not a femtocell?
11:34 a.m.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com):
Once again, you are completely ignoring my point: FCC would not held
Heathkit to have violated regulations covering any of these spectrum
segments by merely selling me schematics and plans, no matter how
detailed. No matter how... how is it you say in English... hackable.
The only reason I can think of that a cellphone's
transceiver couldn't
do the same thing, is 1) the FCC are scared of consumers using
(pre-built) programmable transceivers to "shoot down planes and
stuff"; and 2) it'd cost the hardware vendor an extra twenty cents per
unit.
Here in the USA, there was for many years a low-level flamewar between
Linux activists saying there's no reason completely open-source radio
stacks (for open source mobiles, software radio, etc.) would violate the
law and a coalition of (1) proprietary-software apologies (notably
Atheros people) and (2) a small but vocal group of control-freak amateur
radio ('ham') people claiming it's against FCC regulations to permit
open source. As you probably suspected, I was in the former group.
The other folks spun out an endless stream of rhetoric, dire predictions
of doom, and what seemed tantamount to threats, for years never _quite_
specifying what they were talking about. (We of the first camp remained
polite but detected the whiff of metaphorical rodent.)
I finally chased down ex-Atheros engineer Jim Thompson on this topic on
July 27, 2006. The conversation remained twisty and noisy, but made
some progress. Part of it was public:
http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/2006-July/050194.html
Brief except from the even more noisy _private_-mail discussion (my side
of an exchange with Thompson) follows. A 'tl;dr' summary would be:
It's bullshit, but an informal conspiracy of nervous radio people and
paranoid corporate interests _grossly_ misinterpret an FCC regulation
designed to prohibit "user accessible controls" likely to be misused
to violate spectrum assignments and similar provisions, as (supposedly)
prohibiting any implementation of frequency-related code in open source.
So, in short, it's less FCC being scared than the industry
self-censoring and bullshitting the open source community.
---<begin long dialogue>---
Here are the relevant sections of CFR 47 Part 15
(http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47cfr15_01.html)
[snip]
(b) An intentional or unintentional radiator must be
constructed
such that the adjustments of any control that is readily accessible by
or intended to be accessible to the user will not cause operation of
the device in violation of the regulations.
So, Atheros's interpretation of CFR 47 15.15(b) is that "controls
readily accessible or intended to be accessible to the user" encompasses
_hacking and recompiling_ C driver source code? Sorry, that's
laughable. By the standards of past FCC declaratory rulings, that's
about as much a user-accessible a "control" as a radio's solder joints
are.
But it's pretty much the assertion I expected to hear, once some
industry spokesman finally bothered to specify what "the FCC won't let
us" means. It basically means "Well, if you stand on your head the
right way and cross your eyes, you _might_ be able to argue that the FCC
could conceivably disallow anyone outside the firm to see how we do
this, so screw the open-source community. They'll never even ask for
specifics, anyway."
[later:]
Does the HAL have to be proprietary? This is the
subject of some
debate.
I would be very interested in seeing a polite and well-informed
discussion on this topic. Maybe at a LinuxWorld BoF?
Part of the problem is that, much as you say Atheros (and possibly other
companies) has extensively analysed what may be done within the confines
of regulatory law, outsiders have not been able to see or assess any of
that.
I'm not speaking for Atheros here. I think the
regs are clear. You
may be unaware that the FCC has fined people for merely showing up at
a tradeshow with non-authorized equipment (even non-intentional
radiators) without the requisite sticker afixed to the bottom of the
unit.
No, I'm well aware of such things. (I was assistant chief engineer for
WPRB-FM in Princeton, New Jersey, once upon a time -- a commercial 17kW
college station.) I'm just saying that I've read quite a number of FCC
declaratory rulings and rulemakings (administrative law), and think
their classing driver source code as a "user accessible control" is a
ludicrously far-fetched interpretation. Did Heathkit Company give me
unlawful access to a "user accessible control" when it sold the plans
and build instructions to amateur radio transceivers? Because there was
more than enough information in their detailed kit instructions and
schemtics to modify them to intrude on the adjacent aeronautical
navigation bands.
Hell, with their plans and parts for even the Heathkit model FM-3, I
could probably rig up a modification to that receiver unit to listen
_and transmit_ on TV channel 6, without a lot of trouble.
Nothing would stop anyone even half motivated to
change the hal source
such that "underused" spectrum could (and would) be used. Atheros
went as far as they could. You want more? Change the law.
The notion that the law objectively required this is basically what I
class as a knee-jerk reaction from a company lawyer who thinks "It's not
a _credible_ risk, but I'm covering our asses when I include this in my
report to management -- and who's paying us to even have to think about
this, anyway?"
[still later:]
Your amateur radio transceiver is not a part 15
device. Amateur
Radio is regulated under Part 97, not Part 15.
You seem to be going rather far out of your way to evade my point:
Schematics and plans for Part 15 devices from any firm at all would
suffice. (And many kits in sundry FCC regulatory categories from
Heathkit Company and others are unlicensed devices.)
OTOH, the source code for the HAL is the >only<
(and I do
emphasize**only**) control available for the Atheros parts.
Again, you are ignorning the point: You are stretching credulity past
reason to suggest that hackable source code is a "user accessible"
control. Hacking C source is about as much consumer accessible as radio
frequency crystals or solder joints.
If you think otherwise, please show me an FCC docket where they
sanctioned somebody for making available source code and declared it a
"user accessible" control.
Hell, with
their plans and parts for even the Heathkit model FM-3, I
could probably rig up a modification to that receiver unit to listen
_and transmit_ on TV channel 6, without a lot of trouble.
Yes, and this is specifically covered by the regulations, (73.525)
but you (or rather the chief engineer) were in-charge of making sure
that your station was in compliance. If, on the other hand, you were
going to runs this under your HAM license, you'd have a different
license violation on your hands, since TV ch6 is centered at 83.25MHz
(82.0 MHz - 86.75 MHz, actually if you include the audio component),
and meanwhile the HAM bands jump from 50-54MHz (6m band) to
144.0-148.0 MHz (2 meter), so you'd be in violation of your (HAM)
license if you so much as keyed up the transmitter on 82.25MHz.
And, of course, if you were going to do it with no license, the FCC
has you covered there, too. Of course, your apparent willingness to do this is
exactly the
problem. Far too many people would simply recompile the source code
to "allow" themselves or others to transmit anywhere between 2.3GHz
and 2.6GHz and/or the upper band I described before.
And _they_ would be violating FCC regs. Thank you for making my point
for me.
You're welcome to draw the obvious analogy to DeCSS, any time. ;->
The lawyer-in-question (at Atheros) is actually very
"open source"
friendly.
Suggestion: He or someone else familiar with Atheros's perspective
should write up the matter for the benefit of interested laymen --
"outsiders" in the exact sense used earlier.
And yes, the law requires it. I've already cited
chapter and verse.
And a beautiful non-sequitur citation it was, indeed! Fans of
legalistic analysis the world over will appreciate it.
---<end long dialogue>---
11:44 a.m.
On 23 July 2013 11:34, Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Here in the USA, there was for many years a low-level
flamewar between
Linux activists saying there's no reason completely open-source radio
stacks (for open source mobiles, software radio, etc.) would violate the
law and a coalition of (1) proprietary-software apologies (notably
Atheros people) and (2) a small but vocal group of control-freak amateur
radio ('ham') people claiming it's against FCC regulations to permit
open source. As you probably suspected, I was in the former group.
Regardless, I don't think this has any relevance, as on most phones,
Android does not do the 3G stuff itself, it hands the job to a separate CPU
(modem), which, does not run open source software.
11:56 a.m.
Quoting Brian May (brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au):
Regardless, I don't think this has any relevance,
as on most phones,
Android does not do the 3G stuff itself, it hands the job to a
separate CPU (modem), which, does not run open source software.
These days, yeah.
I'm one of those poor sods who bought an FIC Neo Freerunner GTA02
running the OpenMoko stack. ;->
I didn't expect much in the short term on that one, but had some hope
that they'd survive long enough to turn their somewhat feeble
developmental platform into something with greater merit later --
because, through careful choice of components, they had everything
except some 'firmware in blackbox hardware' in real open source.
There, even the OpenMoko people claimed 'FCC regulations' forbade them
to give out source code.
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_completely_free_software.2Fopen_sou…
My point is that the Android people are being gutless wonders, too,
because the claimed FCC prohibition doesn't actually exist.
12:49 p.m.
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com):
Thanks for the correction; it rings a bell; I misremembered above.
The only reason I can think of that a
cellphone's transceiver
couldn't do the same thing, is 1) the FCC are scared of consumers
using (pre-built) programmable transceivers to "shoot down planes
and stuff"; and 2) it'd cost the hardware vendor an extra twenty
cents per unit.
[...]
So, in short, it's less FCC being scared than the industry
self-censoring and bullshitting the open source community.
[...] 
2:07 p.m.
Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Well as a naive bystander the following additional possibilities occur
1/ extended transmission has the possibility of interfering with other
peoples reception;
whereas extended reception only has the possibility of intrusion
on restricted broadcasts
2/ by restricting features there is the possibility of 'upgrading ' and
selling another version of the device !
.......the concern for the cellphone'ss shareholder ?
3/ perhaps the feature would not be welcomed by telco's, who need to
support the device;
an example of such a feature would be 'voice-mail' on the mobil
device, which would seem to be trivial
to implement; but would definitely NOT be favoured by telco's.
....... the concern for the telco shareholder ?
-typed with crossed fingers in fear that:
(a) the eeePC battery will die or
(b) the 18 AH inverter will do the same
whilst waiting for the power to come back,
as they replace the old analogue meters with digital,
in this block of flats !
regards Rohan McLeod
...........snip is feature.
I was
wondering about this -- why can't phone transceivers just switch
frequency? I built an FM receiver from a kit once, and you changed
frequency by screwing an iron core into a wound wire coil. If you
screwed it past the radio stations you could get the telly audio.
The only reason I can think of that a cellphone's transceiver couldn't
do the same thing, is 1) the FCC are scared of consumers using
(pre-built) programmable transceivers to "shoot down planes and
stuff"; and 2) it'd cost the hardware vendor an extra twenty cents per
unit.
2:20 p.m.
On 23/07/2013 10:43 AM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Just to double-check - you're talking about an
LTE-to-802.11 bridge,
not a femtocell?
Definitely not a femtocell ... I think that is the responsibility of the
network provider. But a bridge to WiFi, sure, that is what I mean.
Cheers
A.
26 Jul
26 Jul
12:45 a.m.
I was wondering about this -- why can't phone
transceivers just switch
frequency? I built an FM receiver from a kit once, and you changed
frequency by screwing an iron core into a wound wire coil. If you
screwed it past the radio stations you could get the telly audio.
A radio can only do so much.. Even with the ability to do some tuning,
the physical antennas within a given device are going to be optimally
tuned for specific frequencies. Outside of those optimal frequencies,
the antennas are not going to be as efficient at their jobs, requiring
more power and lowering battery life, as well as increasing the size of
the phone (ever wondered why a free to air antenna has multiple
elements? Why some antennas needed to be upgraded to support DVB-T
rollout in Australia on different frequencies?).
Right now, the modern smartphone has antennas for:
* Cell net
* WiFi net
* Bluetooth (I get the impression some vendors fudge things and share
this with WiFi)
* GPS
* NFC
They use different frequencies and work at different transmission power
levels and generally need separate antenna elements. Hell.. probably
forgot some stuff.. In short, the radio is not the only part of an RF
device that involves tuning.
3536
days inactive
3539
days old
16 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Anthony Hogan -
Brian May -
Jason White -
Rick Moen -
Robin Humble -
Rohan McLeod -
Tim Connors -
Trent W. Buck