Did you know that cell phone networks today are mesh networks? There is a huge amount of work going into mesh network development, though admittedly, there's still a long way to go.
All that said, even if we just had a functioning alternative (even if it were significantly slower), it would give us options when we need uncensored, unregulated communication. It's better than having absolutely no options when your government oversteps its bounds.
> Did you know that cell phone networks today are mesh networks?
I don't think this is true, at least not using Wikipedia definition of "mesh network".
Mesh Networks are where each node relays data to other nodes, with data "hopping" from node to node.
That does not happen on cell networks. Each phone relays data to a cell tower, but thats it. There's no "hopping" from phone to phone, or from tower to tower. (Your phone might move between towers, taking a phone call from one tower to another as you drive, but there's never more than one "hop". Your phone call never jumps through three cell towers before hitting backhaul, for instance.)
For the same reason that having a few Wifi hotspots backhauled in a building isn't a "mesh network", a cell phone network is also not a "mesh network".
Not quite true. If you are driving (say, along I-95 on a long trip) it's true that your phone will disassociate with one tower going out of range to a new tower coming into range, and the phone switches behind the towers will transfer "ownership" (more like association), but once you (if you aren't driving, or your passenger) accept a phone call, things get a bit different.
The cell phone is answered. So, it goes from switch O (the caller) to switch A (where your cell phone is associated with). Eventually, you'll move out of range of towers for switch A, and come into range of towers for switch B. But because the phone network is circuit switched, you can't just create a circuit from O to B. No, what happens is that A forms a connection to B, so now the call is going O -> A -> B. Talk long enough, and eventually, your call may end up going O -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F.
So while it's true that your call doesn't go through multiple towers, it does go through multiple switches (as long as you are talking on the cell phone, and the cell phone is moving).
Are these links RF or Land Based? Are there any examples of fast (> 1 megabit) RF Mesh Networks with greater than 5 hops in the RF Mesh and, say, around 20 active talkers at once behind the last hops of the Mesh?
I'm happy to get 100 kbits/talker in that scenario with todays FHSS technology, 500 meters/hop, 1 watt power, 200 kHz channel width and 20 MHz of spectrum in the ISM band.
Of course, the advantage of Mesh Networks is they require little in the way of infrastructure, and scale up into the millions of nodes, with 50 million active node networks practical. But high data rates are not one of the properties of such networks.
Well, it's RF between the cell phone and the cell tower. Between the switches, it's most likely land based circuits, but really, they could be anything.
The relevant section is Sec. 7.3.2, "Description of the subsequent handover procedure ii): MSC-B to MSC-B'".
(They call your "O" by "A", your "A" by "B", and your "C" by "B'" (B prime). And an MSC is a Mobile Switching Center that usually handles about half a city's worth of towers.)
Is that while a call is in progress? That sounds like what happens when a cell phone that is not in use, transfers from switch to switch like you describe.
Or the instructor I had taught us outdated information.
AFAIK cell phones are "mesh" in a bit different meaning of that word. Remote BTS-es have high connectivity provided over radio, which creates a mesh. But it is still centrally administered. It is way closer to switches of your ISP having STP turned on than to the openlibernet.
Speaking of which, a nice incentive. I see FAQ expresses everything that should be told, in an honest way. Good read for someone who wants to know about mesh networks.
I would also love something like it to become commonplace. But as it is not a viable alternative to the Internet and does not add anything while the system has not went mad... I don't see it happening any soon.
Also, did you see this (one of many interesting efforts): http://openlibernet.org/faq.html
All that said, even if we just had a functioning alternative (even if it were significantly slower), it would give us options when we need uncensored, unregulated communication. It's better than having absolutely no options when your government oversteps its bounds.