Why not a nexus chipset ?
mhtajik at gmail.com
Wed Oct 3 23:21:39 UTC 2012
Correct , "Dead End" . if you are aiming at somewhat "All Layers Open for All" in any of Industrialized Telecom Standards , like GSM , UMTS , LTE -- you are either alone or one of the already huge Cartel vendors , the usual suspects . i am specifically referring to business-oriented closed-circuit cold-blooded capitalistic side of the issue . it is big bucks and involves elements of serious power . like Oil business , you simply can not dig a whole and start a shop today . a whole layers of politics and beneficiaries are involved to stop you doing that . internationally recognized organizations like ITU , also , for more or less same reasons do not let some one man company or a small scale team who is not already in bed with big players to go solo , and be available everywhere .
Note that i am not in essence , talking about "Security" , whatever that means to you or the next person . you might be well , or feel safe , with your standards under your treat model for your whole life using primitives like 2Gs . in fact i believe this is valid for , figuratively speaking , 99.9 of consumers . it is import an to differentiate between Patents , Licenses , Lobbying for money and ownership all the way down to technical details of how to implement some A5/3 efficient code that can not be tempered with by an evil rouge element in or mitm the network that cancels the whole point for good .
you will not reach to a widely usable phone , that all the details of it is free and open by all means . business , export restrictions , regulations and shareholders are responsible for that , good or bad . you CAN define specifics of a secure system based on your priorities and test and certify to see if it fits your criteria or not on the other hand . what society you belong to ?
- Freedom of software warriors
- Political Activist , Reporter in a Hostile environment or some Humanitarian effort type
- Business opportunity research
- Military and Dark ops
- Finance with 7+ figure daily account exchange
- a dude with 007s up his ass after leakage of those topless pix
- a Kind smily average father
- into white slavery , drug smuggling , dark international arms sales
Secure and "Feel Alright" might have different interpretations in each group but that "Open" mobile phone internationally available , legal and realistic is as you put it correctly , a Dead end.
On پنجشنبه, مهر ۱۳, ۱۳۹۱ at ۱:۴۲, John Case wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Mh wrote:
> > TI or Qualcomm will not sell "you" their IP , no matter what . there is
> > a very complicated "legal" process behind these kinds of deals ,
> > specifically a regulation process done outside the vendor , that is
> > usually a government organization . you would however be able to
> > purchase protected DSP style working components and NDAed dox with
> > 6-figure deals .
> Ok. So if there was to be a free-as-in-freedom Galaxy Nexus, with full
> control of all layers, it would be the result of a real, material breech,
> or leak. Someone would have to do Something Bad.
> > there is a different type of business you can look into though , take a
> > look at Lyrtech's stuff for example . you can buy at least as good as
> > HDL crystal clear IP from them licensed and hassle free with support and
> > dox and all , but they target specially built systems , usually huge
> > expensive SDRs .
> But the point here is an end user (like me) having a secure and
> free-as-in-freedom phone, so unless we're going to create a
> community-backed reference platform (which would be great, of course) this
> doesn't help a lot. Are there any 3G handsets currently for sale that
> have this (more open) system underneath ?
> > the alleged TI's leaks , mo matter what the circumstance , are not to my
> > experiences of much practical importance . if you got the engineering
> > resources and enough money to put such stuff into use , you may as well
> > code it all from scratch , since most specs are already public . the
> > Patents usually prevent people from certifying , therefore , prevent
> > selling big time for serious profit and limiting the market . its not
> > like they are Nuclear missile code secrets . difference between
> > engineering and reverse engineering in Software ecosystem and Telecom
> > ecosystem is exactly in the time/resource/profit formulation . kids code
> > a virus or crack a code over a couple of nights using ollydbg , although
> > they need to learn a lot of math and electric shit before doing baseband
> > scale maneuver . they almost never do , or Apple offer them Jobs ;)
> You're approaching this as if I want to build and market cell site
> equipment, or build my own infrastructure ... of course that is
> interesting, but really all I want is a somewhat modern phone that I can
> control and feel somewhat secure in using, which means either isolataing
> the basebadn processor (see my other thread about using USB GSM modems
> with a galaxy music player) or breaking the baseband of a platform more
> useful than calypso...
> I do wonder, however, if these open reference chipsets exist, why we are
> looking at calypso as the basis for the "other" osmocom projects (like the
> baseband dev kit that has been proposed...) it seems like your example
> would be less of a dead end...
More information about the baseband-devel