"Home Wi-Fi routers could operate as emergency network, say scientists"

Now I don't usually copy someone else's title but... what else can I say.

The way it works is that because sometimes the regular emergency networks get clogged up in an emergency.
It might be nice to have a back up.

Here's a part of the article

"We found that with a communication range of 30 metres a mesh network could be easily constructed in urban areas like our hometown. The resulting networks showed to be resilient to node failures," Panitzek said in the analysis.

'

Here is the Source

Here is the PDF paper by the scientists (Kamill Panitzek*, Immanuel Schweizer, Tobias Bönning,
Gero Seipel and Max Mühlhäuser) who came up with the idea.

It's a fairly good concept, and can do some real good.
It's low cost, and easy to apply. It will just take some time for it to catch on.
Obviously the catch is, there has to be Wifi routers around.

It's a great idea but it is dependent on everyone have electric (or generators). I would think most national emergencies would have a negative impact on the power grid.

reply to post by KingAtlas


This is not a new idea.
The newly titled idea, is basically an Ad Hoc, private wireless network.
It can be done, relatively easy and is done in test labs and I am sure neighborhoods.

I think they'd have to use free wireless electricity to implement this. Something Tesla was doing, but sadly was destroyed by big business. I think a bat-signal would be cooler though.

reply to post by macman


No the new part is implementing it for emergency services.

No one said it was a brand new idea to link wifi routers.

It's the creation of a backup emergency network, using resources already in place.

The real reason this isn't a simple default setting is power and money

Power: They do not like it they an individual or group could still be able to communicate if the government has pulled plugs.

Money: You could be able to use a 'simplified"internet and communication network without paying (providers etc, and taxes)

Conclusion: It is possible, but will never be default.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by macman

 

No the new part is implementing it for emergency services.

No one said it was a brand new idea to link wifi routers.

It's the creation of a backup emergency network, using resources already in place.

AH, ok then.

So the Govt would either take over private equipment or deploy new equipment.

reply to post by KingAtlas


Ahhhh, regurgitation of older ideas in the original articles, pretending as if they are something new. I mentioned this type of system on ATS on 3/3/2012 as a brief idea of how one could utilize their neighbors wireless routers to produce both massive bridged MLPPP networks or common networks and in essence how to rebuild an "internet" when none is available using existing Wi-Fi points. The paper the scientists publish claim they have been talking about this since 2011 but I/we were looking at similar applications for military networks in 1988 using existing VHS/UHF transceivers near towns. Funny, they do this with everything, take an idea and call it something new, add cinammon to Coke and you get Pepsi.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by macman


I think it would be equated to piggybacking on the network, but in the article they say, that the owner would have to allow this with a guest spot allotted for this purpose.

I doubt the US would be the first place they would try this out. It would be good for places with large populations/greater chance of emergency occuring.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
It's a great idea but it is dependent on everyone have electric (or generators). I would think most national emergencies would have a negative impact on the power grid.

Why? Couldn't solar panels be set up?

Or, if we are afraid of solar panels, how about using piezoelectrics?

reply to post by KingAtlas


This is a concept known as "mesh networking."

Back in 2005/6 in my electronics and computer networking vocational training, we talked about this type of technology being developed for use in wireless routers and cell phones. (it can be very effective in areas prone to dead zones, like apartment buildings and other areas where line of sight to towers can be easily obstructed or signals subject to echoing).

It's really the way the internet already works. The difference is that you would simply be enabling routers to perform the function of often far more powerful servers and land-lines. Which... in a number of cases, they already do (DNS serving, IP issuing, port forwarding, etc).

The main issue from a development standpoint is to counteract some of the node-based tendencies of natural networks. While it does have its advantages, in the case of using routers to relay information, you will quickly find that some routers will be connected to computers that are getting hit up for requests far more often than most of the other routers/computers on the network. This will lead to an undue amount of strain on that single system (that is not going to be -that- much more advanced in capability than some of the weakest hardware on the network to be able to handle the load).

Commonly requested information would have to be recorded and cached by other systems to pull strain off of nodes and more evenly distribute data flow over the network's architecture.

Related reading:

computer.howstuffworks.com...

Nodes are programmed with software that tells them how to interact within the larger network. Information travels across the network from point A to point B by hopping wirelessly from one mesh node to the next. The nodes automatically choose the quickest and safest path in a process known as dynamic routing.

research.microsoft.com...

Researchers in Microsoft Research Redmond, Cambridge, and Silicon Valley are working to create wireless technologies that allow neighbors to connect their home networks together. There are many advantages to enabling such connectivity and forming a community mesh network. For example, when enough neighbors cooperate and forward each others packets, they do not need to individually install an Internet "tap" (gateway) but instead can share faster, cost-effective Internet access via gateways that are distributed in their neighborhood.

Of course, the challenge will be to fight against this:

www.cooperationcommons.com...

Real-world scale-free networks tend to have highly connected hubs which rapidly, purposely, and efficiently transmit pertinent or pervasive content from one location to another. In social circles, these are networkers. In the airline network these are hub airports. In traffic they would be freeway interchanges.

The challenge will be that data requests and "quickest routes" will tend to cluster and form nodes. These nodes, in the real world, end up expanding their handling capacity to deal with the increased demand. The problem is that your neighbor may end up being one such node, and he doesn't have the money to buy servers dedicated to serving your neighborhood.

Not saying the challenge is impossible to overcome - or that it hasn't already been overcome. Just passing on the understanding.