I’ve spent my entire career in telco and networking and loved the rise of Wi-Fi (which we used spectacularly over long distances when the spectrum was clear to show off my mates in 3G/microwave backhaul), and have been keeping up with LoRA and related stuff (got a few HelTec boards), but all the recent meshtastic/core/etc. stuff feels a bit like the early wardriving community (and CB radio): fun, full of ideas, but without enough structure (or mass appeal) to take off.
I do wish we had a proper, working emergency meshing standard, though. An international one, too.
> but without enough structure (or mass appeal) to take off
I think the most important requirement for a mesh technology to take off is a purpose that is practically relevant right now. Let's assume the mesh network exists - now what? Now you can send messages to other nerds but ... what do you even want to send as a message? That's why ham radio basically bottomed out at contests, Morse code challenges and exchanging specs ... there is nothing to say. Maybe the biggest problem of mesh networks isn't technology but society. If there is a purpose that at least serves nerds making up 0.1% of the population then that would be amazing and mass appeal would actually be more cause for trouble than desirable.
Off-grid messaging is helpful for my family (skiing, camping, hiking). They have zero interest in ham radio but a funny looking messaging app isn't a problem. Regular walkies talkies (FRS, GMRS) don't relay/hop, work asynchronously, or transmit GPS positions.
Yeah this was the reasoning behind Meshtastic and it still works very well in this usecase. Folks trying to scale these meshes run into all sorts of issues inherent to routing over a mesh with infrequent and unstable nodes. But for a messaging app in a remote area it works great.
It's the same problem with things like Geminispace, or hobbyist phone networks. The only thing Gemini users have in common is hating what the internet has become. The only thing TandmX users have in common is some interest in phones or phone systems.
But on the other hand, isn't it also true of the Internet?
Yeah, nobody wants to chew the rag anymore!
I had a friend who worked in telco as well, and he told me the reason why IP-based networking solutions will never completely replace earlier stuff like GSM is that the QoS algorithms used work extremely well in practice (which mesh networks prove), their behavior is completely nondeterministic, and tends to have really bad failure cases in overload, or certain nodes in the network failing.
Which means in SHTF situations (such as one when most people imagine this would be useful), these things tend to fail the most.
LoRA can work but there needs to be a backbone, either terrestrially via towers with repeaters or LEO constellations. Everything else is doomed to fail.
I believe it's called ham radio
CB stands for Citizen's Band, and was the moniker back in the Usenet days. Yes, I know I am dating myself here.
Yes, and ham radio is the international emergency mesh. CB radio isn't.
The request was for "a proper, working emergency meshing standard". Ham radio absolutely is not that. Yes, ham radios are used in emergency situations, but usually not as a mesh and certainly not as a standard.
“Mesh” doesn’t even make sense wrt ham. Aren’t hams just people broadcasting voice with amplitude modulation? Is there a data band? If so, are any hams willing to relay?
That's also what a wireless mesh network is. Nodes shout as loud as they can, and try to find other nodes to relay messages for them. Ham radio is a manually operated mesh, like semaphores.
No, yes, and yes.
My uncle definitely had a CB radio in his big rig, not ham, to hear him describe it.