Stories with Tag Wireless

• The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-26 11:55:26

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators" laments the frustrating developer experience of integrating cellular modems into IoT projects. It criticizes the opaque and inconsistent AT command interfaces, the difficult debugging process due to limited visibility into modem operations, and the complex and often expensive cellular data plans offered by MNOs. The author highlights the lack of standardized, developer-friendly tools and documentation, which forces developers to wrestle with legacy technologies and proprietary solutions, ultimately slowing down IoT development and hindering innovation. They argue for a simplified and more accessible ecosystem that empowers developers to leverage cellular connectivity more effectively.

  The blog post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators," published on Golioth's website, delivers a scathing critique of the current landscape of cellular modem integration for Internet of Things (IoT) applications. The author meticulously outlines the numerous frustrations and complexities encountered when attempting to establish reliable and efficient cellular connectivity for IoT devices, placing the blame squarely on both modem manufacturers and Mobile Network Operators (MNOs).

  The central argument revolves around the inherent difficulty in navigating the fragmented ecosystem surrounding cellular modems. The author argues that the process, from selecting a suitable modem to successfully deploying it in the field, is riddled with opaque documentation, inconsistent implementations of standards, and a general lack of user-friendliness. Specifically, the blog post criticizes the convoluted AT command set, highlighting its historical baggage and the inconsistencies between different modem models, even those from the same manufacturer. This lack of standardization forces developers to write bespoke code for each modem, thereby hindering scalability and increasing development time and costs.

  Furthermore, the post laments the inadequate documentation provided by modem manufacturers. The author contends that the available documentation is frequently incomplete, outdated, or simply inaccurate, making it a significant hurdle for developers seeking to understand the nuances of a particular modem's behavior. This opacity extends to the realm of firmware updates, which are often shrouded in mystery and difficult to apply, potentially leading to unresolved bugs and security vulnerabilities.

  The criticism extends beyond modem manufacturers to encompass Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) as well. The author points to the often arbitrary and obscure restrictions imposed by MNOs regarding data usage, SIM card activation, and network access. These limitations, combined with the complexities of negotiating data plans and managing SIM card lifecycles, further complicate the already challenging process of deploying cellular-connected IoT devices. The author specifically highlights the difficulties in obtaining and maintaining static IP addresses, a crucial requirement for many IoT applications.

  The blog post also touches upon the issue of security, expressing concerns about the potential vulnerabilities inherent in cellular modems. The lack of transparency and the difficulty in applying firmware updates exacerbate these security concerns, leaving IoT devices potentially exposed to malicious actors.

  In conclusion, the author paints a bleak picture of the current state of cellular modem integration for IoT applications. The fragmented ecosystem, coupled with inadequate documentation, inconsistent implementations, and arbitrary restrictions imposed by MNOs, creates a significant barrier to entry for developers seeking to leverage the power of cellular connectivity. The post implicitly calls for greater standardization, improved documentation, and more transparent practices from both modem manufacturers and MNOs to facilitate the wider adoption and successful deployment of cellular-connected IoT devices.

  • modems
  • mobile networks
  • cellular networks
  • MNOS
  • mobile network operators
  • IoT
  • Internet of Things
  • connectivity
  • telecom
  • Telecommunications
  • Wireless
  • Cellular IoT
  • SIM cards
  • eSIM
  • iSIM

  Summary of Comments ( 0 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43182854

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters largely echoed the author's frustrations with cellular modem integration. Several shared anecdotes of flaky connectivity, opaque documentation, and vendor lock-in issues, particularly with Quectel and SIMCom modems. Some pointed to the lack of proper abstraction layers as a core problem, hindering software portability. The difficulty in obtaining certifications for cellular devices was also highlighted, with some suggesting this complexity benefits larger established players while stifling smaller innovators. A few commenters suggested exploring alternatives like the Nordic Semiconductor nRF91 series or using a Raspberry Pi with a USB cellular dongle for simpler prototyping, while others called for more open-source initiatives in the cellular modem space. Several also discussed the challenges with varying cellular carrier regulations and certification processes internationally. The general sentiment was one of agreement with the article's premise, with many expressing hope for improved developer experience in the future.

  The Hacker News post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their own experiences and perspectives on the challenges of working with cellular modems and mobile network operators (MNOs).

  Several comments echoed the author's frustrations with the opaque and complex nature of cellular technology. One commenter lamented the difficulty in finding clear documentation and the lack of standardization across different modems and networks. This sentiment was reinforced by another who described the process of integrating cellular connectivity as a "nightmare," citing inconsistent APIs and the need for extensive trial and error.

  The issue of vendor lock-in was also raised, with commenters expressing concerns about being tied to specific modem manufacturers and MNOs. This was particularly problematic for those working on IoT projects, where flexibility and interoperability are crucial.

  A few comments offered alternative perspectives. One commenter suggested that the complexity of cellular technology is inherent due to the stringent requirements of reliability and security in a wireless environment. Another pointed out the significant improvements in cellular technology over the past few years, particularly with the advent of newer standards like LTE-M and NB-IoT, suggesting the author's experience might be specific to older technologies or particular vendors.

  There was some discussion around the challenges of managing SIM cards and data plans for large deployments of IoT devices. Commenters mentioned difficulties with provisioning SIM cards, managing data usage, and dealing with varying roaming agreements across different countries.

  Some practical suggestions were also offered. One commenter recommended using virtual SIMs (eSIMs) to simplify the process of managing connectivity for IoT devices. Another suggested working with specialized connectivity providers that offer a more streamlined and developer-friendly experience.

  Finally, a few comments touched upon the broader issue of the telecommunications industry's structure and its impact on innovation. One commenter argued that the lack of competition among MNOs has stifled innovation and led to higher prices and poorer service for consumers.

  While the comments largely agreed with the author's premise about the difficulties of working with modems and MNOs, they also provided a nuanced view, acknowledging the complexities of cellular technology and offering some practical solutions and alternative perspectives. The discussion highlighted the need for greater transparency, standardization, and developer-friendliness in the cellular connectivity space, especially as the demand for IoT devices continues to grow.

• Openhaystack: Build 'AirTags' – track Bluetooth devices via Apple's network

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-27 00:11:27

  Verbose tl;dr

  OpenHaystack is an open-source project that emulates Apple's Find My network, allowing users to track Bluetooth devices globally using Apple's vast network of iPhones, iPads, and Macs. It essentially lets you create your own DIY AirTags by broadcasting custom Bluetooth signals that are picked up by nearby Apple devices and relayed anonymously back to you via iCloud. This provides location information for the tracked device, offering a low-cost and power-efficient alternative to traditional GPS tracking. The project aims to explore and demonstrate the security and privacy implications of this network, showcasing how it can be used for both legitimate and potentially malicious purposes.

  OpenHaystack is an open-source research project that emulates the functionality of Apple's Find My network, allowing users to track Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) devices, even those without cellular or GPS capabilities, leveraging the vast network of Apple devices. Think of it as a way to build your own "AirTags" or tracking devices, using readily available and affordable hardware like ESP32 microcontrollers. The project utilizes the existing Find My network infrastructure, which consists of millions of iPhones, iPads, and Macs around the world, to relay the location of your custom trackers back to you.

  The way OpenHaystack achieves this is by emulating the communication protocols used by Apple's AirTags. It essentially tricks the Find My network into believing that the custom tracker is a genuine AirTag. The project provides firmware for ESP32 microcontrollers that enables them to broadcast Bluetooth signals mimicking AirTags. These signals are then picked up by nearby Apple devices, which securely and anonymously relay the location data to Apple's servers, and from there back to the owner of the tracker. This entire process happens in the background, requiring no interaction from the owners of the Apple devices involved in relaying the location.

  OpenHaystack offers a user-friendly web interface for managing and tracking your devices. You can view their location on a map, and the location data is updated periodically as the tracker comes within range of Apple devices. The project also emphasizes privacy and security. The location data is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that only the owner of the tracker can decrypt and access the location information. Apple, or anyone else, cannot see the location of the tracker. Furthermore, the system is designed to prevent unauthorized tracking.

  The project's documentation provides detailed instructions on how to set up and use OpenHaystack, including flashing the custom firmware onto an ESP32, setting up the web interface, and configuring the tracking devices. While offering a compelling alternative to commercially available trackers, it's important to acknowledge that OpenHaystack is a research project and may have limitations or unforeseen issues. It is also crucial to use OpenHaystack responsibly and ethically, respecting privacy and avoiding any malicious use of the technology. The project explicitly discourages using it for tracking people without their explicit consent and emphasizes its intended use for tracking objects.

  • Bluetooth
  • tracking
  • Apple
  • Find My
  • AirTag
  • Open Source
  • privacy
  • Security
  • Reverse Engineering
  • Crowd-Sourced
  • Localization
  • Wireless
  • IoT
  • Offline Tracking
  • Network Analysis

  Summary of Comments ( 68 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42835772

  Verbose tl;dr

  Commenters on Hacker News express concerns about OpenHaystack's privacy implications, with some comparing it to stalking or a global mesh network of surveillance. Several users question the ethics and legality of leveraging Apple's Find My network without user consent for tracking arbitrary Bluetooth devices. Others discuss the technical limitations, highlighting the inaccuracy of Bluetooth proximity sensing and the potential for false positives. A few commenters acknowledge the potential for legitimate uses, such as finding lost keys, but the overwhelming sentiment leans towards caution and skepticism regarding the project's potential for misuse. There's also discussion around the possibility of Apple patching the vulnerability that allows this kind of tracking.

  The Hacker News post about OpenHaystack, a project enabling users to build their own "AirTags" and track Bluetooth devices through Apple's Find My network, generated a moderate amount of discussion with 25 comments. Several commenters expressed interest and excitement about the project, highlighting the potential for creating customized and more affordable tracking devices.

  One of the most compelling threads involved discussions about privacy implications. Commenters raised concerns about the potential for stalking or unwanted tracking due to the open nature of the project. This sparked further dialogue about the ethics of creating such technology and the responsibility of developers to mitigate potential misuse. Specific suggestions included incorporating features like clear notifications to individuals being tracked, opt-in mechanisms, and limited range capabilities to prevent long-distance tracking.

  Another key discussion point revolved around the limitations and challenges of the project. Commenters mentioned the reliance on Apple devices for network coverage, raising questions about the effectiveness of tracking in areas with fewer iPhones or iPads. There were also technical discussions regarding battery life, the complexity of the setup process, and the potential for Apple to patch the vulnerabilities exploited by OpenHaystack.

  Several commenters shared their own experiences with similar projects or expressed their intention to experiment with OpenHaystack. Some highlighted potential use cases beyond simple item tracking, such as monitoring the location of pets or vulnerable family members.

  Overall, the comments reflected a mix of enthusiasm for the technical ingenuity of the project and concern about its potential for misuse. The discussion underscored the ethical considerations that accompany the development of tracking technologies and the importance of thoughtful design choices to minimize risks. There was also a pragmatic acknowledgement of the technical limitations and the possibility of Apple taking steps to counter the project's functionality.