Ask Slashdot: Ad-Hoc Wireless Mesh Network For Emergency Vehicles? 200
First time accepted submitter Texaskilt writes "I am looking to put together a mobile mesh network for my volunteer fire department and would like some recommendations from the Slashdot crowd. Ideally, the network would consist of cheap wireless routers (Linksys WRT-type) mounted on each vehicle. From there, tablets or other wireless devices could connect to the router. When the vehicles are in the station, the routers would auto-connect to the WiFi network to receive calls for service and other updates. When out on a call, the router would form an ad-hoc network with other vehicles on the scene. If a vehicle came into range of an Internet 'hotspot,' it would notify other vehicles and become a gateway for the rest of the 'ad-hoc' networked vehicles. I've looked at Freifunk for this, but would like some other options. Recommendations please?"
Get ready for it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course at least 1/3 of the posts will try to knock you down with the blather "if you have to ask, you're not the right person for the job".
easiest solution (Score:4, Insightful)
While ambitious, this is the wrong path to go down. Great for hobbyists, but is NOT what emergency services needs. Emergency services needs reliability. If your department can't afford a few mobile broadband units, you should seriously look into throwing a couple more raffles or asking for more money from the city/county/township/state.
Is this the best way to proceed? (Score:2, Insightful)
What is it for ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No really......
You have told us how you *think* you want to communicate, but not what information you are communicating.
The first step of any IT problem is to adapt your ideas to fit users needs........... not adapt users needs to fit your ideas.
Re:Get ready for it! (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, that seems a valid criticism. Messing around with technology you don't understand is a harmless, and even educational, pastime for the hobbyist/hacker. But when lives are on the line, a more conservative approach is called for.
Not appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been doing wifi mesh networks for over ten years. As much as people try, these just aren't reliable or secure enough to be used for such things as military and emergency services networks. Emergency services have more radio spectrum than they know what to do with, and access to lots of other resources. Use technology which is appropriate to these advantages, taking into account the demand for very high reliability.
Re:Easier approach (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't build a mesh until you have some place for the mesh to connect.
If you are out in the sticks so far that you have no radio coverage, there is not likely any nearby mesh members either.
I can see where being deep in a ravine with your home base transmitter on the other side of a mountain might present a localized situation which might be solved if you could some how get a mesh partner on top of that mountain.
But knowing how long it takes to get something working it would be easier to send a guy out in a support car to some intermediate point and simply relay data back and forth until air assets arrive.
Does someone living near by have wifi you could tap into? Maybe. But is Grandma going to have a clue how to turn off encryption or even what the password is when you wake her by pounding on her door in the middle of the night?
Satellite phones can be had for under 700 bucks, and an annual satphone plan starts Under 500/yr. I would recommend radio mapping the service area and determining those areas where there is no radio service and equip at least one unit in that are with sat phones.
But before you go to that expense take that cell phone out of your pocket and see if it works in these areas. If it does, your mesh is already in your pocket, and just forget about ad-hoc anything in an emergency.
Re:Project Byzantium? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know few places have such things now, but it's happening, gradually. Try to be forward-looking.
Yes. Poster would like you to experiment with configuring a wifi mesh instead of saving his life. He'll understand because he wants people who care for him medically to be "forward-looking", not "prudent."
BS. If you could have at your fingertips their recent medical history, current medications, etc. on the way to the site, you would be much better prepared even if they aren't responsive.
An EMTs job is to stabilize your vitals, not to diagnose and treat your condition. They don't need to be prepared for anything except keeping you breathing, your heart beating, and, since you're unconscious in the above scenario, not much else.
But if you COULD have a doctor there, without messing with Skype or a webcam, would you think that's a bad idea?
The doctor is at the hospital, treating the other patients who may have life-threatening injuries. You're suggesting the doctor step away from those duties to help the EMTs perform... basic triage?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're being shortsighted. You are fixated on what the current systems do for you, but you don't seem to be very receptive to what improvements in the technology COULD do for you.
He's fixated on the only thing that matters: Keeping the patient alive. Who the fuck cares what systems he uses? Unless they contribute to Job #1, they're worthless. I don't want someone googling "bleeding to death" or trying to skype or webcam to someone else to tell them what to do when I'm taking the ride, I want them trained in keeping my ass alive until someone with the right qualifications to fix whatever put me in that ambulance can see me.
You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who's spent too many years in technical support -- treat the EMT like he's some kind of moron or puppet, to be directed about by the guy on the other end of the line. Medicine isn't like that. They work as an integrated team, and they depend on their training and experience, not their google-fu, to do the job.