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?"
Re:Get ready for it! (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, I don't know much about being a first responder. I'm in no position to argue with your advocacy of self-discovering networks.
But that's not what I'm arguing with. The issue here is reliability. A technical geek whose kludging together unfamiliar technology might be able to promise useful new features, but definitely can't promise that the damned thing will work.
To hackers, making technology do new and interesting stuff is an end in itself. But most people don't care about features if they can't count on a device doing what they need it to do. I may be ignorant of your work, but I think I'm right in assuming that reliability is even more important to you than to the rest of us.
BTW, I had a minor accident a few days ago, and a bunch of first responders came to my aid. I didn't have a chance to thank them, so I'm gonna thank you, for your work, and for putting yourself at risk to make life safer for the rest of us.
Re:Get ready for it! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that you are framing the question incorrectly. The question is not if it would be better to use a more robust networking method. The question is if this would be better than no network at all. Is a network that only works 50% of the time better than a network that works 0% of the time? The original poster doesn't share the purpose of this network, but for many applications, sometimes working is better than never working.
Another issue here is that if they can build an ad hoc network that sometimes saves lives, it will be easier to then get funding for a more robust networking option that can consistently help them save lives.
It's also true that there are some applications where intermittent connectivity is worse than no connectivity. It's possible that this is one of those situations. You're right to call out that possibility. However, shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that the poster has thought that through and really would be better off with intermittent connectivity?