Traveled past ~100 goTenna nodes

Product feedback & support
1

I traveled from Boston to NYC earlier this week via Amtrak along the RI/CT shoreline, passing through over 100 GTM nodes, as defined by the #imeshyou Network Map.

I popped out a few public Shouts and tested my Tasker Weather Station broadcasts at a few points along the way. I also listened and pushed messages while stationary over the last 2 days in midtown.

Not a single peep, shout or reply back, other than my own nodes talking to each other.

I’m +1 on having the map ‘expire’ nodes that haven’t checked in, in 30 days, 60 days, 90 days or whatever seems appropriate, so those nodes that no longer exist, or aren’t active, can be marked as such on the map.

Thoughts?

6 Likes
2

The map is not dynamic and most devices are not always-powered-on stationary nodes, that is correct! “It takes a village…” and time :wink:

3

This was from inside the train cars? The windows could well have one of those metallic coatings on them designed to limit transmission of heat and cold through the glass. I attend once-a-month meet and greet with local techies at a recently constructed supermarket. The restaurant where we meet is on the second floor with floor to ceiling glass. I can stand right in the window and can’t even ping the GTM that’s on top of the truck.

Then there’s speed. Depending on the service you used, the top speeds would rapidly take you out of the range of any replies.

And what sort of nodes were you trying to connect with? Unless you had specific addresses for users to relay to, a stationary node simply ignores Shouts. Sure, you could assume there’s someone listening for a Shout near a relay node, but that’s a hit or miss thing. Some turn Shouts off.

I wouldn’t assume that mobile nodes would be up in the first place. People place a marker for those to show there are other users potentially around, not that they’d necessarily be on the air.

Stationary nodes are placed under the assumption that they will be on the air 24/7. Maintaining that requires anything from near-apathy to regular hand-holding. Current hardware requires physical intervention to reset properly. Add in high temps that can cause battery failure and other issues.

Those who use their GTMs in the woods are often not in town, but up in the hills during the summer.

That said, it sounds a lot like you have radio expectations for a device that’s quite a bit different than a typical radio. With a conventional analog radio, a listening watch is a matter of parking on a freq and waiting to see who shows up. Since the vast majority of GTM traffic is between specified individual users and only a Shout works somewhat like conventional radio and then only to the first hop away from the sender, using a testing methodology that really isn’t suitable to assessing mesh networks doesn’t really tell us much about the network. It’s applying a random access tool to a specified access method, a mismatch of the tool against the work.

1 Like
4

The restaurant where we meet is on the second floor with floor to ceiling glass. I can stand right in the window and can’t even ping the GTM that’s on top of the truck.

Then there’s speed. Depending on the service you used, the top speeds would rapidly take you out of the range of any replies.[/quote]

I understand that traveling through a field of nodes would be spotty, and could result in missing them along the way, and that’s fine. But being stationary in an area with many nodes identified around me for days at a time, shouldn’t have the same results.

And what sort of nodes were you trying to connect with? Unless you had specific addresses for users to relay to, a stationary node simply ignores Shouts.

That’s certainly not the default configuration, so anyone with a working GTM would have to have gone into their app settings and changed the default to disable “Allow Incoming”. And why would they do that, if their goal is to increase the coverage of a mesh network?

I wouldn’t assume that mobile nodes would be up in the first place. People place a marker for those to show there are other users potentially around, not that they’d necessarily be on the air.

I’m not expecting it to behave like CB or HAM radio, but if all of the nodes around me are down and/or ignoring messages completely, what is the point of the mesh network in the area to begin with? If it’s not really there, and messages sent to it are ignored, I can’t rely on it at all.

Since the vast majority of GTM traffic is between specified individual users and only a Shout works somewhat like conventional radio and then only to the first hop away from the sender, using a testing methodology that really isn’t suitable to assessing mesh networks doesn’t really tell us much about the network.

That’s unfortunate, and not at all what a mesh network is supposed to be. If all links in the chain are ‘private’ by themselves, ignoring and not relaying messages into or out of the network’s nodes, then it’s not really a network at all, it’s an ‘invite-only’ phone system, with point-to-point connections, denying any unrecognized outsiders from participating.

I’ll explore another solution for expanding community mesh networking, as it would appear goTenna is, by design as you describe, not at all what it was advertised to be.

Thanks for your insight!

1 Like
5

It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you are trying to communicate with another specific unit, which you don’t seem to have been doing, if it was in range you would more likely to have drawn a response.

If you’re treating the GTM like a CB, then you have Shout. It has a limited range. It’s usually used where there are a group of known active users working together in close proximity. If you just are randomly messaging, then that’s something most users don’t do and who might find replying to an unknown user intimidating or disquieting.

Calling CQ is a bit of an art even in amateur radio where it is a commonly accepted practice. I can’t say that we know enough about the goTenna equivalent of CQ yet to say what works best, given it is a small percentage of what users typically do, but here’s some info on how to improve results if you’re a Ham, some of which might translate to using Shout.
Callling CQ

BTW, what was the typical content/message you used when sending Shouts?

Yes, turning off Shouts is not the default, but a user choice. Why they might not be answered probably has more to do with reasons similar to why ham CQs are likewise not often answered. See resource in my previous reply above.

That last sentence again suggests you either don’t understand how Shouts (non-meshed) work vs how direct messaging works in a mesh network or you’ve got expectations that don’t fit the system design of meshing. Allowing incoming Shouts doesn’t utilize the mesh, simply enables another a feature that is independent of the mesh network.

And as an aside, routinely propagating Shouts across the network as some have repeatedly suggested threatens the commons that the primary mode, Direct Messaging, depends on. Most people who use the system prefer that it deliver reliable messaging, which very few other systems provide vs the general broadcast nature of Shouts that every analog transceiver ever built provides.

Well, based on how you state the problem, it does seem that you expect the GTM to act very much like other radios that you are more familiar. But no need to explain further if what I’ve already stated doesn’t get any traction here for you.

Did you address messages directly to others? If not, then that’s the biggest part of the lack of response. Most users, as already stated, communicate with others they know via their specified UIDs. A random Shout from an unknown user might be answered, but would more likely draw the lack of reaction you’ve observed and I’ve attempted to explain. This is in part due to intentional design to privilege person-to-person comms, but it’s also human nature to bear a certain reluctance to engage with strangers. That’s why Hams have found it necessary, even on a network/system that is biased in favor of such contacts, to work at encouraging people to both effectively make doing so inviting as well as to overcome the shyness that pervades in such interactions before trust is established between the parties involved.

I guess at this point, I’d have to ask what exactly are you needing to rely on? It seems like you are seeking a capability that sounds a lot like the role filled by amateur radio, despite your denial of such expectations. You should give some thought to this. Mesh networking is not about broadcasting as in calling CQ, pure and simple, or even about carrying on conversation in the clear so everyone can listen in, yet you seem to be pointing towards those concepts as needing incorporation into the GTM in all your criticism here in how it fails to meet expectation that are commonly associated with broadcasting modes we’re more familiar with.

I think you’re trapped here by insisting that your square peg should fit the round hole, because you basically dismiss my frankly cogent observation in your next comment.

That’s exactly what THIS mesh network is supposed to be, for reasons I’ve only lightly touched upon. It has to be different than traditional radio networks in order to function as a reliable messaging service. Unless certain limits are placed strategically to discourage abuse, the features users rely can also make mesh virtually unusable by becoming exploits for the bad-intentioned or even merely ignorant to use to tie up a mesh network. Essentially, stepping backward this way would be a lot like deciding that email didn’t need spam filtering or user-specific addressing. Imagine email where the spammers can just send one nastygram and it would be received by everyone in the world with email.

Well, if you insist that the positives necessary to make mesh work reliably are really negatives, I can’t help which end of the telescope you’re looking into, the one that is just weird or the one that reliably provides a good view of faraway information.

But no one needs an invite to use mesh networking the way goTenna delivers it. You just need some sort of social relationship that could be facilitated by better, more reliable communication. You make that choice, get your goTennas and go. No one has to be vetted by the “co-op board” - they simply need to decide they want to communicate. However, like that old human endeavor, marriage, it takes two to tango. Even in an age where such institutions are changing rapidly, that basic bond has to be there as a foundation to build on. If you wake up one day and you’re 40 and not married and you want to be, do you blame your cellphone for not having already brought you the mate of your dreams? You shouldn’t.

So go ahead and explore other solutions. There’s a recent thread here on those alternatives that might save you some time and, well, good luck at finding better mesh networking. While goTenna Mesh has some functionality to bring unknowns together, it’s actually targeted more at strengthening existing relationships by facilitating communications between the parties involved. Without those relationships, you are probably going to find the goTenna Mesh frustrating and should probably polish you radio voice and get your Ham ticket.

2 Likes
6

Actually, Gotenna was NEVER marketed as being the sort of “party line” that, say, a Ham or CB radio is. It was always marketed as a private, personal communications device, to be used to keep in touch with friends and family in areas where cellular service is spotty to nonexistant. The whole concept of ‘mesh network’ is NOT advertised as a means of communicating with a whole lot of random strangers. Rather, it is advertised as a means of improving the ability of the Gotenna Mesh to be used as a personal communications device. Gotenna Mesh does this by using the units of random strangers as repeaters to improve range. In this manner, it is similar to Firechat, but on a grander scale.

If you wish to communicate with random strangers, an analog radio system like Ham, CB, or FRS/GMRS would be a better bet than Gotenna. Not only are these systems completely unencrypted (Ham is REQUIRED by law to be). But unlike Gotenna, people are actually more likely to have this sort of radio online at random times. Gotenna Mesh units, on the other hand, tend to sit in drawers and closets, only to be taken out when needed for their intended purpose (think activities such as hiking or going to large gatherings like Burning Man).

6 Likes
7

Hi, longtime Mesh Community “lurker” – this thread finally made me wanna comment. I think it’s unfair to expect a mesh network to ensure connectivity, especially on Day 1. The very thing that excites us all about the potential of goTenna Mesh and imeshyou.com’s Network Map and mesh networks more broadly is the decentralized nature. As a result no centrailzed entity – goTenna or otherwise – can make anyone do anything, including have nodes up in the places you’d like and at the times you’d want. That’s why this forum and crowd-sourced map is the beginning of helping an otherwise decentralized network get built up, by having all of us put in the effort. It won’t happen overnight, but it starts in niche situations or places like, yes, Coachella or Burning Man or Yosemite or the Appalachian Trail or perhaps even your neighborhood or community, if you really want to walk the walk. I’m excited, and I hope you stick around to make it happen. If we build it, with time, they will come. In the meantime, yes, it’s us early adopter nerds, but that’s what makes this fun. And worth it.

4 Likes
8

It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you are trying to communicate with another specific unit, which you don’t seem to have been doing, if it was in range you would more likely to have drawn a response.

You touch on this a few times in this reply. There’s absolutely zero way for me to communicate with any ‘specific unit’ other than those I specifically have physical control of, other than Shouts and someone raising their hand to make themselves known in a reply to a Shout, or me having a prior real-world relationship using another network or means.

Likewise, nobody can contact me directly using their GTM, because they won’t know my GID, unless I specifically give it to them out of band.

BTW, what was the typical content/message you used when sending Shouts?

In a few tests, just soliciting anyone to respond, to validate that there’s more than just my GTM units talking to each other in a vacuum. I also have been broadcasting my parsed weather to test the same across my own GTM nodes, again via Shout only, not 1:1 or “Group” messaging.

And as an aside, routinely propagating Shouts across the network as some have repeatedly suggested threatens the commons that the primary mode, Direct Messaging, depends on.

I’m nowhere near flooding Direct Messaging messages off of the system with my infrequent Shouts once every few hours.

But, since Direct Messages, if they exist at all “near” me appear to be invisible and silent, I wouldn’t know if they were passing through my nodes or not, so there’s literally no way to tell if I’m impeding those messages or the only one doing the messaging at the time.

Did you address messages directly to others?

There is no way to do so from within the goTenna app without a prior arrangement out-of-band with another GTM owner.

Since the goTenna app requests access to read my Contacts, none of which contain a GID, and I would never permit anyone with a GTM I’ve given to them, to broadcast their phone number as their ID to communicate with me on the mesh network, there’s no way for me to “find” or contact someone else with my GTM, nor by searching for theirs.

The unique GID is created at pairing time within each distinct mobile app, so that GID exchange would have to happen out-of-band on mobile devices using the data network (eg SMS), prior to attemptoing to initiate a 1:1 between two GTM nodes off-grid.

This is in part due to intentional design to privilege person-to-person comms, but it’s also human nature to bear a certain reluctance to engage with strangers.

Here is where the process falls apart for using GTM devices for things like emergency comms when the network goes down or is out of range, or communicating across many users in a fight-or-flight situation (such as protests in Turkey).

If you have to have direct prior knowledge of another user’s GID using another network or exchange (in-person, mail, paper, SMS, phone call, whatever), then it impedes the expansion and growth of the mesh network. Every person has to “know” everyone else within the connected nodes, in order to talk directly to them or have Group Chat with them.

Mesh networking is not about broadcasting as in calling CQ, pure and simple, or even about carrying on conversation in the clear so everyone can listen in, yet you seem to be pointing towards those concepts as needing incorporation into the GTM in all your criticism here in how it fails to meet expectation that are commonly associated with broadcasting modes we’re more familiar with.

My expectation was to see if there were others out there, to then test the system, push all the edges and get a good idea of what other applications this would be useful for.

If I send a public Shout, and others respond, I can (I assume) begin to attempt 1:1 direct conversations with them, as we would presumably be able to see our GIDs and exchange messages at that point.

Without prior knowledge of a GID already on the network, I can never have 1:1 or Group messages with those people who control those GTM nodes.

Imagine email where the spammers can just send one nastygram and it would be received by everyone in the world with email.

It’s already possible, via Shout, to DDoS the system, such that other messages don’t get through. I don’t see any way within the app to block/deny a spammy GTM node, nor set a throttle on the # of messages allowed to/through a specific node per/minute, per/hour or other. Anyone can just hammer messages across the nodes and bury legitimate direct messages.

But I digress.

You make that choice, get your goTennas and go.

Well, no. You get your goTennas, initate a GID exchange using a higher-level mechanism, then attempt to use the GTM devices for 1:1 communication after that. It’s not a drop-in, you can’t just pair your GTM and start having 1:1 conversations with anyone.

But that is more in-line with your email metaphor earlier. Sending messages through GTM nodes, requires something along the lines of a GPG key-signing party, authenticating and authorizing users in-person before taking those devices apart and continuing conversations off-grid.

In any case, if there truly are 100+ nodes I passed through, and every single one of those nodes knows every single other person they’re connected to in order to have 1:1/Group messages, that would be the most impressive component of the system.

Since I have no way to tell if messages were sent through my nodes, I can’t say whether those nodes “near” me are dead, idle or off. It’s an invisible, black box.

9

I think you’re sort of getting my point, so I won’t belabor it.

That does sum it up.

I want to note I wasn’t accusing you of doing that, only observing that some of the things people find constrictive are there for very good reasons.

There you go, that’s a Feature. This is inherently more secure. However you do it, it provides enhanced security. Communications security is built on having multiple means of transmitting sensitive information. Some parts go one place others in another.

Now, what does goTenna say about that?

Blockquote Emergency
Preparedness

Create a reliable backup communication network for use during emergency situations when cell service is down.###

Notice how it stresses the word “preparedness” which involves “creating” a “backup communication network” – all this implies something that should be done prior to an emergency. The goTenna is not a Batphone designed to make one call to solve all your problems at the drop of a hat.

Preparedness is a very different thing than dialing 911, yet people regularly think that it should be used for that or they are simply confused over two very different concepts. It also speaks to what you’ve observed, that some work needs to be done before the GTM can be used to it’s full potential.

Some are, some aren’t. I am building a network that solves some of my communications needs. But a large part of it serves the public, without leaving me to worry about it and with privacy for whoever uses it. There is no cost to me. That IS an important part of mesh networking, bcause there’s inherently a lot of excess capacity, which should get you thinking about things like your weather relay. It seems designed to serve many while providing the essental info/links you needn 2

1 Like
10

I’m not quite sure why you think Gotenna Mesh would not work well for emergencies? Maybe you are not familiar with the emergency chat window option. It is essentially a “shout” message going out to all users, except instead of only going to users in direct range of you, it will go to every user within 6 hops.

Considering you can also send your gps coordinates and unlike voice communications people will get your messsage even when they are not actively paying attention.

Furthermore the SMS network relay feature gives you the capability to send regular old txt messages to those outside your geographic area as long as a gotenna users within 6 hops range of you has cellular coverage or a WiFi signal.

Based on that I’d say gotenna is one of the most effective and least expensive emergency communication options on the market for non hams during urban disasters.

3 Likes
11

This doesn’t seem like an option in the latest version of the GTM firmware nor the latest version of the goTenna client app on Android or iOS.

Where did you find this “SMS network relay” feature? Wher does one enable/disable/configure this?

Or is this only available in the much more expensive goTenna Pro devices, targeted at military implementations?

12

gotenna plus

3 Likes
13

Ah right! +1

I’d forgotten about the paid services.

14

Yup, that’s correct.

1 Like