Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-to-be-confused-with-iphone-hack dept.

Wireless Networking 134

Lorien_the_first_one brings word that in Europe, a breakthrough for post-4G communications has been announced. A public-private consortium known as IPHOBAC has been developing new communications technology that is near commercialization now. Quoting: "With much of the mobile world yet to migrate to 3G mobile communications, let alone 4G, European researchers are already working on a new technology able to deliver data wirelessly up to 12.5Gb/s. The technology — known as 'millimeter-wave' or microwave photonics — has commercial applications not just in telecommunications (access and in-house networks) but also in instrumentation, radar, security, radio astronomy and other fields."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207807)

Im already using it. Its awesome.

Re:fp (1, Funny)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207869)

You're right. That *was* fast.

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27209891)

That's what she said :-(

Re:fp (1)

garphik (996984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208499)

Okay, for it to actually work ... the servers should also support such bandwidth.

Re:fp (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27210155)

Or you could peg the bandwidth of a dozen different downloads (bittorrent).

I don't care (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207811)

At current prices and plans they can go to hell. And I hope they do.

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207813)

...12.5Gbps wireless tests you!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207879)

At 30-300 Ghz wireless toasts you!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207899)

At 30-300 Ghz wireless toasts you!

Not if there is a wall between you and the transmitter though.

Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207867)

When we look at how far behind the American wireless industry is compared to the overseas systems, it's not always correct to simply look at the current status. It's much more important to look at the growth over time, because it is only when you do that do you realize that the American system is keeping pace with European and Asian cellular systems.

Yes, at any particular moment in time the American system may seem far behind, but at some point we do upgrade to the latest and greatest. It just takes a lot more time to decide which version of the latest and greatest we will implement.

So it's much more like taking an elevator to go from one floor to another here in the US. We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207907)

We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

Meanwhile, Japanese are upset because they're getting throttled to 900 Gb upload a month [slashdot.org] . Awful slow elevator, that. Notice how this was 8 months ago.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208829)

900Gb on a mobile device? Are you fucking retarded? If you aren't gonna read TFA, at least read TFS of this one and the article in your link, ffs.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207931)

Wonder how Americans come so fat..

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207935)

So it's much more like taking an elevator to go from one floor to another here in the US. We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

Yes, we have noticed [goodexperience.com]

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (5, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207955)

Your analogy would make more sense if America were making big leaps every few years in communication tech. However, just looking at the internet alone, so many people are still left with dial-up and will be there indefinitely while others here have Verizon Fios, the other side of the residential spectrum. Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds. Hell, just look at the gauge of wire for electricity that get to the super high % amount of population except the most, most remote, and also being able to provide telephone service for those same people too - and then tell me laying fiber optic is too expensive.

The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following). Suddenly Verizon felt threatened. But otherwise they stayed slothful, providing as little service as possible while extracting the greatest price. They only moved when they felt threatened (how Verizon shat itself and went to court when Philadelphia proposed ubiquitous wireless internet). It seems that way with many of the monopolies. Hell, even regular old cellular service is abysmal in this country once you go past the population centers of the east and west coast. Nevermind cellular data service.

Which is too bad. So much of the internet is really hampered by the traditional view of it being on the desktop. In a stationary place. The notebook boom coupled with WiFi spots moved to alleviate that but it really isn't on the go yet. The iPhone was probably the first mainstream product but service is still very expensive and no matter what you choose, pretty slow. Just as the internet was the killer app of the last 20 years, changing how we live; cheap, relatively speedy, ubiquitous wireless internet would probably be the next killer app the next 20 years.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (3, Funny)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208039)

Too bad if you live in Australia. :(

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208397)

yeh, we just get stuff that doesn't break from fire, floods, wildlife, trees... the list goes on.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27210231)

I suggest we should abandon the continent.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208301)

The problem as I see it with all these "they are faster than us" studies is the assumption that customers want the more expensive, faster solution in rural areas. I live in a rural state and can tell you that most here don't give a shit about speed and look more at the price because they tend to be poorer than the city dwellers. You can have a service that offers faster than light speed but if it costs an arm, leg and your first born, then people won't bite. Add to that the fact that most rural America sees a higher price because it is rural (and usually dominated by a single monopoly) and there is your reason uptake is slow out here in the boonies.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208373)

Maybe an arm, a leg, and the second born child? Hey, the ISP might be willing to barter!

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (2, Insightful)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208441)

Add to that the fact that most rural America sees a higher price because it is ... usually dominated by a single monopoly ... and there is your reason uptake is slow out here in the boonies.

This is the PP's point. :)

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208591)

just look at the gauge of wire for electricity

I have looked and it appears to be of larger diameter than CAT5/telephone wiring. I think this is beacuse it has to carry larger currents.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208673)

Remember the 90s? Back then the US had cable internet or at least unmetered dialup. All of Europe was green with envy. We were paying by the minute for dialup internet access and only the few who were lucky enough to be in college at the time had affordable fast internet access. That was when being ahead mattered, btw: That was when all the big internet businesses started. To this day, the cornerstones of internet culture and infrastructure are American.

The pendulum swings. My guess is that the US will be back with LTE, just like many third world countries are leapfrogging the wired communication stage. Mobile internet access is the next wave, not ever faster access which tethers you to your desk. While European network operators will be looking to recoup their investments in wired last mile networks and "last-gen" UMTS before moving on to ubiquitous unmetered network access, the chance of LTE soon becoming affordable is much bigger in the US.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209641)

Population density is the wrong measure. Customers per infrastructure dollar is probably a lot closer to being correct. If the rural population of a relatively small country is limited, the country will appear to have a low population density, but most of the infrastructure will serve people living at high densities. The U.S. happens to have a significant number of people living at a low population density, so there are lots of areas where there is a lot of infrastructure per customer.

Still, the lightly regulated pseudo-monopoly carriers that don't invest in areas that are expensive to serve are a much bigger problem than geography (and under that regulation, they are supposed to work to serve everyone, not just the customers that give the highest returns...).

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209657)

Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds.

It's not just about population density... it's also about the sheer size of some of our low-density areas. The United States has areas twice the size of the UK with half the population density. Sure, if we were on an island and only had this small area to run wire all over the place, we would, but America is much bigger than the UK if you haven't noticed. It takes a longass time to get places wired, and certain areas have more priority than others in the race to high speed internet.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#27210221)

The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following).

Unfortunately, that's anecdotal evidence. Mine refutes that, but it's just as invalid as it's anecdotal as well

On my side of things, I live in a small suburb. We're somewhat near a Verizon office (not in town, but not too far away). Yet Verizon was pretty quick to wire us for DSL and later Fios; and DSL was WAY before VoiP was big (or perhaps even an option).

We weren't among the first neighborhoods to receive either, nor in the absolute first batch. I recall getting annoyed hearing that some nearby towns were getting it while we didn't. But we still got it comparatively early.

Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds.

I wouldn't call it dead, it still has validity but isn't the overall answer unless we actually compare.

We have large stretches of rural countryside that probably weigh in with the size of some European countries in-total. We're not the biggest, Canada, Russia, and China out-class us but we're still big.

So a good indicator is, how well do those 3 countries handle their Cell + Internet coverage in the rural areas which are probably larger than ours? If their rural coverage puts ours to shame, then we should feel bad. If we're about equal, then we shouldn't

Overall size can mean more than overall percentage. Think about comparing the lawn care of 2 homes, specifically pulling weeds. Do you really care that Client 1 has a smaller percentage of weeds in their garden than Client 2, if Client 1 still manages to have more weeks since their property is a lot larger?

Unfortunately, I don't know any hard numbers. I'd say if Canada beats us in their "middle-of-nowhere" coverage then it's game over.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27211017)

You americans are all the same. Die infidel!

Love in an elevator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207961)

Take the stairs? Take the elevator?

No: Open the door. Smell the cheese.

Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208337)

Horse shit. Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Fact is, the US has fallen behind because our "business leaders" are to busy having huge circle jerks, trying to figure out how to use modern technology to rip off the consumer. Witness the number of lawsuits filed to prevent towns and counties from implementing internet service in areas that no corporation was interested in supplying service anyway. Yes, look at how far behind we are today. And, think about how far behind we'll be in another ten years. Then, write you congressman to make things happen, and stop whining out your excuses for substandard performance on America's part.

indeed (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209295)

I'm fairly pro-market, but it's easy to ruin things with simple dogma. A lot of business needs to be able to assume basic things are working to operate. If you spend all your time wrangling about sewer hookups for to your office and your power company is an unregulated free-market utility that can choose not to do business with you if you upset their TOS, you spend all your time on overhead and little time on business. The internet these days is basically a utility: if you want it to spur other economic development, businesses and entrepreneurs need to be able to assume it'll be there as a boring, reliable transit method that they don't have to spend more time worrying about. This is basically incompatible with the infrastructure operators, especially in areas where they're local monopolies or oligopolies, trying to maximize profit.

More generally, and to simplify a bit there are two ways of operating in a market economy. One, you can produce a product or service that you think people will willingly pay money for, and then offer it for purchase in the marketplace. Two, you can attempt to gain control over some aspect of the marketplace itself, putting yourself in a position where you can skim some of the money off as it goes by, because people have no choice but to deal with you. The first is the good side of capitalism: entrepreneurs and individual freedom. The second is the bad side: monopolists, market manipulation, and so on.

Re:indeed (1)

warsql (878659) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209513)

I'm fairly pro-market ... The internet these days is basically a utility

This is the problem in a nutshell. Internet service is not provided by a free market. Government has create internet service provider utilities via cable and phone company competition restrictions. Only when we get real choice will the situation improve.

Re:indeed (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209545)

It seems like there's a bit of a natural monopoly on last-mile pipes, though. To minimize digging up of streets, we really don't want 15 cable companies running entirely separate networks to houses, but instead want one line. Sort of how power lines and water pipes are done, too.

Fry (2, Interesting)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207913)

and how many of those radiowaves are going to fry our brains ? let me see:
- 10 thousands satellites beaming down their TV programmes and GPS coordinates
- 1 thousand TV stations beaming up their programmes (that's very high power)
- 500 millions of cordless phone handsets (frequencies anyone ?)
- 100 millions cordless keyboards and mice (ranging from 40MHz to 2.4GHz)
- 2 billions cellphones and millions of related cellular-comms-towers
- billions of wi-fi connections from portable phones, laptops, VoIP, ...
- billions of bluetooth-enabled devices
- brand new wireless video devices...

bar the obvious tinfoil jokes, we are going to use a new excuse for calling sick, like "my brain is upset this morning, it must be the new access point that I installed yesterday... sorry, you'll have to cover for me until I finish restoring my brain backup from yest#%@ - what is this email that I sent to myself with a password for a new access point ?"

Re:Fry (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207923)

Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

Re:Fry (2, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208009)

Photons are dangerous, ask Schroedinger's cat !

Re:Fry (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208381)

You ask the damned cat yourelf! I'm afraid that if I open the box, I'll be the one to drop dead!

Re:Fry (2, Funny)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208507)

In Soviet Russia, SchrÃdinger's cat observes YOU!

Re:Fry (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208565)

In Soviet Amerika, Bush observes us ALL!

Re:Fry (1)

gadabyte (1228808) | more than 5 years ago | (#27211029)

it's "flynt".

Re:Fry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208019)

Most of us bathe...

Speak for yourself, mate.

Re:Fry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208189)

Most of us bathe...

Speak for yourself, mate.

Good to see the English (1) are represented on slashdot.

1) By English, I mean English.

The Scotts, Welsh, North Irish, Cornish, Manx, Jersey islanders etc - all know what a shower is.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, I love the smell of reverse racism in the morning (or any time of day really).

Re:Fry (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208233)

The Isle of Man, Jersey Islands etc. are not in the United Kingdom.

Also, when comparing the cleanliness of of different regions of the UK, I invite you to consider this link [bbc.co.uk] .

Guess where I live :P.

Re:Fry (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208409)

I checked out the link. The data suggests to me that the men of London might be a bunch of poofs who are full of shit, but the men of New Castle got up early enough to take a dump before boarding the train. Glad I don't ride the trains in London, with all the poofs passing gas!

Re:Fry (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208431)

Yeah, washing your hands after taking a dump is for queers!

Re:Fry (2, Funny)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208957)

there's no point washing your hands, you've already cleaned your hands by pulling up your pants and then dried them by tucking in yur shirt

Re:Fry (5, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208035)

You're talking crap.

Whilst IR photons have a higher energy than microwaves, so do visible light photons.

On the other hand, opacity and absorbtion of various human tissues, is a complex relationship with wavelength.

Re:Fry (2, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208099)

Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

It is all about how people perceive risks and fail to consider them rationally. A bit of a similar example is how a number of people are up in arms about the rates of violent crime, and are willing to sacrifice their liberties and privacy if the government merely suggests it might perhaps help, yet consider the prospect of biking to work unthinkable, despite the benefits it would grant them in terms of reduced risks of heart diseases and stroke. From a rational point of view the latter is a much greater risk to people's quality of life and wellbeing, but the former sells more newspapers and hence receives a results in a disproportionate amount of concern.

Re:Fry (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208879)

If only Gutenberg had known what a weapon he was creating...

Resonance (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208115)

It's not just energy, but resonance as well. High energy photons destroy your DNA and cells by brute force. Lower frequency photons do it by resonating with your DNA and cells and shaking them to bits. It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.

Re:Resonance (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208277)

Actually, resonant processes are the ones that depend absolutely upon the photon energy, and the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting. Microwaves can do work by a nonresonant, thermal process, but that's it.

A resonant process is one in which the photon has the right energy to trigger a particular transition. Ionising radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) works by a resonant process, and depends on the quantum of radiation having enough energy to eject an electron from the molecule. As you go down in energy from there, you have enough energy per photon to resonantly electronically excite molecules (visual light, used in the eyes to detect light) or vibrationally excite (IR), or down at the bottom, to rotationally (microwave), and then translationally excite molecules.

Correspondingly, it gets harder and harder to cause any chemistry with those photons. It's trivial to break up a molecule by shifting its electrons around or ejecting them altogether, or to a lesser extent it's possible to chop something up by exciting a particular molecular stretching vibration such that the bond(s) dissociate(s). However it's a serious challenge to cleave a bond with a rotational excitation alone.

So, how could a microwave do any chemistry, and thus damage, to your tissues? It's a simple thermal process. When you rotationally excite a molecule, in the gas phase, the molecule, or part of it, changes its rotational motion in some way. There are couplings between rotational and vibrational motions, and upwards to electronic excitations. In the solution or solid phase, there are also couplings to the translational motion of the molecules, meaning that ultimately the energy from the microwave can end up speeding up the molecule's motion, which is plain old heating.

So the energy you dump in with the microwaves becomes "thermalised", spreading over the whole range of states evenly, with a pretty huge chunk of it going into heating up the material. That heat lets you do old-fashioned collision-activated chemistry. What the anti-EM movement don't want you to think about is that this thermal process is entirely dependent on your exposure. It's like standing next to a furnace. A foot away, you're toast. Six feet away, you're warm. One hundred feet away, you don't know it exists.

In summary, it is not possible for radio to cause you thermal damage because the exposure is simply too low. No non-thermal, resonant process for damage has been shown to exist, and trivial physical chemistry makes it clear that one probably never will be found.

Re:Resonance (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208595)

OK, why don't you take a dare. Put a cell phone into your pants pocket. Yes, nestle it deep into that pocket, and hitch it around, so that the antenna is resting against your nice, warm scrotum. Keep it there for the next 20 years. Keep it fully charged, and turned on. Yes, plug in your "hands free" ear bud and speaker, so that you have no need to remove that cell phone from it's dark, warm resting place. There is NO CHANCE that you might develop testicular cancer as a result, right?

Re:Resonance (2, Informative)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208815)

Google around for papers by Dr. Eleanor Adair. She was an expert on RF exposure, and has done thousands of Simian and Human exposure tests as described in this NY Times Article [nytimes.com] . She claims to have personally tried every test before using it on her subjects, with no ill effects, ever. I tend to believe it, since the frequencies involved are 10^6 times lower than ionizing radiation that is proven dangerous.

Re:Resonance (2, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208863)

It depends what you mean by "no chance". Nothing we've learnt scientifically to date suggests this would cause cancer. Of course that doesn't mean there is "no chance" since we may learn something new that does suggest it would cause cancer.

And if you retreat to the position that something must create absolutely zero risk to be worth doing, then absolutely nothing is safe enough for you. Going out in the sun and breathing carry a risk of causing cancer.

From our current understanding, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that microwaves from cellphones/wifi give you cancer, in the same way that there's no reason to believe that touching wood fends off bad luck. People still swear blind that it does, but there's no scientific reason to think so.

Re:Resonance (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27210357)

Not "no chance", but I'd put the odds about the same as the magical wizard Endocrenes appearing behind me and cursing my testicles with evil runes.

Re:Resonance (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208349)

It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.

Water doesn't have a sharp absorption peak, and 2.4GHz is in fact picked to NOT absorb too efficiently. At some frequencies water would absorb the radiation so well that only the outermost layer of food would be heated.

Re:Resonance (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208501)

It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz

No, it's not. You can use just about any frequency for RF heating. The reason 2.4GHz is used is because it's cheap and easy to make cavity magnetrons that produce a hell of a lot of power in a compact package, and 2.4GHz has a very wide ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band where no licence is required. They need quite a wide band, because the magnetrons aren't very stable and drift a lot.

You could make a UHF "microwave" oven using the 433MHz ISM band, but a 700W amplifier would be complicated and expensive, and you'd need to have the frequency very accurately controlled. Also, radio amateurs would come round to your house and smash all your windows when you fired it up.

Re:Resonance (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208947)

That's right - stay the heck out of the Amateur radio bands! We've got specially-resonant pitchforks ready, just in case. 8-) The 433 MHz ISM band is supposedly available in region 2 only [wikipedia.org] , which does not include the US. Also, it's not listed in CFR Title 47, Part 18 [gpo.gov] .

There's an exception for Part 15 devices to use 433-434 MHz [gpo.gov] , but that's for shipping container ID devices only.

Re:Fry (2, Interesting)

famebait (450028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208121)

I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

And so the question inevitably arises:
Do you in fact know enough about photons and radiation for your failure to see any problems to imply with any degree of probability that there are no problem problem?
Or should our conclusion be simply "no, you don't, do you?".

Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

Re:Fry (4, Informative)

jschen (1249578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209279)

Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

This has been experimentally verified in experiments on the photoelectric effect [wikipedia.org] . Indeed, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" (emphasis mine; notice that Einstein did not win the prize "because of relativity", as many would assume). Below a certain energy level per photon, nothing happens no matter how intense the light. Above the threshold, something happens (with the rate dependent on the intensity of the light).

Of course, thermal warming can also happen. In recent years, microwave-assisted organic synthesis was a big fad. But the most careful studies have demonstrated that the so-called "microwave effect" is simple thermal heating in all known cases, and despite theoretical explanations for why a non-thermal microwave effect might exist (going so far as to predict the types of reactions for which the largest effect might be found) and papers claiming the discovery of such effects, effects seen to date are purely thermal. See this J Org Chem paper [acs.org] . Any effect we see from a cell phone in the pocket would appear to be the same effect as simply warming our thigh a miniscule bit.

Re:Fry - not (1)

willijar (99554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208113)

These systems typically have short range in air and thus require many antennas closely spaced. The consequence is that distances are smaller and therefore, due to the inverse square law, the power needed at each antenna is much smaller and the average power in the environment will be much smaller.

Re:Fry (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208549)

Dear sir:

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms your implication that there is a health hazard from using 4G communication devices. Many of my friends use them and only a few have had their heads explode.

Sincerely, Brig. Gen. Brian O'Connell (Scanner). P.S. And don't call me baby

Re:Fry (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209725)

What are you, a vampire?

Ah, the sun, the sun, it is irradiating me!

They'll stuff it in implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27207919)

They'll bolt Siebel onto it and turn it into a dog's breakfast like Telstra here in Australia with NextG!

did anyone read the summary and think (1)

10am-bedtime (11106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207941)

"Smooth move, Ex-Lax!"

Re:did anyone read the summary and think (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207949)

Do you mean radar for smart wheels?

Re:did anyone read the summary and think (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208285)

I have wanted that skateboard since the day I first opened that book...

Re:did anyone read the summary and think (1)

1%warren (78514) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208057)

Yeah, as soon as I connected "millimetre" & "radar". I wonder how long the thread can go without actually mentioning the book & the author. /me gets his glass knife ready.

Re:did anyone read the summary and think (1)

zolf13 (941799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208513)

I am reading it in work now :) (work can wait, it won't run too far)

Siebel will break it! (1)

firephox (1501619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27207977)

They'll ruin it by bolting Siebel onto it like Telstra here in Australia with NextG!

Re:Siebel will break it! (1)

Cyanara (708075) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208125)

Being forced to look at Telstra Wireless as my only option for "broadband", I gotta ask, what is Siebel, and why is it bad?

Re:Siebel will break it! (1)

firephox (1501619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208155)

Siebel is the new system, they're shutting down the old system before the new one is up and most people are untrained! The 7.2 system is actually pretty quick if you can get 3 or more bars of signal, only get one that can take the plug in external antenna! Unfortunately the prepaid device cannot do this.

Re:Siebel will break it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208411)

Hmmm, didn't you say the same thing 15 minutes before this post as as AC? http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1161853&cid=27207919 [slashdot.org] Post whore much?

Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G (5, Insightful)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208059)

4G is a mobile solution where the signal is radiated every direction and cells get blanketed by signals that are useful to mobile devices. Millimeter wave is a point-to-point technology that requires a clear line of sight and should be compared to free space optic laser solutions. You so much as block the beam with a tree branch and it doesn't work. Can we try to get some quality reporting on slashdot? We have plenty of experts in this community and headlines like these need to get slapped down. We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.

Re:Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G (2, Insightful)

qc_dk (734452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208137)

You find "Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless" to be USA bashing????
<sarcasm>Well I am truly sorry that someone outside the US is trying to do research. I'll stop mine immediately and wait for our benevolent super power for life to do the research and give me what I need. I'll just be over in this cave eating raw animals. I wouldn't want to be the reason for another US "bashing".
</sarcasm>
This post was tagged to comply with the Sarcasm-impaired Aid Directive (SAD)

Sorry you didn't get the point (3, Insightful)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208163)

The article is comparing 4G performance at 150 Mbps using only 20 MHz of spectrum to to millimeter wave technology which uses tens of GHz for line-of-sight application for multi gigabit links. Then it suggest that the rest of the world is lagging because of this bogus comparison. OK, maybe it's not just US bashing, but it's bashing the rest of the world.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (4, Funny)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208267)

You're missing the point.

We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.

Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

What exactly could be done to the headline to mollify you?

Godless Communists in Europe Testing Unwholesome, Anti-Family Services

This is not a criticism of America, though the comments make some still-valid criticisms of US telecoms services.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (1)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208351)

The entry was written as rest of the world still struggling with pathetic 3G/4G hundred megabit speeds while "Europe" pushes ahead with 12.5 Gbps.

There are multiple problems with this statement.
1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.
2. It's not a valid comparison of technologies.

You're making it sound like I'm bashing Europe when I've said no such thing. Europe (along with the US and many other countries produces very good research. I didn't even mention godlessness and you don't even know who I am or what my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are to be making that type of insinuation.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208429)

Well, with that kind of grasp of satire at least we know for sure that you're American.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (2, Informative)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208739)

The point he was making is that you said specifically that the headline was US bashing, but all the headline says is the some research is being conducted in Europe. You'd have to work very hard at being insecure and over-sensitive to read that as some kind of slight against America. From a purely pedantic standpoint, it's the article/summary that you should have denounced, the headline was entirely innocuous.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (1)

mjbkinx (800231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27210995)

1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.

It's EU funded and coordinated research. It should have been "EU is testing...", because Europe is a continent, but otherwise it's correct.

Re:Sorry you didn't get the point (1)

Shamenaught (1341295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208573)

IMHO, it's link-baiting rather than bashing, and share George_Ou's call for quality reporting. Let me explain:
  1. Firstly, from a quality of reporting issue: This technology is in Europe? Readers in Europe are left thinking "Where in Europe? Why don't I have it?"
  2. Once you understand that the intended reader is a non-European, the link-baiting starts to show as what it is. Then, the headline reads "Someone who isn't us is testing something faster than what we have."
  3. Now, the above wouldn't be so bad if it were actually true. It'd be news, albeit news that left Europeans needing to read the article to find-out where in Europe it's being tested (Europe is a big place). The problem is that the title, whilst potentially being true, prays on people's assumptions of what wireless is. The "wireless" they talk of, millimeter-wave stuff, is a completely different wireless to mobile wireless networking. Thus, it's arguable the title is Link-bait.
  4. Going past the headline, they compare the mm-wave technology with 3G/4G. Anyone who understands the technologies, however, understands that these technologies are not interchangeable and that any mobile phone operating primarily on mm-wave technology would not be be viable. You'd need LOS to a mobile mast, for a start, so it wouldn't generally be usable in-doors.

Re:Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G (1)

Cyner (267154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27210225)

This isn't "new" technology. I have a book on wireless backhaul technology that's 6 years old and has information on 68GHz links gigabit links. At that time there was no commercial product available, but the information was included because they knew it would be coming. Proxim also makes a commercial setup currently (granted it's only 1.25 Gbps, but it's on the shelf right now, and has been for a while) product link [proxim.com] .

These 30GHz+ links operate over a very short distance, less than 1 Km, and must have a clear line of sight (which is actual an area, see Fresnel Zones [wikipedia.org] ). As PP mentioned anything getting in the way will kill the signal; at higher frequencies/distances even rain or snow. As usual wiki has a good article on EHF [wikipedia.org] .

great....overage-city in no time. (2, Funny)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208085)

12.5Gbps which means 1.5625GBps and the data transfer limits we have in the states here, it will take 3.2 seconds to be in overage-city.
Hmmm...isn't that faster than a Porsche's or Ferrari's 0 to 60 speed?

[sarcasm]The good thing is....it'll be at least 5 years since they have it in Europe until we have it here[/sarcasm]

Whoa, This Can Be Big (2, Interesting)

aoheno (645574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208089)

Land line went years ago. Fiber will be next together with the 1Gbps wired LAN and everything hanging off it - especially the not so green power adapters, quaint WAPs, Switches, and Routers.

Imagine no more ISPs. Netflix can stop throttling. Computers only need RAM and boot from the cloud.

Will my 4G Google phone need a small power station or will a standard adapter do?

Re:Whoa, This Can Be Big (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208845)

I swear that could be a mantra for some new geek religion...

I for one (3, Funny)

atarione (601740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208131)

welcome our new 12.5Gbps brain tumor inducing overlords

wrong link in article (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208179)

the correct link is http://www.ist-iphobac.org/ [ist-iphobac.org] , not http://www.iphobac-survey.org/ [iphobac-survey.org]

Association with 3G misleading (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208195)

The comparison with 3G/4G systems is misleading, as these terms denote wide-area cellular telephone networks. Our cellular links are mobile, work over long ranges, and do not require a line-of-sight path from transmitter to receiver. 60 GHz wireless links, by comparison, typically require highly directive antennas, ie. the transmitter radiates energy directly at the receiver in a narrow beam. This makes it more suitable for fixed point link, rather than mobile, at this stage of development. Also, 60 GHz wireless signals are highly attenuated as they pass through solid objects, hence the need for a line-of-sight path. So, while its true mm-wave communications offers unparalleled wireless data rates, the comparison with cellular networks is not necessarily a good one.

Re:Association with 3G misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208335)

The comparison comes from the fact that these are partly intended as links between 4G stations.

Re:Association with 3G misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208437)

The article doesn't make this distinction, and in any case, why compare the 4G stations to the links connecting them?

Still apples and oranges.

We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! (1)

nten (709128) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208209)

One reasons the 60ghz(5mm) mentioned in TFA is so great is that it won't make it from the living room into the bedroom so you don't get interference when you use it to go from the ps3 to the wall mounted flatscreen.

1mm(300ghz) is well into the water absorption band, to get out of it you'd need to get up around to 10 *micro*meter wave lengths. EHF for cellphones would require towers all over the place, the range wouldn't even be as good as wifi unless you jacked the power high enough that it would scare me to use, and even then I don't see it being any farther than a block given a clear LOS.

Incidentally 3mm (100ghz) wavelength is what that "skin on fire" ray uses.

Re:We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208435)

Incidentally 3mm (100ghz) wavelength is what that "skin on fire" ray uses.

Wouldn't that be actually a good thing from the safety point of view? That would mean it has very bad depth penetration, and if it damages anything, it'll be the most easily replaceable part of the body. It's also one full of nerves, so you're likely to notice that something's wrong soon enough. Something that penetrates deeper could quietly cook the brain instead. While I'd certainly prefer neither, if I have to pick one, I'd certainly go with the former.

Pizza Delivery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27208571)

This is great! I'll take the money I'm earning from La Casa Nostre Pizza Delivery and put it towards a suit that will let me stay online at all times. I'll be able to record and blog /everything/!

Death of Cable (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208799)

This technology could drive all the nails in the coffin lid for cable TV. At these download speeds one could download all of the programs for all of these channels in a minute or two. The only reason for further contact that day would be news updates. Of course we will need some type of hard drive arrangement that can record 12.5Gps..

Environmentally friend? (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27208951)

First of all, New technologies = new techno waste.
Second, will the new technologies be more environment friendly for production and disposal?
What about energy consumption?
And finally, do the pros surpass cons?

Zero to... (2, Funny)

akeyes (720106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209467)

Zero to Capped in no time flat!

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. (1)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209793)

.......ups wrong technology.

But anyway imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Logarithmic relation between usefulness and speed (1)

firmamentalfalcon (1187583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27209863)

One of the boundary conditions of internet speed is the size of the material being sent over the wireless network. If all you have is small sound files, then you'll need to be sending over years of music to fully use the 12.5 Gbps. The usefulness of internet speed increases only logarithmically. There is almost as much use for 1000000 Gbps as 100 Gbps. Only a small portion of the people actually using the internet would see any difference between the 1000000 and 100 Gbps. Once you hit the critical value, which is like a few Gbps, most of the people on the world would be satisfied.

Humans are the ultimate boundary conditions. We can only read so much and listen to so much in so much detail and see so many pixels. The best that the data can do is accurately represent these. Once the representation becomes so accurate that adding a few more Gb's of information would not allow a human to see the improvement of the file, then we hit the limit.

Another major limit is time. We can only hope to live up to around 100 years old. Downloading 120 years worth of music would be meaningless then. There is a limit to everything and just increasing the wireless speed past the critical limit is almost useless.

cooking brains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27211231)

"The technology (...) has commercial applications not just in telecommunications"

I am quite sure it should be useful for cooking.
Is anyone selling radiation hats?
 

What "Europe"? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27211917)

Editors, please be a bit more sensitive. There is no country "Europe", and most of us on the continent Europe do not want it to become a country.
We are only stuck with some assholes that we did not vote for, that created a "government" that we can't really vote for, and that we explicitly can't vote not to exist in the first place.
Americans who were stuck with an asshole President, should understand this. :)

So don't say "Europe", as if it were a single country. It's like calling North-America a country, and thereby saying that the USA, Mexico and Canada are one single entity. You would not like that, would you? Well, we neither.

Just name the country of the company, event or person. And use "Europe" only to describe things that relate to Germans, French, British, Russians, and so on, in the same manner, thereby being a continent-related issue.

Thank you for being solidary, until we got rid of our oppressive governments ourselves. :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?