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!

Huawei Claims 30Gbps Wireless 'Beyond LTE'

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the offer-void-in-australia dept.

Wireless Networking 146

shreshtha writes "Huawei says it has 'recently introduced ... Beyond LTE technology, which significantly increases peak rates to 30Gbps — over 20 times faster than existing commercial LTE networks.' It claims to have achieved this with 'key breakthroughs in antenna structure, radio frequency architecture, IF (intermediate frequency) algorithms, and multi-user MIMO (multi-input multi-output).'"

cancel ×

146 comments

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

Cap (5, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471259)

Of course it's a "peak" rate. If you sustain that rate for two seconds, you'll have already more than blown through your entire cap of 5 GB (40 Gbit) per month.

Re:Cap (4, Funny)

chr1st1anSoldier (2598085) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471283)

The internet should be more like shirts... :D

Outsourcing inventing (1)

kubusja (581677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472303)

> The internet should be more like shirts Oh, it is, inventing it is just another low-end job we've outsourced to China...

Re:Cap (-1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471541)

Yeah - no shit. My suspicion is that the average Joe Pukebucket ain't gonna see this - the military will be all over it like a cheap suit. It'll become part of some kind of "Fry the skin off of brown children in Asia from the comfort of an air conditioned office in Crystal City VA" type of weapon.

Re:Cap (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471567)

No, what it will be used for is to constantly provide LTE speeds in very densely populated areas, and possibly to connect towers together in a standalone mesh.

Re:Cap (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471819)

It will be handy when VMWare's hypervisor on ARM goes production, as this is 50 percent more bandwidth than a typical enterprise VMHost. You'll be able to build a cloud cluster in your pocket.

Re:Cap (2)

eharvill (991859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472583)

Network bandwidth typically isn't a problem with VMware environments...

Security Breach... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471267)

So which company had its fancy new antenna tech lifted for this. China's R&D = Reconnaissance and Deception.

Re:Security Breach... (5, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471315)

So which company had its fancy new antenna tech lifted for this. China's R&D = Reconnaissance and Deception.

Certainly, it is not Apple... get a grip.

(duck)

.

Re:Security Breach... (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471717)

You shouldn't duck, you should explain.

Re:Security Breach... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471997)

You shouldn't duck, you should explain.

Yes he should to make sure it's a whoosh!

Re:Security Breach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472047)

This should tell you all that you need to know to explain the joke:

http://bit.ly/GQKFFZ

Re:Security Breach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472233)

You shouldn't duck, you should explain.

Because Apple's antenna tech is possibly the worst in the Telecomms industry?

sigh /whoosh.

Re:Security Breach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472243)

You shouldn't duck, you should explain.

Oh, brother, what prison were you locked in the last years?

An US company launches a well know smart phone that drops the call in held in a certain way (the grip of death); and, see, that company is loved well enough (even when it plays nasty with other asian smartphone manufacturers).

Another company, quite hated [wikipedia.org] lately, finds as appropriate to research (among others) an antenna configuration to reach peak transfer rate 10 times the current level. Guess what? This is called "Reconnaissance and Deception".

Isn't it funny?

Re:Security Breach... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471479)

no company had their antenna tech lifted. They just found that if you actually make an antenna that is actually soldered to both devices without a break, then you use multiple "antennas" to transmit the data, some dedicated to sending while others are dedicated to receiving full duplex style, then you can achieve much higher bandwidths than if you try to send stuff through an antenna over the air.

Re:Security Breach... (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472451)

no company had their antenna tech lifted. They just found that if you actually make an antenna that is actually soldered to both devices without a break, then you use multiple "antennas" to transmit the data, some dedicated to sending while others are dedicated to receiving full duplex style, then you can achieve much higher bandwidths than if you try to send stuff through an antenna over the air

That gotta be an extreeeeeemly long antenna !

Re:Security Breach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471767)

I came to say the same thing, I wonder who they stole this from?

Re:Security Breach... (1)

janvo (639733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471899)

Alcatel-Lucent, the old Bell Labs

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471285)

Sure, if I were using my phone to play 40,000 concurrent games of Battle Tetris on Facebook this would be great. Otherwise, who cares?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471329)

And 640K should be enough for one amirite?

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

MiG82au (2594721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471417)

Soooo unimaginative. Ever considered that phones aren't the only devices using mobile internet? Realised that in areas only serviced by ADSL and cable, that LTE gives you by far the highest upload speed?

Re:So? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471549)

No kidding. Employees in the field with tablets, Self service kiosks, any number of devices that need to be connected to networks, etc.

Phones are just the smallest part. Businesses right now have very few options, and most of them expensive as fuck due to some very arbitrary decisions. Most of those decisions centered around greedy bastards.

Any technology that has the possibility of adding more bandwidth and competition is welcome.

Re:So? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472663)

Also remember that this is likely to be 30Gb/s of total throughput between the cell and all clients (or maybe all in one direction, depending on the antenna design), it's not 30Gb/s to every person (well, it might be, I didn't RTFA). 30Gb/s is way more than one person can use at the moment - during my PhD a few years ago I had a 1Gb/s connection to the Internet and had to be careful if I clicked on large download links because my hard disk couldn't keep up with the network speed and the machine would fill up RAM trying to cache everything and then become unresponsive until the download finished. 100Mb/s, however, is quite easy to saturate without placing any strain on the local machine and 10Mb/s is very easy. Ignoring other overheads, this means that one cell can give 300 people a 100Mb/s connection or 3,000 people a 10Mb/s connection. That means that 3,000 people in the same cell can be streaming HD video without any problems.

It was bound to happen sometime (4, Interesting)

dakohli (1442929) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471309)

Seriously, I think we are entering into a period where the bandwidth is way more important than the processor. I am sure that Moore's law can be manipulated into something that will predict how quickly things will advance.

It wasn't that long ago that mobile bandwidth was pretty much useless, now we have speeds that have surpassed early home wireless networking.

I live in a rural area, only have 2G, I'm waiting for 3G, but I'm not sure it will ever quite get there, my provider will most likely just jump it and go to whatever the next level is, making my phone obsolete in the process. Of course with a bit of luck, the standard will be backwards compatible, but at some point they will have to just abandon some technology and look forwards.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (5, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471407)

I think bandwidth (as in transfer rates) will hit diminishing returns rather soon. Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? Sure, file downloads could be faster, but most people would rather just stream their content, and unless your mobile devices have terabyte hard drives in them you won't be downloading a huge amount anyway.

I'd say once mobile devices can consistently transfer at ~10Mbps, the focus should really switch to increasing coverage and caps. All the speed in the world doesn't help if you can't get reliable service or you use up your monthly allotment in five minutes.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (4, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471569)

Exactly. If I could stream a video stream that was my phone's full resolution along with audio that was decent, I couldn't care less if I got a faster stream. Give me an auto login to my home server and a Linux (or something else) desktop that is sized for my phone with remote desktop and I will have peaked my transfer speed needs. Honestly I don't even want most of my data on my phone, or on some third party's server. I want it stored in my home and streamed via vpn to my phone as I need it. If I lose my phone, I just change the password, grab a new phone and it is like nothing ever happened. This would also mean that I wouldn't care how fast of a processor the phone had, or how much storage it had. As long as it could decode the audio/video stream, I'm good to go.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471787)

Modern smartphone + HSPA or better and you're pretty much there. I use my phone similarly (Android with an RDP client), and streaming video hasn't been a problem for the last year or so...

You just need ot move somewhere that offers you cell service that can provide you with enough bandwidth.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471887)

I agree that the bandwidth is mostly there now. It is the software side that could use some work.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472073)

Hmmm, which software issues are you still having?

I find PocketCloud's RDP client to be pretty much everything I need when I'm on the go. And with more or less universal Android Bluetooth HID support as of 3.0/4.0 (Honeycomb and ICS respectively), using the devices as a remote workstation actually becomes feasible. Hell, my phone has almost the same resolution as my subnotebook (1280x720 vs. 1280x800), and HDMI out if I want it.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

Kernel Kurtz (182424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472485)

I's be very uncomfortable running an RDP terminal server exposed to the internet. I highly recommend tunneling over SSH.

I use OpenSSH on my (jailbroken) iPhone, and the free 2X RDP client to connect remotely into my home Windows machine. I assume there are SSH apps from the App Store that will let you set up tunneling as well.

The screen is still too small to do any real work (would be better on an iPad or other tablet), but it's OK for quickly checking up on things and is pretty responsive on 3G.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472555)

VPN is always an option too... and one that's usually easier to set up with home routers that support it actively :)

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472669)

Almost there, but not quite. iPlayer HD is 3.6Mb/s. That's possible with HSPA, but only if you're relatively close to a fairly uncontended tower. BluRay quality video is around 30-50Mb/s. That isn't possible with HSPA.

Phones don't have that resolution yet, but they're getting there, and I wouldn't be surprised if picoprojectors became a lot more common...

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (2)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471929)

Uh... the point is to prepare for everyone in downtown New York trying to watch HD youtube videos all at once.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472013)

It will *never* be enough bandwidth. If you're not surfing the web on a phone or iPad, you will be at least be tethering to a PC. Or, you end up wiring your entire house to a gateway/firewall that uses xG technology as a primary ISP.

Cell technology will be competing against DSL and Cable offerings once the price becomes competitive. It may never be as fast or reliable for obvious reasons, but market options are nice for the consumer to have. Also, Cell technology will be great for those that live in areas with limited ISP options for whatever the reasons may be.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472563)

I don't think you can honestly say it'll NEVER be enough bandwidth. I think the GP has a good point - bandwidth is the new processor speed. In fact, I'd say that it's more than that - bandwidth is the new system speed. Think about it, RAM is dirt cheap to the point where 3Gb is the minimum you expect from a low end machine - more than enough for average user who just wants facebook, email and youtube. Processors carry enough oomph to decode 1080p with ease, particularly (And oddly enough) the low end types that have embedded GPUs in them. As for their speed, they're plenty fast for the above tasks. Storage is cheap and plentiful, with TBs of space to be had for cheap. Although guys like us will always have a need for bigger, faster systems, the "average" non-techie person only needs so much. Right now, the biggest limitation for them is likely to be bandwidth (either in terms of raw speed or usage limits). They'll hit that wall faster than they'll run out of memory or CPU cycles.

I dare say there will be a threshold there as well. Once you can stream a few 1080p streams at once without running out of capacity, there probably won't be a huge demand for much faster from most people (At least until something bigger and better comes along). I used to work for an ISP that did speed packages starting at 10Mbit, going all the way to 100Mbit (10 -> 20 -> 30 -> 50 -> 100). About 80% of our customers opted for the 10Mbit package. Of course price is a huge factor, but the difference between 10 and 20 wasn't huge, so I think it is entirely possible for people to be satisfied in terms of bandwidth.

And we have a precedent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471613)

"Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? " As we all know, "640kb ought to be enough for anybody."

Re:And we have a precedent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471695)

"Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? " As we all know, "640kb ought to be enough for anybody."

Exactly what I was thinking reading the above post. I can think of a few things I'd want faster transfer rates for, including more advanced mobile gaming, and potentially for VR(ish) simulation, making use of peripherals such as visors and potentially other output devices. Obviously, currently existing bandwidth caps completely stand in the way of these types of applications, but then, it stands to reason that as the infrastructure improves (and is paid for with overage fees and expensive data plans), these caps will get larger, and perhaps even cease to exist (after all, not EVERY company has them to begin with...just most, who happen to usually also have the fastest speeds). The idea of taking fully immersive gaming with me on a device that can be in my pocket and interacted with using a visor and perhaps a glove-type device that responds to finger/hand movements seems both attractive and realistic (if not inevitable) to me within a matter of years.

And then there's the obvious: marketing hype. Never underestimate the power of just being able to say "Our network is 5x faster than competitors'". There will always be that segment that will jump all over it, even if all they use their mobile devices for is basic web browsing and email access.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471663)

Ah yes, this is from a consumer point of view. But data caps and transfer rates go hand-in-hand. The reason caps exist is to preserve bandwidth for the masses. The only way to allow streaming HD with no limits, is to increase transfer rates on the Access Points.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471753)

Just because you can't currently concieve of a use for excess bandwidth doesn't mean an application won't be found to exploit this. Technology marches on, and so do requirements on hardware.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

Benaiah (851593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471957)

I think bandwidth (as in transfer rates) will hit diminishing returns rather soon. Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? Sure, file downloads could be faster, but most people would rather just stream their content, and unless your mobile devices have terabyte hard drives in them you won't be downloading a huge amount anyway.

I'd say once mobile devices can consistently transfer at ~10Mbps, the focus should really switch to increasing coverage and caps. All the speed in the world doesn't help if you can't get reliable service or you use up your monthly allotment in five minutes.

So narrow minded. First of all this bandwidth has to be split by the number of users. How about once you can stream Video, then you will have to stream 1080p video. Then whatever is beyond that. The cloud could do all your processing and what we would carry around in our pockets would just be dummy terminals.Having higher bandwidth unlocks possibilities that were previously deemed infeasible. The more bandwidth the more decentralised the network, the more robust and cheaper cost of use. Plus then our devices will also start sending full hd video while we are downloading full hd video, such as in possible augmented reality glasses... Cybernetic implants that will connect us to the interwebs... Endless possibilities if dont just say, 10mbs will be enough for anyone.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472393)

It hasn't exactly worked out like that for wired internet, so why would it for wireless? My provider is currently deploying 100Mbps connections to their customers, despite still having silly caps on data usage that they introduced when they moved from a 10Mbps top tier to a 20Mbps one. I'd have much prefered it if they'd followed your vision and stuck with 10Mpbs that they could reliably deliver to all their users 24/7 and remove the need for caps.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472599)

I dunno, available bandwidth and content has always struck me as an armor/munitions sortof relationship when it comes to innovations. they drive each other. once the bandwidth is there, someone will have something just too big to fit down the pipe consistently. I remember the first time i used a dedicated T1 connection. on an internet designed by and large for 14.4 modem access, it was mindbogglingly fast. now my phone has a faster connection, and its never fast enough. incentive to improve? content creators will always be testing the limits of what can be done with their available means of distribution. give them 30 gigs a second peak, and someone will figure out what to do with 60 gigs a second. Maybe streaming will finally *actually* start matching quality with physical media.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (4, Interesting)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471575)

Moore's law? Not really. There are theoretical limits on maximum bandwidth that are far more restrictive than theoretical computation limits. For a given SNR, the maximum digital bandwidth of a communication channel is proportional to the frequency bandwidth. You can get closer to the Shannon-Hartley limit with better rf circuits coding, noise models, etc... but there's still a limit.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471641)

This is misleading. The reason why is that, because of things like spatial coding using MIMO, orbital polarization (discussed last week), etc--plus many more to-be-exploited phenomena--the number of "channels" possible is effectively limited only by computational capability. Yes, there's a well-defined limit per-channel, but the number of possible channels is proportional to processing power.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (3, Interesting)

mccrew (62494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471587)

Moore's Law does not apply to:
1. Bandwidth
2. Battery life

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (2)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471633)

Moore's Law does not apply to:

1. Bandwidth

2. Battery life

3. Mobile data pricing.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (5, Funny)

DarkFencer (260473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471731)

3. Mobile data pricing.

Yeah - that's covered by the well known "Pay Us Moore" law.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471843)

I think we are entering into a period where the bandwidth is way more important than the processor

Siri.

Trivial amount of processing on the mobile device, consuming bandwidth to/from "the cloud", and presenting UI/results to the end user.

With significant increases in bandwidth and significant decreases in latency you will see the performance (and capabilities) of SIRI increasing geometrically.

Scaling CPUs in the cloud/server-farm is only a matter of throwing money at the problem to solve demand.

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472097)

yea its called Bell's law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Law_of_Computer_Classes

Re:It was bound to happen sometime (2)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472631)

Bandwidth is overrated. Latency is the hardest problem to solve so far.

Where's my ansible? ;)

sweet! (4, Insightful)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471323)

and AT&T will be able to charge overages in less than 1 second. I wonder if their servers will be able to throttle you in at 0.7 seconds into a large download.

Re:sweet! (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471513)

To get that kind of speed, you'd need 8 antennas in your mobile device to get the full advantage of the MIMO streams.
I'm sure it's possible, but good luck getting enough national spectrum allocations to make the mobile hardware investment viable.

Bandwidth-per-user! (1)

vellorean (1963882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471339)

They achieved that with "much greater bandwidth". The reason why bandwidth is restricted in current systems is because cell stations have to support thousands of users simultaneously providing 30 Gbps even with all sorts of multi-antenna systems with signal processing seems unlikely for unicast systems; it might be possible for downlink multicast, though.

Re:Bandwidth-per-user! (1)

vellorean (1963882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471355)

They achieved that with "much greater bandwidth". The reason why bandwidth is restricted in current systems is because cell stations have to support thousands of users simultaneously providing 30 Gbps even with all sorts of multi-antenna systems with signal processing seems unlikely for unicast systems; it might be possible for downlink multicast, though.

There should be a full stop after "simultaneously".

Who are all these people who need 4G? (0, Flamebait)

melted (227442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471357)

I'm not a luddite, I work in high tech, but could someone explain the lure of 4G to me? I can already stream video on 3G, I can send and receive email in arbitrary volumes, browse the web, everything is reasonably speedy. Why would I want this kind of speed? I'd rather carriers focused on building up the capacity for the existing 3G devices and improving the efficiency of spectrum utilization (so that 3G would not crap out in SF and NY), and handset manufacturers focused on battery life. I couldn't care less about loading a web page half a second sooner, if the price for it is half a day in battery life and cap on my data plan.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

HappyNSX (2529118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471383)

Seriously?

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471403)

He probably made the same claim when 3G was being released.

"What do we need 3G for, I'm just happy on my 2G connection!"

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471401)

3G is pretty well saturated. Notice that the data caps on 4G are higher than for 3G, too...

(another use. I live in "4G" land, and rdp to my work computer via VPN and using my phone as mobile WAP is usable on 4G...)

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471433)

"3G ought to be enough for anybody." --melted

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

MiG82au (2594721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471435)

Geez get a fucking imagination; your stupid toy phones aren't the only things using mobile internet.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

fangfufu (1442931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471473)

640 KB of memory is more than enough.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471557)

Anyone who doesn't want to spend on buildout to the curb/home is going to want high speed fixed wireless. This is probably why Verizon/AT&T/etc. have stopped.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

Nyall (646782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471565)

These comments that call for "I'd rather xyz was improved, why are they bothering with foo?" are silly. Very simply: the scientists who study xyz don't know a darn thing about foo.

Also 30 gigabits/second is so effing fast that they hopefully wouldn't need data caps at the 2 to 4 gig mark, but could go higher. Because, in theory, those data caps exist because that's the cell companies can reasonably provide to everyone. yeah I know I'm being way too hopeful given the nature of cell phone companies.

... improving the efficiency of spectrum utilization ...

Like by introducing 4g? OK, maybe that wasn't an intelligent response of me. What other techniques are there that increase spectrum effeciency?

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (3, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471943)

They don't need caps at the 2 or 4 mark even now. It's just the abusive practices of a tight-fisted duopoly. Consider that the towers go virtually unused between 12 AM and 8 AM. Why not give everyone unlimited data during off-peak hours, the same way they did with voice (unlimited nights and weekends)? Now you see this is about earning more money through punitive overages than about providing service.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471733)

So more people can do what you do in a limited volume of space and finite frequency bands.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471891)

>I'm not a luddite,

Saying that doesn't make your question smarter, dude.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472249)

I'm not a luddite, I work in high tech, but could someone explain the lure of 4G to me? I can already stream video on 3G, I can send and receive email in arbitrary volumes, browse the web, everything is reasonably speedy. Why would I want this kind of speed? I'd rather carriers focused on building up the capacity for the existing 3G devices and improving the efficiency of spectrum utilization (so that 3G would not crap out in SF and NY), and handset manufacturers focused on battery life. I couldn't care less about loading a web page half a second sooner, if the price for it is half a day in battery life and cap on my data plan.

The same people who feel that a 1200bps modem is too slow are the ones who need 4G.

Re:Who are all these people who need 4G? (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472261)

Fixed wireless (3G, or now 4G) also services homes and business in areas not covered by other forms of (wired) internet. And it beats the hell out of the alternative (i.e. satellite).

c = 3.00x10^8 m/s (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471363)

Christ, it can see itself arriving.

Re:c = 3.00x10^8 m/s (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471615)

It already has.

This is refreshing (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471389)

I find it refreshing to see them creating new technology instead of just implementing standards.

Plus it just confirms my comments yesterday about even engineering and design talent moving overseas; that no job is "safe" any more from the risk of being offshored. Given Huawei's market share in the telco industry, this particular bit of engineering should make anyone still working for the formerly big names in telecommunications some serious pause when they think about their job security.

It isn't that long ago that people thought a job with Northern Telecom would last a life time, and we know how that turned out for those who believed in that dream.

Not if you are on the wrong end (i.e. 1st World) (2)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471643)

I find it refreshing to see them creating new technology instead of just implementing standards.

Which came from espionage of a First World company, as Chinese "companies" are wont to do.

Plus it just confirms my comments yesterday about even engineering and design talent moving overseas; that no job is "safe" any more from the risk of being offshored. Given Huawei's market share in the telco industry, this particular bit of engineering should make anyone still working for the formerly big names in telecommunications some serious pause when they think about their job security.

The more reason to halt the move and reverse it, even if it takes force. With enough force, even the most "irreversible" things in economics can be made to reverse course back to the First World. Job security is something worth preserving in the First World, even if it comes at political costs.

It isn't that long ago that people thought a job with Northern Telecom would last a life time, and we know how that turned out for those who believed in that dream.

That can be restored with law. Given how badly Huawei implements things, their technology is only good for a political prop when countries rightfully reject it(Australia, US).

Re:Not if you are on the wrong end (i.e. 1st World (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472155)

While some might dream of a return to "America First" and "Made In Canada" policies and tarrifs, I can't imagine us ever returning to such systems.

First and foremost, the consumer won't stand for it. The consumer now expects computers at under $1000 instead of the $2000 plus it used to cost to manufacture them onshore.

A recent article I read pegged the "Made in America" price of an iPad at roughly $1400 -- more than double the market price. At such prices, people simply would stop buying them, because it's pretty damned hard to justify toys over $1000 in most people's minds.

I don't think it's a good situation for the "First World" at all, but I can't see any of the companies involved in offshoring being willing to return to North American manufacturing and assembly when it would make their products completely uncompetitive in the rest of the world markets. Quite frankly, companies like Apple make far more from their foreign sales than they do from North American sales. As a result, if you returned to a nationalistic policy on manufacturing, they'd simply pull up the remainder of their North American roots, officially become a foreign company, and keep on with business as usual. With the US one jewel less in the globalization crown.

And the same goes for all the other big multinationals. The only thing keeping their head offices in the US or Canada is tradition. Globalization has become an unstoppable behemoth; no one with real influence over the government through lobbyists would tolerate stepping back from globalization.

Let's face it -- the corporations sold out the people by lobbying the government for years or decades, and the people were too engrossed by their television sets and Big Macs to notice until it was too late.

Re:This is refreshing (2)

Grieviant (1598761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471649)

You're being taken in by misleading, grandiose claims that TFA does nothing to explain.

The most important game in wireless is increasing spectral efficiency (bps per Hz of spectrum) because it leads naturally to greater throughput for the same bandwidth allocation. If you can reach Shannon's limit on real channels then it's basically game over. It's not about some pie in the sky absolute data rate that might be achieved with a couple GHz of spectrum at your disposal when you're within spitting distance of the transmitter, which is probably the sort of experimental setup used here.

Standards are used because they actually work, whereas, again, TFA says nothing specific about these claimed breakthroughs. MIMO is an idea whose promise has gone largely unfulfilled because it is founded on some rather ideal assumptions about the radio channel - meaning that 'peak' data rates quoted in modern standards are maximum theoretical rates that are never even approached in practice.

Or they just made it up (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471409)

"It claims to have achieved this with 'key breakthroughs in antenna structure, radio frequency architecture, IF (intermediate frequency) algorithms, and multi-user MIMO (multi-input multi-output).'"

Huawei is a Chinese company just recently been banned from quoting on Australian government contracts amid suspicion of putting backdoors into its kit for the Chinese government:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/24/0424215/australian-govt-bans-huawei-from-national-network-bids

So we have a lot of announcements recently about how amazing and indispensable Huawei kit is. But like this one, they can't point to a single breakthrough, its all kind of vague claims that can't even pinpoint what breakthrough they made. It's all very much like a Chinese pride thing.

Re:Or they just made it up (2, Informative)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471525)

Virtually every major network in the western world uses Huawei equipment. Huawei even offered to provide the Australian government with the source code for all their software and drivers. The Australian response was just a racist knee-jerk reaction clouded in a thin veneer of political showmanship.

With much detriment to the user. (2)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471595)

Not only can they not shake off the reputation of being too close to the Chinese government, their hardware is usually lower-tier.

Re:Or they just made it up (4, Insightful)

geekpowa (916089) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471661)

Reason why Huawei stuff is so prolific is that they literally give it away. Undercutting competitors and getting market share is their principal concern, not providing a decent product.

Of all the stuff you find in a typical telco cool room, Huawei consistently, in my experience at least, is the most problematic. Serious quality issues, things feel like they are held together with duck tape and string. Fragile and prone to regular failure. Software interfaces are rubbish. Poor quality and change control. e.g. two products with same product designation in two different telcos will be essentially different products. Awful stuff.

I've worked with a number of telco CIOs not one of them has had glowing things to say about them. They all buy on price and later regret it.

Re:Or they just made it up (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472095)

>Serious quality issues, things feel like they are held together with duck tape and string. Fragile and prone to regular failure. Software interfaces are rubbish
Excuse me. Two problems.
A) Its DUCT TAPE! Not duck tape. How dare you
B) Duct tape makes pretty good screw/hole replacement in computers. I use it all the time in our servers/desktops. (Since management refuses to upgrade 10+ year old hardware.
and an extra C) Duct tape is a wonder tool. Adhering to nearly everything and easy to handle. It also lasts for years.
Sir, do not bad mouth duct tape. Its insulting you compared Huawei's crap with the all powerful Duct tape.

Re:Or they just made it up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472675)

Duck tape :)
http://www.duckbrand.com/Products/duck-tape.aspx

Shannon's Limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471475)

I am not interested.. Unless, of course, they have busted Shannon's channel capacity theorem. But I am guessing that is not likely.

Re:Shannon's Limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471617)

Exactly. Hand waving and bluster but uh you need 400Mhz of spectrum to make this work.

Re:Shannon's Limit (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472319)

Doesn't Shannon's Limit only apply to continous time bandwidth. I'm not sure MIMO applies to that?
For example (thinking out of my arse) you could interweave the channels somehow to provide additional error correction giving you a massive SNR.
 

Re:Shannon's Limit (4, Interesting)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471625)

yeah, that's what I came to post: it seems to be a violation of Shannon's Law. But, then again, the Chinese are known for violating all kinds of laws.

US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471681)

US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network [slashdot.org]

erm.. well.. at least you can read about it.

muahahhaaa..

Fiber to the home (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471765)

(Even if I do not know why/how this news with almost no specific fact at all hit /.) if true, this is not threat for LTE: it is a real competitor of GPON and all FTTH technologies.

And I don't mean achieving 30Gbps: A technology that can deliver, let's say, good/sustained 150Mbps in the air for a home user, would kill all fiber project being developed nowadays.

Re:Fiber to the home (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471829)

Repeat after me: NOBODY is going to build a cellular network which will *guarantee* actual real-world throughput of 150Mbps for every user in their footprint in anything even approximating the near future. Possibly not even in my lifetime.

The cost in towers, spectrum, and backhaul is economically prohibitive.

Sure they'll sell you "up to" mumble-something, but that's just an opportunity to let the network get congested at either the wireless or backhaul level and not care.

NO Wireless technology scales to compete with fibre-to-the-user when you consider *uncontended capacity*.

And THAT is why fibre-rollout projects are worth it in the long-term. (Heh, if nothing else, said fibre will be needed to support all them shiny-new cellular towers each of which covers less than 7 homes)

Re:Fiber to the home (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472281)

It's not really a competitor to FTTH (or other fast, wired types of connection). They are complementary technologies:

- There's no point in wasting limited EM spectrum providing data services to a fixed/non-movable point like a home or business. Even if the wireless technology is just as fast/reliable as wired, it's just plain inefficient. Leave the wireless spectrum free for mobile devices (which generate more than enough demand by themselves to saturate any amount of bandwidth you throw at them)

- Throughput through fibre will always be quicker. Even if this tech theoretically manage 30 Gbps, that's standing right under the tower sharing your connection with no other people. In the real world it will be substantially less and will degrade with distance, other sources of EM and the number of people using it. Fibre does not suffer from these issues. And at the time you really are pushing gigabits per second reliably over wireless, fibre tech will be capable of pushing terabits.

- Wireless generally is higher latency than wired connections and/or is less reliable at coping with poor weather, sources of EM interference etc. (this is a tradeoff - error correction techniques can improve reliability at the expensive of latency and throughput)

And finally ... you need a good wired network to supply the backhaul bandwidth TO the wireless towers. In a world where wireless devices are consuming more and more bandwidth, this becomes even more necessary as you have to pack more and more capacity (i.e. more towers/access points) in to meet demand. So you start to need fibre to more and more places anyway, even if you are planning on building a completely wireless network.

Note that I'm not anti-wireless. News like this is awesome, and wireless tech will continue to get better I'm sure. But you need BOTH a good wired, and wireless network. They are complementary, not competitors.

MIMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471769)

MIMO (multi-input multi-output)

That means they could do 300Gbps with 10 times the antennas, huh?

We like the theory, but in practice .... (3, Interesting)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471785)

Standards are wonderful things, oddly enough almost nobody actually rolls into active service products meeting all these fancy numbers.

In Down Under Land (Oz tray Lee Uh) Telstra rolled out an LTE network. Sure In Theory LTE can deliver "Up To" 300Mbps. Despite Telstra being very much a PREMIUM service provider their shiny-new tech delivers speeds which are not even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark. (to use an Americanism)

Now don't get me wrong folks, LTE is MUCH better than HSPA+, but absolutely nobody on the Telstra LTE network is getting even HALF of the "maximum theoretical throughput of an LTE network".

So if "LTE can do 300Mbps" means end-users are getting maybe 35Mbps, then the JOYous claims of "up to 3.5Gbps" might maybe one day deliver 100-200Mbps of real-world actual throughput.

And while I'd hate to be the person who claimed that "640K is enough for anybody", I do honestly believe it will be quite some time yet before a mobile-handset (phone, iPad, etc) would need more than "one hundred megabits per second" (or thereabouts).

People driving WiFi gateways or using cellular communications from a "fixed location" scenario would. And that will lead to a two-tiered service, you can pay X for "mobile usage" which is FAST (by todays standards) but not pushing the limits of the technology, or you can pay XXXtra for Ludicrous Speed and the caveat being "not for mobile handsets".

This would keep the vast unwashed masses from snowing the network, and the premium/business-grade/etc users will still have plenty of capacity.

Re:We like the theory, but in practice .... (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472165)

While I'm not accusing you of it, I will say a mistake I was aware of, but only recently noticed how often I was making it was in confusing MBs and Mbs.
i.e. 8 bits in a Byte
noting that
100MBps is 800Mbps
1GBps is 8Gbps
300Mbps is 37.5MBps

Most numbers on the computer end seem to report in MB, whereas network providers generally quote in Mb, Whereas we all have 1GBps and 10GBps networks installed in our homes, cable providers are still barely in the 10Mbps (1.25MBps) range.

Re:We like the theory, but in practice .... (1)

sr180 (700526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472501)

Exactly. Ive regularly hit speeds of around 25-30MBps on Telstra's LTE network in normal usage. This isnt too far off the advertised maximum.

Re:We like the theory, but in practice .... (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472667)

Could even be above maximum?
Think it depends on the data frame, there's two levels of error correction "is this bit a bit" Analogue RF -> digital and "is this Byte a Byte" (e.g. 4 bits information and 1 bit parity).
One of the reasons TCP has done so well is it does a very very good job of "is this Byte a Byte" under a wide variety of network level bps streams. But even that loses 20% of the bandwidth (which suggests 4bits information 1bit parity)

Suggests the maximum "real" TCP MBps of a 300Mbps line is 30*0.8=24MBs

Re:We like the theory, but in practice .... (1)

xlsior (524145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472285)

I do honestly believe it will be quite some time yet before a mobile-handset (phone, iPad, etc) would need more than "one hundred megabits per second" (or thereabouts).

Perhaps, but there are a lot of other devices that are NOT cellphones that still communicate with celltowers, like LTE / WiMax modems used by people outside of DSL/Cable range. Massive increases to wireless data speed would be a very welcome development for people in rural areas who often don't really have any alternative highspeed options available to them.

20 times faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471849)

NTT Docomo achieved 5Gbps 5 years ago.

http://www.nttdocomo.com/pr/2007/001319.html [nttdocomo.com]

It claims to have achieved this with,,,, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471985)

Theft. Huawei is famous for it.

Re:It claims to have achieved this with,,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472343)

I'm sorry, but without at least some evidence it's difficult to believe your claims. Not that industrial espionage doesn't exist, but if this were stolen tech the victim would have its story everywhere, as that isn't the case I'll assume you're full of shit.
Still, I don't believe they can reach 30Gbps outside the lab.

Re:It claims to have achieved this with,,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39472415)

So by them offering a better product(even miniscually) at a cheaper cost is in effect theft?I cant imagine anyone NOT supporting the 'ALMOST' complete monopoly on our phones here in the U.S.Thats humourous even if it was technology 'owned' by someone else who wanted to hide such technology until it benifited themselves immensely.it all goes back to patent,copyright,and I.P. laws from the last century that need to be changed.They have crippled innovation and humanity at the expense of a very few's ridiculous wealth......just my opinion

4G is 3.9G, LTE is LTE (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472483)

Just a tidbit of info here. In the industry, the assignment of the 4G name requires 1Gbit/s; but playing on people's perceptions that we should expect 4G now, a lot of companies brand what is inside known as 3.9G as 4G. While competitors adapt same practice, court cases are built slowly. Both 3.9 and 4G is LTE ( though diff freq). 3.9G is ~20Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken.

AFAIK (only secondhand info) only South Korea has true 4G.

Couldn't be bothered to fact check, as it doesn't really interest me.

Re:4G is 3.9G, LTE is LTE (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39472615)

To carry the 4G moniker, the technology must support 100Mbit PEAK rates from mobile clients, and 1Gbit peak rates from non-mobile or low-mobility client.

There is no 4G available in the US, but US Carriers are allowed to call LTE and HSPA by the 4G name because ITU gave them a pass for US Marketing only.

The ONLY technologies that actually meet the 4G standard as it is written are LTE Advanced (not available in the US) and 802.16m WirelessMAN-Advanced (also not available in the US).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?