×

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!

CSIRO Develops 10 Gbps Microwave Backhaul

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the back-off-man-they're-scientists dept.

Australia 121

theweatherelectric writes "James Hutchinson of iTnews writes, 'CSIRO has begun talks with global manufacturers to commercialise microwave technology it says can provide at least 10 Gbps symmetric backhaul services to mobile towers. The project, funded out of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund and a year in planning, could provide a ten-fold increase in the speed of point-to-point microwave transmission systems within two years, according to project manager, Dr Jay Guo. Microwave transmission is used to link mobile towers back to a carrier's network where it is physically difficult or economically unviable to run fibre to the tower. Where current technology has an upper limit of a gigabit per second to multiple towers over backhaul, the government organisation said it could provide the 10 Gbps symmetric speeds over ranges of up to 50 kilometres.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

121 comments

Damn patent trolls (5, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | about 2 years ago | (#39611079)

These guys need hire some scientists instead of lawyers.. It's called innovation guys!

CSIRO != NPE (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39611127)

They did hire the scientists. Then they hired the lawyers to defend their exclusive rights in what the scientists developed. CSIRO is not an NPE any more than ARM or any other R&D company is.

Re:CSIRO != NPE (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611139)

I'm pretty sure that's a whoosh.

The GP would have to not read the title, let alone the summary, to honestly think what he said.

Re:CSIRO != NPE (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | about 2 years ago | (#39611223)

To be fair, using italics is never an indication of sarcasm on the internet. Neither are exclamation points! Or @!*%ing inappropriate expletives!1

1's are a dead give-away though.

Re:CSIRO != NPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611867)

Wait, is than an informative summary for once?

csiro? new tech? (0, Troll)

MoFoQ (584566) | about 2 years ago | (#39611083)

You sure it was CSIRO's innovation and not recycling of ideas that are otherwise trivial and done by someone else?

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611133)

What, ideas the CSIRO invented in the first place?

Re:csiro? new tech? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611357)

Name some, and give dates. If we're slyly discussing the recent wifi patent trolling, they invented nothing, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Re:csiro? new tech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611365)

Go read their patents.

BTW learn how to troll, you suck at it.

Re:csiro? new tech? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611447)

"Go read their patents." So you have nothing. By the way, I have, and in regard to the recent wifi patent trolling, they invented nothing, and it has been demonstrated repeatedly. "BTW learn how to troll, you suck at it." I'll have to remember your example, shooting off with no citations or backup, and pulling the oh so classic internet trolling standby "I'm not your mother, use google to prove my assertions for me" nonsense.

Re:csiro? new tech? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611515)

> remember your example, shooting off with no citations or backup, and pulling the oh so classic internet trolling standby "I'm not your mother, use google to prove my assertions for me" nonsense.

You mean your example.

Note that reposting "Ha-ha! They say they invented wireless LAN, but it was described by Jules Verne in 1800s! Prior art!" ten times on an internet forum doesn't count as "demonstrated repeatedly".

All the sued companies would surely try to "demonstrate it repeatedly" in 10 years of litigation, but couldn't.

Re:csiro? new tech? (2)

kestasjk (933987) | about 2 years ago | (#39611649)

"Go read their patents." So you have nothing.

I think you might have a point. [google.com] Just look at how vague and unspecific that diagram is.. Everyone was doing wireless LANs in 1993 after all, these guys are hopeless.

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612587)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The predecessor of Ethernet, ALOHAnet, was a wireless LAN technology. And it was created in the 1970s. Granted, it was an entirely different beast than 802.11, but you just said "wireless LANs"

That patent shouldn't have been granted. It's pretty straightforward to any reasonably educated practitioner in the field. Everything described here has ample prior art described in the literature. Nothing novel is done. The only thing that's special here is that they had the audacity to file a patent for this.

Re:csiro? new tech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39613047)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The predecessor of Watt's engine was a steam engine too. Granted, it was entirely different beast than Newcomen's engine, but you just said "steam engine". That patent shouldn't have been granted. Everything described here has ample prior art described in the literature - even by ancient greeks!

Did you know that you have to read past the "Title: Wireless LAN" to find out what exactly is being patented? Hint: it's not the concept of "wireless LAN", it's a specific way to implement it, with specific ways to improve previous implementations and overcome their problems - this part is what makes it patentable.

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39613317)

You're combining two statements that stand on their own.

1. Wireless networking was done by tons of people, some long before 1993.
2. The patent contains nothing new. Everything claimed in that patent is either obvious to a practitioner in the field or described in prior literature. This is amply covered in defense papers. Read them if you have an RF or communication background. I have to conclude that this case was settled because there was no way in hell a jury could make heads or tails of any of the arguments and this was the least risky choice.

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39613381)

1. Steam engines were done by tons of people, some long before A.D.
2. They had 10 years to do that. There were a dozen companies sued - not some small businesses who have no lawyers and money for long court battle, but big names in communications. None of them managed to invalidate the patent, because the patent has sufficient invenvtive step.

Re:csiro? new tech? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 2 years ago | (#39613123)

Granted, it was an entirely different beast than 802.11, but you just said "wireless LANs"

With air-tight arguments like that you would have got CSIRO thrown out of court in no time. The manufacturer group must be kicking themselves.

Re:csiro? new tech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39613351)

The airtight arguments were made in court filings. For example, it appears that the central "innovation" under dispute here is the use of OFDM to deal with multipath distortion. That's a technology that was invented in the 1957 (Kineplex). Bell Labs made some major improvements in the 1960s. It was perfected in the 1980s by other people than CSRIO. At best, the patent covers an obvious incremental improvement.

Thrown out of court? You haven't heard of the Eastern District of Texas, then? The most ridiculous patents are upheld there. It's la la land.

Re:csiro? new tech? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#39614529)

Sure, obvious now. But was it then? No idea, now isn't then. All things considered, your posts just smack of sour grapes because for a fucking change it's an American company being shafted by a patent.

Re:csiro? new tech? (5, Informative)

Antarius (542615) | about 2 years ago | (#39611595)

Ultrasound Scanners (as used by pregnant women everywhere)
Solar hot water [csiro.au]
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent [wikipedia.org]
Atomic absorption spectroscopy [wikipedia.org]
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation [wikipedia.org]
Gene shears [csiro.au]
Extended Wear Contact Lenses [csiro.au]
Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft [csiro.au]
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer (plastic) banknotes, or "funny money"
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
X-ray phase contrast imaging
Buffalo fly trap
EXELGRAM (optical anti-counterfeiting technology)
RAFT (Reversible Addition-Fragmentation chain Transfer) Polymerisation [csiro.au]
The Mills Cross radiotelescope design
Supercapacitors [csiro.au]
24 hour tests for Tuberculosis in animals and humans [csiro.au]


It was also the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope that beamed the Moon Landing.

CSIRO isn't a patent troll, they're a government owned R&D organisation. They get money from inventions, but who doesn't? Patent trolls come up with (obvious) ideas and never make it work. CSIRO actually patents completed inventions.

Some more achievements for you. [csiro.au]

Re:csiro? new tech? (-1, Troll)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#39612543)

Most of these inventions look a lot more like commercial product development which should be handled by the private sector rather than scientific research that is legitimate government activity.

Could it be that this organization has gotten a taste of patent money, and is now using their government money as a seed for what really is a private enterprise? Socialism anyone?

When you see something like this one has to wonder what their compensation schedule is like. Is it more like a private sector operation, or a government agency?

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39613085)

Perfect username for this post.

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614625)

"Socialism anyone?"
Yes. They're Australian, weren't you paying attention?

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614727)

newsflash Australia is one of so called "socialist" countries

Re:csiro? new tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615449)

Socialist democracy actually, but close enough.

Funny the AU$ is worth the most at the moment though, especially with all the crap being pushed that its socialism that is killing western economies, seems capitalism holding you all back in the stone ages where we had to kill each other to survive instead of working together.

Having to deal with the American immigrants though is a pain.

See? CSIRO is no troll (5, Insightful)

ignavus (213578) | about 2 years ago | (#39611111)

See? The CSIRO engages in actual research, and patents its own work, and licences its own patented work to others.

It doesn't go around buying up patents from other companies with the aim of litigation.

The result of non-Australians paying for the use of CSIRO patents will be further research by CSIRO that could improve technology for the rest of the world - not just for Australians. If patents are to exist at all, this is how it should work.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (0, Flamebait)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 years ago | (#39611387)

Maybe I'm just a silly American but I don't think government funded organizations should be patenting anything. Can you imagine a world where the US government patented everything they caused to be invented? That's why you'll see so much anger from the American side, because government shouldn't be patenting or allowing patents on anything that's funded with taxpayer dollars. I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force, using that money to invent something, then patenting it and charging those same citizens to use what they paid to invent.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#39611405)

then patenting it and charging those same citizens to use what they paid to invent.

Or, in this case, charging billion-dollar companies incorporated in another country. Australian taxes should fund research for American companies - that way the tax-payers are sure to get their money's worth!

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (4, Informative)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | about 2 years ago | (#39611443)

I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force

Pay tax much? Governments get to charge taxes because they have standing armies. This has been the way since the dawn of city states and will not change because you don't like it.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611679)

Doesn't NASA have thousands of patents? The NSA has patents that are not disclosed unless someone makes a similar claim.

You could argue that any R&D is "BIG GOVERNMENT" spending. The problem is that government spending must show an election-cycle profit. Which is why organizations like NASA can't send people into space anymore. This is what happens when vast standing armies - the ultimate threat of force - soak up public money and literally burn it. People are actually convinced that this is OK, but affordable healthcare and medicine represent some sort of theft.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (2)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 2 years ago | (#39611727)

I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force

I can't stand the idea that a person believes they can reap all the rewards of a functioning society without giving something back to maintain it at a reasonable standard. In effect, these people are using force to leech of everyone else's contribution to society.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611747)

Why should Australians pay for wireless research just so foreign multi-billion dollar organisations can use it for free?

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#39612031)

Can you imagine a world where the US government patented everything they caused to be invented?

It's really astonishing how out of touch some people are. I really don't know how you managed to avoid the PR that Universities push out about the new technologies they have patented.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#39614551)

The US government doesn't patent things they caused to be invented because they "partner" with private enterprises and just give them the patent. Your government is just as bad, if not worse.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what CSIRO is doing. Australian taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding research so that American companies can get it free. If anything, CSIRO should just implement a no-cost license for their patents for Australian companies.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614631)

You are indeed a silly American.

Just because you do things a certain way does not mean the rest of the world should.

The American anti-socialist society is a strange exception to the way the rest of the world works.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615525)

You are just a silly American who thinks he has the right to tell me what to spend my tax dollars on. Hey son, your country is over there, stay out of ours if you wanna be a dick trying to tell people what to do. That your government forced your stupid IP laws on Australia and that they are partially receprocal is your fault, as we fought against it here tooth and nail.

Why we see so much "anger" from the American side is that there are too many stupid Americans. NASA is frankly a perfect example of the double standards in this situation. Frankly if you dont understand the value of public funded research and education, nor why public funded research should not simply be given away to be commercialised by large multinationals without both recompense and credit, then you are simply part of the problem.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 years ago | (#39611569)

Maybe they'll get it wedged into an industry standard and have the fund rolling in from suckers who think standards mean "free to use".

CSIRO are now trolls. (2, Interesting)

kramulous (977841) | about 2 years ago | (#39611619)

No. CSIRO are trolls.

I've been meeting them for quite some years now and the CSIRO guys I've met are about protectionism. Since they lost their .edu status, they are about turning a buck. They will lie, cheat and steal their way through any bit of technology and pawn it off as their own. They may once have had skill but those days have gone.

The CSIRO are pretending to be elite. They plant themselves into the University system and pinch any idea that has the smallest amount of creativity. They will take established conferences and hijack them as their own. I bet you they had meetings about the recent attention of the WIFI thing and thought about how they can try and keep the momentum going. You wouldn't believe the extent they will advertise because they know that this is how you attract research and development money in Australia. Glossy mags and smiling pictures with MPs and popular projects as backdrops are taking research dollars from .edu and into putting it into .com. I wouldn't mind so much except they never deliver on more than 90% of projects. Just Word documents.

Sure, there may be a couple of greybeards that still create, but none of the new guys do. But when the chief scientist, ceo type, publicly states that the future of energy is fossil fuels and not renewable energies, something is very, very wrong. That was until it was popular to be green.

Re:CSIRO are now trolls. (3, Insightful)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 2 years ago | (#39611753)

I wouldn't mind so much except they never deliver on more than 90% of projects.

That's why it's called science and research you retard. If you have a way of knowing which scientific study or development project based on new studies will be successful beforehand, please enlighten us, because we would like to bypass all that theorizing stuff and just plug numbers in formulae.

Re:CSIRO are now trolls. (1)

kramulous (977841) | about 2 years ago | (#39614667)

Thanks for that, CSIRO troll. There is a difference between research grants and projects you retard.

I'm talking about the product development projects; The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product. Just a little document that stated how hard it was and there were all sorts of difficulties. "But if you give us another couple of million, we'll deliver it. We promise."

The government, universities and some private industry are wising up.

Even the scientific board in charge of deciding where the SKA will be located are onto the half-truths of the CSIRO. Once again, the CSIRO are out in force, slagging off SA for 'political and instability' reasons instead of focusing on the technical reasons (the arguments for which they have already lost). Now that it is looking like SA will get the SKA and the CSIRO are now fighting dirty.

It is a national embarrassment and money pit.

Re:CSIRO are now trolls. (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 2 years ago | (#39615275)

The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product.

So that makes them patent trolls does it? Nice to know that you think because you hate an organization, you'll put any label on them even if it doesn't actually mean what you intend.
If the CSIRO are incompetent, then the correct label is "incompetent". "Patent troll" does not mean incompetent. "Patent troll" does not just mean "a company that has patents and have sued".
Again, you miss the important point that the CSIRO works on projects, whether scientific studies or product development where the science and engineering aspect has not be developed to such an extent that it's a matter of plugging numbers in. Science is hard, idiot.

Re:CSIRO are now trolls. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615175)

CSIRO is not, and never has been a university. It has never had .edu status so I can't see why they would care. They are not part of the university system any more than say NASA is. You are ignorant. It must be nice to have the luxury of a strident opinion without the inconvenience of understanding the facts.

Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#39612513)

Lots of people believe they are trolls.The appellation is generally applied to non-practicing holders who sue infringers, especially if they try to get a permanent injunction to cease practicing the invention, or if the patent covers an implementation standard.

In this case CSIRO is suing people who implement IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g and go after permanent injunctions. This is poor behavior.

http://www.itworld.com/mobile-amp-wireless/58796/court-puts-csiro-wi-fi-injunction-hold [itworld.com]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/australian-government-patent-troll-collects-from-wi-fi-vendors/2187 [zdnet.com]

http://apcmag.com/wi-fi-patent-has-turned-csiro-money-mad.htm [apcmag.com]

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/patent-troll-throws-party-to-celebrate-its-huge-pots-of-money.html [typepad.com]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005557448&slreturn=1 [law.com]

http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.aspx?id=15866&deptid=7 [ipfrontline.com]

Cost? (4, Informative)

aquarajustin (1070708) | about 2 years ago | (#39611113)

Ubiquiti just announced their AirFiber product (http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber) which can get 1.4 Gbps symmetric at 13km. It'll be interesting to see the price point of this 10 Gbps system, as Ubiquiti's runs only $3k per endpoint. I was considering getting a pair of the Ubiquitis to connect a branch office to HQ.

10 Gbps would be nice, but I'm guessing the cost of this system would be at least a magnitude greater than the AirFibers.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611203)

For 3k you couldn't even build one endpoint using microwave. Maybe if you add a couple zeros you might get one built.

Microwave might be old. But it was never cheap. High on hardware/install costs.

Re:Cost? (2)

tragedy (27079) | about 2 years ago | (#39612183)

But if you actually follow the url he provided (shame on him for not making it a link :)), they have a pre-order page where they're offering it for $2,995.00 (although with "Final tax and shipping costs to determined upon fulfillment."). It also says that "Each order contains two radio units." I'm a little unclear on whether that means that each order contains both endpoints or just that there are two "radio units" (send and receive?) in each endpoint.

Re:Cost? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#39611213)

Just note that two links side by side could be slower than one link, due to co-location interference.

Re:Cost? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611945)

Two links will be fine on the same tower. The beamwidth is very narrow at 24GHz and the radios are GPS synched.

http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?t=50005

Re:Cost? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611237)

Probably aiming at slightly different markets

airfiber range, 13km, fta band
csiro range, 50km, not specified but probably aimed for licensed bands

Re:Cost? (1)

aquarajustin (1070708) | about 2 years ago | (#39612071)

Agreed. Thought it was interesting nonetheless. Don't even know how this new system's spectral characteristics would play out in the U.S., as I have absolutely no idea how similar/dissimilar the band licensing is to AU.

Looks like the Ubiquitis could be installed by a highly trained monkey with the software they've included.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612117)

It's actually 3K per pair according to their pre-order page.
Quite a bit less than any microwave solution, however range is only ~8 miles.

Re:Cost? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612277)

It's actually 700 Mbps symmetric, and that is achievable at about 1.5 miles (Direct from the engineers mouthes at the release conference). 24gHz is also prone to "rain fade". This will be a great product but make sure you read through all the marketing BS. As a note Ubiquity is in the market to have "Disruptive Pricing". Most other vendors are selling PtP links at the same speed for closer to $13K - $25K.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39614877)

1.4Gbps at up to ~1.5 mile. At 13KM, it's lowest modulation at ~250Mbps aggregate.

What's for dinner mom? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611117)

Same as for breakfast and lunch: Fried bird!

Good work by the Australians (5, Interesting)

shione (666388) | about 2 years ago | (#39611137)

Now they can implement this into the NBN and allow those that can only have wireless access and not cable have this.Actually at this speed it could exceed the cable part of the NBN.

Re:Good work by the Australians (3, Informative)

duk242 (1412949) | about 2 years ago | (#39611149)

Nope, the Fibre is capable of speeds greater than 10gbit, just the tech on either end isn't at that spec for the runs to the houses (as it's currently unnecessary).

Re:Good work by the Australians (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611177)

I believe you'll find this tech is expensive, having to install large microwave equipment aside rather tall towers. I doubt the government is going to pay to erect a huge ass tower and gigantic microwave dish and the same on a tower 50km away pointing directly at you. I'm sure it's the least of costs, but it probably uses much more power than your microwave too.

Re:Good work by the Australians (2)

aristedes (732532) | about 2 years ago | (#39611193)

No. Point to point microwave technology is not helpful to get connectivity out to lots of people. The dishes need to be perfectly aligned to each other since the signal is deliberately kept within a very narrow beam. Microwave doesn't bounce off things like the lower frequencies used for wifi.

Re:Good work by the Australians (2)

TuringCheck (1989202) | about 2 years ago | (#39611347)

No. Point to point microwave technology is not helpful to get connectivity out to lots of people. The dishes need to be perfectly aligned to each other since the signal is deliberately kept within a very narrow beam. Microwave doesn't bounce off things like the lower frequencies used for wifi.

Alignment of dishes is also needed to preserve a good signal / noise ratio needed by high efficiency modulation. The alternative would be to increase the transmitter power a lot with the downside of leaking interference all around.

I assume special antenna construction is part of this high-speed technology too.

Re:Good work by the Australians (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#39612443)

My workplace was on a microwave link for a while.

It royally sucked. Every time it rained, snowed or was windy or foggy the link degraded severely. Unless this technology improves link quality in bad weather I'd say it was a waste of time to develop it.

Re:Good work by the Australians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612969)

> Every time it rained, snowed or was windy or foggy the link degraded severely. ... Yeah, I can see how it could be a huge problem for Australia.

Or Arizona. Or Mongolia. Or a space habitat like a Stanford torus.

And of course there's no way to improve on this in the future.

All the researh should be centered on this very moment or it's worthless.

Re:Good work by the Australians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611267)

I think they may have developed this for the NBN.There is not the goal of getting fiber to every home in the NBNs plans. Those last few percent of the population in difficult to cable areas - I can't remember percentage but as much as five percent - are to be serviced by wireless technologies.

Re:Good work by the Australians (1)

catprog (849688) | about 2 years ago | (#39615549)

I think they may have developed this for the NBN.There is not the goal of getting fiber to every home in the NBNs plans. Those last few percent of the population in difficult to cable areas - I can't remember percentage but as much as five percent - are to be serviced by wireless technologies.

This is not for end users. It is to get the link to the tower.

Subtle but important addition ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611183)

A vital point not explicitly highlighted in the summary - the Science and Industry Endowment Fund providing some of the funding for this work was the main beneficiary of last year's settlement around CSIRO's wireless patent.

That is, the settlement money is being directly reinvested in new research to further develop wireless technologies, as well as public good research in other fields.

Fair licensing; the system works. (1)

Xenex (97062) | about 2 years ago | (#39611635)

CSIRO develop technologies, patent them, then license them at fair terms. They then use that licensing revenue to develop new technologies, patent them, and license them at fair terms. And repeat.

It's not like CSIRO are patent trolls. The WLAN thing only got dragged out in course because greedy companies were not interested in fair licensing terms.

And yet, somehow, (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39611191)

... the usage caps will not increase.

Re:And yet, somehow, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611249)

Last I checked, Australian international links are much longer than 50km... because that is, after all, the bottleneck, seeing as all the content Australia wants to access is overseas.

Re:And yet, somehow, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611465)

I don't know about that...your Mum's webcam is hosted locally.

Re:And yet, somehow, (1)

zblack_eagle (971870) | about 2 years ago | (#39611769)

I pay less for 500GB/month at 100mbit today than I did for 80GB/month at 20mbit five years ago.

However, I do wish that locally mirrored content wasn't counted towards quotas. Then maybe we could somewhat reduce (not eliminate) our relative reliance on our international links

That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611353)

Bit of a bummer that once it ends up a standard they'll come around for some fees after all, though.

I don't actually mind even governmental organisations getting paid for their hard work (though since tax funded it should go back to the people, not so much that one organisation). I do mind effectively submarining the fees. That hidden sting is enough to think twice before touching their tech ever again.

Re:That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611395)

For crying out loud, they were trying to get the fees from the start even before it was standardised. None of this was hidden or submarining, it has been going on for years.

Re:That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611605)

That sounds like a remarkable fuckup by the people putting the tech in the standards.

Here's an idea (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | about 2 years ago | (#39611487)

Make patents non-tradable. If a company is sold or goes under, the patents go to the public domain. Same thing if a person holds the patent. Person dies, patents evaporate. Even better? Extend the law to also include copyright.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

Barny (103770) | about 2 years ago | (#39611533)

All the people who would need to vote on such a thing are the same people being paid by the 'rights holders' not to allow such things to happen.

It is a nice dream though :3

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611571)

Good idea! There would be no incentive for non commercial research institutes like the CSIRO to patent their research then and no funding could be funneled from commercial companies that could be used for further research at non commercial research institutes.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611589)

But then you'll have deniable corporate assassins to 'evaporate' your IP claims.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611593)

To do that, you need to make patents non-licensable, or you could just sign a contract that says "I allow you to use this patent in full, for the lifetime of the patent, and promise that I won't use it myself.". Has exactly the same effect as trading it.

And if you do that, then you lose a lot of the benefit of patents. If some dude comes up with a better seat belt design in his garage, he's not going to produce a line of cars by himself: he's going to license the design to auto manufacturers. If he can't, then the design just goes unused until the patent expires.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

Antarius (542615) | about 2 years ago | (#39612063)

And then companies will pay Guide $5,000 to have the inventors assassinated so that their valuable patents have now expired.

No license fees? Pure profit!

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39615205)

Great idea. Same should apply to physical property like land and buildings. Wait, didn't China or Russia or someone already try that?

Gee, I don't know about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611577)

I mean, sure, it's a clever hack, but what would be the point of a microwave transmission system?
Are they that much cheaper than a proper router? Does the net go down if you heat a TV dinner in one of them?

Precipitation (3, Interesting)

jamesl (106902) | about 2 years ago | (#39611591)

Microwave transmission is/can be blocked/degraded by precipitation which is not a good thing. If this is a problem with this technology it will likely be implemented in only the most extreme locations -- where laying cable is very very expensive and utilization will be light.

Re:Precipitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612043)

Like the deserts of Australia, for which this technology was likely invented for.

Re:Precipitation aka physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612185)

Shannon puts a limit on what you can do with a given radio channel.
        To date, nobody has managed to exceed this limit.
          From time to time folks, not expert in the field, claim to do so.
          If you run at these guys max rate, range, with noise and weather, I'd bet that you would.

Their web site provides few details on what their radios can actually do.
        It would be interesting to see thier link budgets to see if they are real.

Re:Precipitation (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about 2 years ago | (#39612123)

Luckily, it never bloody rains in Western Australia these days.

Looks like the tech would be useless on the eastern coast though... :)

Re:Precipitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612507)

Yeah and it rains everywhere 100% of the time.

Even a 10% solution is usually many times better than a 0% one...

I have been learning this lesson again recently.

don't be fooled by this guys (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611647)

i see through the facade and this is just the next generation of patent trolling

we've been complaining for over a decade now that patent trolls just collect up ip then sue everyone hoping they'll just settle. i believe is the first in a game changing breed of patent trolls. this has all been planned in advanced and is now set to payout unprecedent dividends

you see, this so called "CSIRO," in all likelyhood, predicted a point where they simply couldn't just be an "IP agency". a company that only exists to collect IP then sue others for infringing on said IP would eventually lose respect from all facets of society. to avoid falling into disrepute, they endeavoured on the next logical step. they labelled themselves as a "research organisation". you see, by calling themselves a research organisation, it's significantly more difficult to claim they are only trying to make money simply off IP.

but that's just evolutionary.
this CSIRO's plan was game-changing.

you see, while labelling themselves as a "research organisation" may garner some respect from people not in the know. however, if they were to be put under scrutiny, experts in the field and any quality journalist would realise this "research organisation" doesn't produce any intellectual property. they would eventually be exposed as a sham and lose whatever goodwill attributed from being a research organisation. so they made the bold move of producing intellectual property. companies like IBM, HP, Apple, Microsoft have been filing patent after patent on the most mundane of things. so this "research organisation" they started filing to. this would mean they could legitamately be called a "research organisation".

but that's just revolutionary.
the CSIRO's plan was game-chaning

see after a while, constantly filing IP, suing, and collecting would pay massive dividends and would even gain respect among experts in the industries. but again their foresight was unmatched. they predicted that a small subset of people would realise this "research organisation" does produce IP, but has no intention of actually implementing or producing anything with said IP. again this would expose them as a money-grabbing machine abusing the legal system to leech off corporations that infringe on their IP. while most people wouldn't bat an eyelid, CSIRO knew even the smallest blemish could become cancerous. so with their great foresight they changed the game.

they went about creating, producing, and implementing original IP.

the wheels for this mind-blowing move were put in motion a scant few decades ago and we're only now realising the true potential of their plan. you can see it in all the other comments relating to CSIRO where they are all highly defensive. "no, no, no. this is a real RO. they do things to help people" and "this isn't a patent troll. they have produced things that have benefitted society".

so this "CSIRO" not only claims to be a government "research organisation", but to the public has the full appearance of, and apprent operation of a research organisation. while this makes it look quite legitimate to the general public, don't be fooled by the facade. underneath this sheeps clothing the CSIRO is still a black-hearted IP agency with the sole goal of making money off the IP they obtain.

reinforce your tin-foil hats my brothers.
we must expose this CSIRO for what they truly are.

Re:don't be fooled by this guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611693)

CSIRO are not patent trolls. They're the Auzzie equivalent of NASA, and them getting money back for their research is an autowin for everyone, so please stop bitching.

Re:don't be fooled by this guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611741)

Whoosh

Quick, some tell ARS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39611833)

Oh no, CSIRO are inventing wireless tech again, quick someone tell Joe Mullins so he can claim someone else did it!

Perhaps I'm just dumb (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#39612553)

Am I the only person who had to look up what a 'backhaul' was? In >15 years of working with IT I have never heard this term.

As I am reading about it, it looks like this applies to phone networks almost exclusively. It seems to be the same thing as a 'backbone' when discussing a network.

I suppose as we get closer and closer to phones=internet=telecommunications=data becoming true it becomes hard to distinguish.

Re:Perhaps I'm just dumb (2)

dean.collins (862044) | about 2 years ago | (#39614019)

yeh....your the only person who looked it up, pretty common term. lol dont feel bad, probably plenty of terms you know that others dont.

Re:Perhaps I'm just dumb (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#39614671)

Yup, you are. I've heard it time and time again from broadband network engineers here.

CSIRO right or wrong - don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39612927)

Just don't use ANY patented crap from anybody in open standards. It always comes back to bite us.

Or if you are, Isn't there some sort of a contract that says "yup it's our tech, but if it is used in this XYZ standard we will never sue. Licenses available for everyone else (or not)"? That might solve the problem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...