Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Siemens Develops 1 gbit/sec Wireless Link

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the beam-forth-your-data dept.

Wireless Networking 191

jonknee writes "Siemens has developed mobile wireless technology with transfer rates as high as 1 gigbit per second. This blows the doors off of '3G' technology, or EV-DO (the high-speed data technology used by Verizon Wireless and soon by Sprint PCS). Not all the specs are out yet (more info is expected early next year), but it uses three transmitting and four receiving antennas. With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."

cancel ×

191 comments

Uh huh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030664)

... you said Siemens .. Uh huh. Har. Har. Har.

(I am *so* 1993)

Curious (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030684)

Does Siemens sound funny in English?

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030711)

Most Americans I know pronounce it See-mens. So it sounds like a pluralization of semen or maybe sailors. Hilarious huh?

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030763)

Hee hee, oh well.

Re:Curious (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030876)

Then people are surprised a moran like Bush is elected president, twice.

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031094)

Then people are surprised a moran like Bush is elected president, twice.

Elected by people who say "moran," apparently.

Re:Curious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031164)

Hehe... you said Bush...

By the way, what's the vice president's name?

Hehe... you said Dick...

Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (3, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030671)

How can it be possible to get a cellular data service that's faster than a WiFi LAN?

Also, if this is for real, surely this has implications for the many planned city-wide wifi grids (Wi-Max, etc) and other mobile broadband solutions, as it could make them obsolete very quickly.

Re:Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030694)

Multiple antennas.. sounds like a variant of BLAST:

http://www1.bell-labs.com/project/blast/

They claim >20bps/Hz by making lemonade out of multipath's lemon.

Re:Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (1)

ndevice (304743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030714)

If this is a free space system, they might have to compensate for the higher speeds with stronger signals (or live with shorter distances), shannon's law and all - of course we haven't approached those limits yet (I think), so it might be doable.

Re:Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (2, Informative)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030894)

shannon's law and all - of course we haven't approached those limits yet (I think)

the DVB-S2 standard (with devices due in 2005) comes within 1.0-0.7db of shannons law. Also, another company has come within 0.1db (or 0.01db, i forget) and might be even closer now at this point to shannons law. This is the real thing and is being adopted in broadcast networks for transmission to stations. PDF here on the new tech. On page 11 they list the 1.0-0.7db figure. Not sure how large it is [rtm.net.my] Unfortunately in order to use a full transponder at full capacity and speed you would need a few of these since it appears they do not have the processing power to do more than ~50 megabits/sec. A full transponder under one of these would run around 180 Megabits/sec (36Mhz*5bits/mhz) .

Re:Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (2, Informative)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030744)

RTA. They're multiplexing; using several different channels to allow many different streams of data simultaneously. Yeah, it makes it a bit more complicated and error prone in the protocol specs, but it means a faster signal. And yes, to some degree, it will make other mobile broadband solutions obsolete, that is until they spec out the next generation of wireless to use similar methods. Remember, this is something that's going to be rolled out 10 years from now. I'm sure wifi is going to get a lot better in that time.

Re:Faster than 3G .. heck, its faster than 802.11G (1)

matterix (836487) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031051)

Time for WEP, or can take big chunk out of it? Sure, the hotpoints would become obsolete!

So, in 2015, ... (5, Funny)

kclittle (625128) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030672)

my daughter can call and ask for money even faster that she can today? With full-screen video and 5.1 surround sound? Oh, thanks bunches...

Re:So, in 2015, ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030705)

it must suck to have such a shitty sense of humor. ha ha, his daughter will ask for money faster, funny my ass.

Re:So, in 2015, ... (2, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030757)

Funny, I just read on Boing Boing that an Indian movie will be the first full-length feature film to premiere on a wireless cellular network.

Details here [boingboing.net] .

And which is why, "predictions" like FooBar will happen by 2015 are quite amusing - you really cannot know. For all you know, it may happen within the next couple of years. If there is one thing we should know as geeks, it is that technology can never ever be predicted.

Re:So, in 2015, ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030775)

Will it be shown on all 3 cellphones in India at the same time?

Re:So, in 2015, ... (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030795)

You're a troll, but I'll answer you anyway.

At last count, there were more than 50 million cellphones in India, and are growing at 2 million a month.
(From this source [emergic.org] )

Re:So, in 2015, ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030969)

Maybe you can call one of them and ask for your IT job back.

In capitalist America, India outsources YOU!

Re:So, in 2015, ... (1)

Mycroft_VIII (572950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030841)

Heinlein (the sf author) had a fairly good rep for predicting things, when asked what his secret was he said (paraphrasing here) ask the experts in on the subject how long it would be before we have technology to do x and divide the interval in half.

Mycroft

With 4 receive antennas and 3 transmit antennas.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030674)

it will take a big pocket to fit in :)

Re:With 4 receive antennas and 3 transmit antennas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030765)

It is not a phone in my pocket...

Re:With 4 receive antennas and 3 transmit antennas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030897)

Here's a picture [esa.int] of the first prototype.

I think I'll wait until the flip version...

Re:With 4 receive antennas and 3 transmit antennas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031004)

Is that a gigabit phone your pocket or are you happy to see me?

A little glims in the future (1)

Isak Ben (702274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030676)

5 years from now.....

Spammers will be on the run from the law with a gsm in their pocket using it's 1Gbp/s connection to spam the hell out of us....? ;)

Apply that to all the lamer crackers and related lameness out there.

only 100 MHz bandwidth (2, Informative)

ndevice (304743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030680)

according to the article, the bandwidth is only 100 MHz for the experimental setup that they have running.

1Gb/s is supposed to be what it's capable of in the future - or at least that's how I read it

Re:only 100 MHz bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030806)

frequency bandwidth of old Russian phone lines is believed to be 3 kHz
33.6 modems work just fine and deliver 30 kbps just fine.
it's normal that data bandwidth (bps)=frequency bandwidth*10

for what (1)

Outsider_99 (761534) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030682)

What would we need it for? Im sure people will think of things to use it for. But I cant think of anything to use it for.

Re:for what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030692)

god you're dumb

Re:for what (1)

secretsquirel (805445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030924)

"god you're dumb"

If your gonna tell god he's dumb you should at least do it in a relevant post. He was asking why anyone would want alot of bandwidth, and you just gotta burst out with your herecies. Also, if your going to call anyone dumb you better have a good reason. One guy is to dumb to think of uses for bandwidth and you go and insult the allmighty, don't you think thats just a tad bit ignorant.

The uses for bandwidth on a phone are pretty damn obvious though; looking at stock quotes!, porn, checking the weather, porn, checking movie times!. Attach a camera and send live high quality video streams (of porn mostly) directly to your pc for storage, and you could also use it to share particle colision data from CERN and process it during idle time!

Re:for what (1, Funny)

lakiolen (785856) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030699)

Well there's always pr0n. But that's the answer to any question about what to do with greater speed and/or higher bandwidth.

Re:for what (2, Insightful)

surelars (573834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030727)

Oh, sure. No one will ever need more than 640 kB of RAM and all that.

Re:for what (4, Insightful)

Oxygen99 (634999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030753)

Rapid on demand location based services springs to mind, such as detailed maps and directions. As does accessing music files remotely from your own PC. That'd be nice. Maybe more expansive travel information such as realtime traffic or flight data. I'm sure these would become more and more useful given a large hike in bandwidth.

As somone more intelligent than myself said, "if you build it, they will come.".

Re:for what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030833)

"if you build it, they will come."
Bollock. They will come only if you have what they want. You could build polished turds and no one would buy them.

Re:for what (1)

bloodredsun (826017) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030947)

I don't think that streaming music to remote locations (ie not your home) will ever be popular as the advances in datastorage densities will always make local mobile storage a better option.
Static data like music and movies will be stored in an iPod-like device, and how detailed does a real-time service like traffic info have to be to require this sort of data-rate?
I'm not decrying the advances made here, but rather questioning the commercial usages to which it can currently be put.

Re:for what (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030801)

I imagine the new "smart army" could think of a few uses for that kind of data rate. Things that were previously not possible with games spring to mind. Static and dynamic image/video/audio transfer are pretty obvious. Aside from new applications made possible, I imagine many current wireless application would benefit simply from the increased data rate.

Re:for what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030813)

so you can upload your 10 megapixel upskirt photos to your photoblog

Re:for what (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030853)

Spamming, virus and worm spread, spyware, DoS attacks ... the possibilities are endless!
SCNR

Re:for what (1)

DigitumDei (578031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030857)

I am sure that by then they will be aiming for cell phones to all be video phones. While you may not see the need, I'm sure by then some people will be wondering how we ever survived using phones without seeing the persons face.

As phones become less phones and more personal organisers and communicator (complete with a host of other extras), the more people are going to need that bandwidth.

Even if no single application on these devices needs that much bandwidth, the combination of them all may. That, and if you provide the bandwidth, someone will find a way to use it all.

Re:for what (2, Interesting)

DigitumDei (578031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030869)

Just a simple thought came to mind moments after I hit submit.

It always bothers me that I essentially have to go through the extra step of transfering any pictures I take on my phone, to my PC.

Imagine if in 2015, I can take high resolution photos (and even video) from a hand held device (we really should stop calling them phones ;) ) that is saved directly to my PC at home. The phone can have a small (by tomorrows standards at least) amount of local storage, but the vast majority of storage used would be on the terabytes or petabytes of storage we'll have at home then.

Re:for what (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031037)

You mean a sort of NFS over internet? (Ok, probably a more secure protocol will be used :-)) Well, that would make sense. But I guess only the geeks will have their file server running at home, the rest will rent their storage from online storage providers (probably most mobile devices will have a preselection for a certain storage space provider, just as mobile phones are usually bound to a certain phone service provider today).

Re:for what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030919)

With this link, people can always design websites more bloated to make them waste more bandwidth faster.

This report is entirely worthless without detail (3, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030706)

Without the details, it strikes me that this nice bit of hype is entirely pointless.

Great - I 1Gig link. And the power requirements are? And the suspectability to multipath problems in built up areas are? And the size of the antenna on the phone is how big? And the patent issues are what?

Sorry to be such a grumpy old thing, but getting RF technology to work in the lab is one thing. Getting to work in messy, interference soaked urban environments without cooking the user's head is quite another.

Re:This report is entirely worthless without detai (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030719)

don't you have enough karma points alerady, shitty whore?

Re:This report is entirely worthless without detai (2, Informative)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030802)

Given the number of receiving and transmitting antennas, it would sound like they are using a variant of BLAST - this is a technique that uses multipath to enhance the signal - think of it as doing spatial-domain multiplexing. By using multiple antennas, and using the multipath time difference on the signal, they are able to discriminate signals in the same band of frequecies based upon the physical location of the antennas.

However, the odds that this will fit "in your pocket" as the story poster said are pretty slim - the physical seperation of the antennas would tend to preclude that.

and health risks are? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030917)

People object to 2G and 3G masts saying they cause health problems. Faster tech will bound to have more risks.

Re:and health risks are? (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030928)

..faster tech doesn't always mean more health risks.

people will object to fucking anything they just plain don't like.

Re:and health risks are? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030982)

people will object to fucking anything they just plain don't like.

No wonder. Would you fuck something you didn't like?

Re:and health risks are? (2, Informative)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031034)

Well most wireless data systems are rate adaptive, so to be able to use new high speed services you will require very strong signal coverage (even more radiation). 2G and 3G will still be there, plus all the other radio systems.

Technology advancement (4, Insightful)

rasteri (634956) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030712)

With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015.

By which time it won't seem that amazing at all.

Re:Technology advancement (1)

FHMyles (835127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030746)

Too true, since 100mbit wireless will be available in a year or two with 802.11n, won't it? And 10gbit over copper ethernet is well on its way.

Re:Technology advancement (4, Insightful)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030768)

>By which time it won't seem that amazing at all.

To us , it'll still be amazing because we'll be past the 35-hump since when each invention is against the laws of nature .

Below 16 , all inventions are taken for granted. After 16 to 35, every invention is the next big thing and by the time you're over 35 , it'll be a violation of your fundamental understanding of science.

So kids born in 2000 see supersonic air travel as an ordinary means of travel , while my father feels there's something impossible about faster than sound travel (someday I'll say the same about Faster than light , hopefully) .

People don't change - they are just replaced.

Re:Technology advancement (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030805)

> People don't change - they are just replaced.

Thank you.

That's such an immensely encouraging thing to say right in the middle of the week. :-p

Re:Technology advancement (1)

mbaciarello (800433) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031149)

On a totally unrelated note, the site in your sig is fantastic.

However, they mispelled the most important quote: it's "videtur [verbix.com] " not "viditur". That almost made my fundamental understanding of Latin crumble, and I'm not even 25...

Yeah Right (3, Insightful)

MrNonchalant (767683) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030715)

I'm very skeptical of the viability of this for a consumer market and I'm pretty certain I can get 3 randomly selected users to agree with me. Firstly, the large amounts of antennas would suggest this can't make it outside of a research lab. Secondly, you can't even get 54Mbps without paying thousands of dollars per month WITH WIRES. Maybe they could transmit this much between the tower with a single client (scalability anyone?) but if our current wired infrastructure has trouble managing 100 Mbps then what good will that link be?

Anyway, my point here is that maybe you'll see a speed increase but don't expect anything in the real world faster than a wireless G setup anytime soon. It'd be damn cool though.

Re:Yeah Right (2, Insightful)

putaro (235078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030773)

Secondly, you can't even get 54Mbps without paying thousands of dollars per month WITH WIRES
Depends on where you live. I'm in Tokyo and I have 24 Mb/s DSL for about $35/mo. They're willing to pull a fiber to your house and do 100Mb/s for pretty close. Of course, that's just your connection to the ISP, beyond that your mileage will vary.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030800)

Are the antenna's difficult to integrate into a phone? Or a laptop? I don't know, do you?

So if you cannot do this with wires, you cannot do it wireless? That the current rate would be thousands of dollars (now) does not matter. With 3G most operators charge per MB anyhow.

Wired links within a corporate infrastructure easily manage 1Gb/s. 10 Gb/s is not a problem, certainly not in 2015. Hell, you could put that over TP copper by then.

I agree with you that we won't see this soon. But the article stated 2015. Which is plenty of time.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

nick korma (836538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030843)

all these questions about antenna , batteries etc - who knows what we will be carrying round in 15 years - I would like to think that the technology running alongside this new 1gb wireless would also have improved beyond what we have now.. 6 years ago the mobile phone and laptop I use daily seemed years off

Re:Yeah Right (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030825)

Isn't 802.11n based on similar multiple antenna technology? (MIMO)?

Re:Yeah Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030888)

yes, but is still some way off, some manufacturers have stuff available based on it though.

Re:Yeah Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030862)

faster than G? running a belkin pre-n setup at 108mbps here. admitedly it isn't an official standard, but it is available and very nice.

Re:Yeah Right (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030893)

Secondly, you can't even get 54Mbps without paying thousands of dollars per month WITH WIRES.

How much do 100GB disk space cost today? How much did they cost 10 years ago?
How much would you have payed 10 years ago for the data rate of a current standard DSL connection?
How much would you have payed 10 years ago for the computing power of todays entry level PCs?
So, are you still sure that the pricing will not be about right for the consumer market in the year 2015?

Re:Yeah Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031167)

Or you could move to Japan where by the time Siemens rolls out here, Japan will have 10Gbit links to every 6 year old's cellphone in Tokyo for $50 a month.

Unless some huge miracle occurrs, ISPs here will continue to charge enormous amounts of money for anything above 100 or so kilobits of upstream, and wireless data will continue to be charged per kilobyte by most carriers.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030902)

Secondly, you can't even get 54Mbps without paying thousands of dollars per month WITH WIRES. Maybe they could transmit this much between the tower with a single client (scalability anyone?) but if our current wired infrastructure has trouble managing 100 Mbps then what good will that link be?

That's why we should finally start deploying multicast all over the Internet. It's simply stupid that 100,000 people pulling one and the same file from the server saturate its $100k link. Or think webcasts. How easy would it be with multicast...?

Robert

Airpics? (2, Insightful)

InternationalCow (681980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030716)

I'd like this in my home wireless network, please. And used by Apple in a nice streaming solution for video, so I can stream everything from my home server to my tv. I only use my phone for SMS and making phone calls, so I don't need this on the go. But for home multimedia, well, this really opens up nice possibilities!

Cue the inevitable outcry about technology (-1, Offtopic)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030733)

Choose one or more, for maximum flamebait:

[ ] Why does Japan always have the cool gadgets?
[ ] In $SCANDANAVIAN_COUNTRY, they can order soda from a vending machine with their cellphones!
[ ] Evil corporations are slowing progress in the US
[ ] This proves GSM r0xx0rs.
[ ] CDMA is teh suck because $TECHNICAL_LONGWINDED_REASON
[ ] Great, all I have to do is buy a 1000 Euro phone!
[ ] In Soviet North Korea, nobody has cell phones!
[ ] I don't have a cellphone, you insensitive clod!

very nice but... (4, Insightful)

MarsDude (74832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030737)

"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."

Having a phone in your pocket may be obsolete in 2015 ;-)

Re:very nice but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030830)

yea cuz in the future ppl carry phones up the ass

Re:very nice but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030882)

GNAA!!!

GNAA Rulez!

yeah!

Re:very nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030886)

yea cuz in the future ppl carry phones up the ass No the communicator will be embedded in your skull with a pneumatic nail gun. Due to future revisions of the Patriot act it will also double as a secret Echelon uplink through which the NSA logs all your subversive thoughts MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Uhumm .... I lost my tinfoil hat... found it again though.

Re:very nice but... (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030908)

I first heard this story about 10 years ago. Proof of concept kinda thing that you no longer need a phone in your pocket. This story actually lends more to us. In the future (our future because we aren't M$, Intel, AMD) we not only are freed from a "phone in the pocket" but we can also "receive faxes on the go".

Please keep in mind, "cellular phones" were not common back then. Instead, wireless communications was considered "sacred" and thus termed "emergency communication system".

With no further ado, the story!

Meeting Bill

Gates (CEO of Microsoft), Andy Grove(CEO of Intel) and Jerry Sanders (CEO of AMD) were in a high-powered business meeting. During the serious, tense discussions, a beeping noise suddenly is emitted from where Bill is sitting.

Bill says, "Oh, that's my emergency beeper. Gentlemen, excuse me, I really need to take this call." So Bill lifts his wristwatch to his ear and begins talking into the end of his tie. After completing this call, he notices the others are staring at him.

Bill explains, "Oh, this is my new emergency communication system. I have an earpiece built into my watch and a microphone sewn into the end of my tie. That way, I can a take a call anywhere."

The others nod, and the meeting continues. Five minutes later, the discussion is again interrupted when Andy starts beeping. He also states, "Oh, that is my emergency beeper. Excuse me, gentlemen, this must be an important call." So Andy taps his earlobe and begins talking into thin air.

When he completes his call, he notices the others staring at him and explains, "I also have an emergency communication system. But my earpiece is actually implanted in my earlobe, and the microphone is actually embedded in this fake tooth. Isn't that neat?"

The others nod, and the meeting continues.

Five minutes later, the discussion is again interrupted when Jerry emits a thunderous fart. He looks up at the others staring at him and says, "Uhh, somebody get me a piece of paper... I'm receiving a fax."

just googled and found this. a few more jokes too!
http://www.dersimizingilizce.com/fun%20stuff%20web %20pages/jokes/jokes%20computer.htm [dersimizingilizce.com]

Re:very nice but... (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031016)

Having a pocket may be obsolete in 2015 ;-)

Re:very nice but... (0, Offtopic)

earthman (12244) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031050)

In Korea, only old people will use cellular phones in 2015.

Now.... (1)

Xerxes2695 (706503) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030742)

We can develop brain tumors 4 times faster than with a standard cell phone.

whoa (1)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030758)

Yes in 2015... you won't need a webcam,DSL,computer combo to do a video-conference.. all u need is a fscking Siemens WDCFSCK 2354 model smartest phone in your pocket.

Range (1)

rassie (452841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030761)

The article doesn't mention range at all. Its not hard if the range is 10 cm (4" for you imperialists out there).

You disappoint me... (1, Funny)

nigham (792777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030769)

...and I thought my phone would be a chip in my cranium by the year 2005.

Re:You disappoint me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030787)

With the antennas sticking out of your ears and nose.

Re:You disappoint me... (1)

Troll-a-holic (823973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030909)

Oh no, the antennas will be sticking out of your pee wee.

And then, you will transmit through your poo poo.

The ethereal transmission will hapeen by farting. Big loud ugly farts.

Brrrrrrrrrrrft.

And then we all fuck your Mom.

The Bright Side (0)

koko775 (617640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030782)

You'll be able to make a cluster out of your cell phone?

Oh, joy. 640KB/s ought to be enough for anybody ;)

Bonus! (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030793)

At night, you will emit a pleasing glow!

So, in 2015... (2, Funny)

jb_nizet (98713) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030808)

We'll finally be able to watch a HDTV film in a crowded bus on a 2cm-large screen. Cool!

Research indicates... (2, Insightful)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030814)

... that actually using the new 1 Gigabit phone will cook your eyes and brain. Owners already are using the new phones as a portable replacement for their microwaves.

Seriously: putting that much transmitting power into a phone cannot be healthy now can it ?

Thinking this over... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031033)

... I think new phones will actually benefit from using less power:
With " everyone " owning a cellphone, the cells actually start to overlap each other.
This opens up the possibility of grid phoning, requiring basestations in only a few central or deserted points - whilst providing coverage through the cellphones that are near to you (and so forth until the signal finds its way to the basestation).

Apart from the health-benefit, the phones would require a lot less power than now. The grid's latency would be the only thing that needs to be solved for this to work (assuming that each cellphone in the signal's path, call it a hop, will add a little bit to the overall network latency).

Re:Research indicates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031076)

Seriously: putting that much transmitting power into a phone cannot be healthy now can it ?

I don't see how much damage an RF radiation can do. No matter how much power you transmit via radiowaves, it's going to have negligible effect in very small scale (i.e. like in the cells in human body). Of course, there's still the problem of efficiently (and painlessly) dissipating the heat generated in the electronics, but that's a separate problem (and not a big one, probably). So, unless they run out of room in the RF part of spectrum and start moving up to microwave, there shouldn't be a big problem.

A few comments (1)

sanpitch (9206) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030821)

* This is just a few researchers in a lab. This is far from an implemenation. It IS the way future wireless standards will go.

* Future standards will blur the lines between wireless LAN and cellular standards. Your cell phone will provide high rates, your wireless internet connection may handle higher mobility.

* The multiple antennas mentioned here need only be at the cellular base station, or on the access point.

bottlenecks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030823)

this is great but there still is going to be bottlenecks some where. there is no use un less you have fiber. whats comcast 3mbs? maybe if you run a pirate ring wirelessly in your own home it would be useful. Only big corperation and universities would really use it. right?

Ads? (1)

Netsensei (838071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030846)

The worst we can get these days are annoying text messages containing ads. Imagine the possibilities of combining polyphone ringingtunes, stunning visuals on high resolution screens and this 1gbit up/downlink facility for the advertising/marketing industry. My guess for the future: a serious amount of spam, ads, adware on your cellular would be part of the forseeable future. Why ads over cellular? Because this technology wouldn't be commercially sustainable without. Now. Can you say "This call is proudly sponsored by Heineken/Coca-Cola/..."

Obligatory Stupid Quote (1)

InvaderXimian (609659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030855)

"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."

Why? I doubt the cell phone processor would be able to do anything with data sent at that rate, other than drop it or have it essentially be a DoS attack.

Re:Obligatory Stupid Quote (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031082)

your such a chump.

Why not in a PC (1)

POds (241854) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030875)

What stops manufactorers of PC from puting this technology into PCs. If it can fit in a phone, it can fit in a PC or even better, a ... one of those portable hand held PCs (no, the ones smaller than laptops). I mean why not? I guess there must be some reason for it. Wouldnt it be great if our PCs had access to a 3G network or even better, this one?

Re:Why not in a PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031170)

In South Africa we already can have our laptops on 3G... See http://www.sentech.co.za but from what I hear they aren't too good...

THREE Antennas!!!1! (1)

thetroll123 (744259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030910)

It's getting like the hilarious Razor Wars... Wilkinson introduce the double-blade cartridge, Gillette fight back with the Mach III, Wilkinson work doubletime to bring you the state-of-the-art Quattro!

Same thing as the megapixel nonsense, the sheep start to believe a higher number means a better product without worrying too much what the number represents, or whether having lots of that thing is necessarily good.

Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030914)

You know, you can transfer a lot of porn over a gigabit link. (And fast, too!)

When do cellular and WLAN merge? (4, Interesting)

cale (18062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030918)

This article is interesting in the standard kind of wow, high bandwidth wireless kind of way. However, as wireless LAN technologies become more long distance (Wi-Max) and cellular technologies become more high bandwidth (this article), when will the two converge into a united space?
I know there is a difference in the licensing of the spectrum, but disregarding governmental interferences, prevents wireless LAN and cellular from essentially becoming the same type of standard?

3G licenses? (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030958)

It's interesting to me that the cellular companies here in the UK paid out a ton of money for the 3G licenses, and there's now things like wifi hotspots that are nearly as useful and cheaper.

The march of wifi seems to be ongoing, and may end up trumping 3G. Partly I think it's the low cost and flexible market.

I've compared the price of 3G cards with using a hotspot. For £25/month from BT I can get 4,000 minutes on hotspots(16 hours). For £23.50 from Vodafone I can get a massive 75mb (yes mb) of data downloaded per month. Whilst 3G may be more useful in terms of use anywhere (although coverage is not that great yet), the price is just rubbish. If I'm going to get 75mb, I may as well just use GPRS.

Re:3G licenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11031140)

...a massive 75mb (yes mb)...

What's a mili-bit? Does 75mb equal just under a tenth of a bit?

note to self: (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030986)

carry cell phone in back pocket away from testicles.

ack, you've caught me thinking aloud again

1 Gbit/s using multiple-antenna systems (1)

183771 (572184) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030990)

Excerpt from original article:
"One of the reasons why multiple-antenna systems are not typically used today is the very high computing power that is required at the receiving end. This is because the information that is transmitted simultaneously by multiple antennas is received by multiple receiving antennas and has to be reconstructed in realtime for the receiving device. This exceeds the capabilities of the typical chips that are currently being employed in the mobile communication industry. The researchers at Siemens overcame this challenge by developing new and optimizing signal processing algorithms that can be efficiently implemented on the hardware modules that are available today."

http://www.quagga.net

How many antennas? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11031145)

Did I read that right? 3 for transmit and 4 for receiving?

I can't imagine what a cell phone sportin' that technology would look like... would I need to hook it up to my tin-foil hat for better reception?
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...