Slashdot Mirror
Intel Developing Cellular Internet Chip
yoey writes "Brief article at The Marker states, "The chip will enable laptop users to connect directly to cellular networks without the need of a modem in the same way that PCs in a local network connect with each other. [The] solution will enable laptop users to use cellular communication networks as if they were a local communications network. Intel will thus be able to realize an old company dream - the development of a computer enabling users to be connected, any time and any place, to the Internet."
Always-on cellular connection at slow bandwidth, vs. always-on 802.11 connection, provided we have thousands of free nodes so we can roam city to city, always having an internet connection (and not having to pay by the minute). Hmm...
So Intel is trying to give me the same functionality I get when I plug my cell phone into my laptop, but for the price of two cellular accounts instead of just one? I'll pass, thanks.
At least it will give people a choice between 802.11b networks and a fairly established cellular network.
Some people might be able to function just fine with 802.11b, some might prefer using the cellular system. Some might need both.
Choice is good.
Intel will thus be able to realize an old * company dream ** - the development of a computer enabling users to be connected, any time and any place, to the Internet.
Great!!! and now my company will realize an old dream of having me available 24X7. There is such a thing as being too connected. Even though it is a pretty cool and useful concept.
When I see shine on language like that, I know that M$ or some other huckester is behind what's being talked about and it won't live up the hype. The word Enable is usually the biggest tip. What's wrong with direct language and specs? You know something along the lines of, "Intel designed the new chip to provide NetBios over WhateverRadioThingy with a 3 mile radius of communications. Several companies are planning to build a grid comunications network in several major cities, BLAH BLAH." That would be informative, and then people would know what to expect rather than excited and ready to spend more money.
Buzzzz, how hateful it is. It brings back memories -twitch- of VB endoctrination videos I was encouraged to watch for a job once. It dronned on about, "Totally new approaches to programing." and "Iteractive methods rather than proceedural methods." while building a dinky little database front end Mr. Potatoe Head style.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The chip will enable laptop users to connect directly to cellular networks without the need of a modem in the same way that PCs in a local network connect with each other
Give me a break. If it is wireless, I guarantee that there is modulation and demodulation involved. That means MODEM! The news here is that it is supposedly a monolithic solution and so it does in a chip what before was done on a board.
This reminds me of an argument I had once with an "expert" who tried to explain to me that a cable modem wasn't really a modem. Sheesh.
...you can get on a cellular network almost anywhere, while 802.11 is still occasional at best. The idea isn't to deploy the best product, but the most useful one.
I would imagine it will be charged like GPRS, on a per-packet basis, since it looks like it will work exactly the same way. Obviously, though, you wouldn't be stuck having to run WAP micro-browsers on tiny screens: you'd be running a "real" computer, so you could run the real IE6 or whatever. Or, better still, Opera or Mozilla - cos if you think unrequested pop-ups are annoying now, wait until you're being charged per byte you receive!
As for the actual rates, there's obviously no way of predicting, but I imagine they'll be very high at first, because businesses will be willing to pay serious money for this. Just imagine - the whole sales force out on the road being constantly connected (via VPN I imagine) to the company network. No more waiting until a sales rep can come into the office to pick up the latest 40Mb chunk of sales data; his computer could just suck it up in real time as he drives up the M6.
Yeah, it's kind of weird, but I doubt seeing the true usefulness of a intergrated cell unit in a CPU. I mean, is the chip going to support all the network or just one? so are yout tell me that instead of using those space for better performance or leaving it out to save power and cost, my laptop's cell would only work in NA.
But they might ultimately intergrate 802.11 into the CPU that would really make this community WLAN thing fly, imagine every device has 802.11, oh yeah.
kawai
Because we all know how gosh durned reliable cell phones are for simple voice, now we're goign to trust the same technology with our data.
Not to mention the hell this will cause with cellular service. Just imagine, thousands of kiddies downloading porn in the mean time, some poor soul in an accident is trying to call for help and he's getting "Thank you for using the Verizon/AOL cell service, all our lines are busy right now but you will be notified as sonn as one opens up.
No, the reason cell phones and the cell laptop connections work currently is because the actual numbr of people on the system at any given time is relatively low compared to the number of users. THis will kill our systems the same way 9/11 killed the cell service when everyone was calling everyone else to find out who was hurt.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It's strange that Intel's PR department has any credibility when they make these kinds of claims.
There are a number of problems with this recent claim:
1) CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data) is well deployed and delivers all the functions Intel is touting in their new design line.
2) The division of Intel that used to be the company DSPC produces a series of TDMA single chip solutions which are pretty cool but largely irrelevant as all USA TDMA providers are now moving to GSM and CDMA due to TDMA's poor voice quality and data hostility.
3) DSPC's questionably meritable claim to fame was the integration of an Intel ARM core with TDMA and handset related functions. www.dspc.com Since these are both low power cores, they make a fairly good fit. A laptop CPU core on the other hand is power hungry, noise producing, and is subject to high levels of design churn which make it uniqely unfit for this kind of core integration.
Added to all of this is the quote by the DCPC staffer pointing out that they are largely a P4 fab which points to Intel buying them for obscured reasons and putting their fabs to use.
This sounds like a classic case of an Intel PR monkey being told to say something about how darned important DSCP's technology is and how wise Intel was for making this purchase. They clearly failed to understand the core value of DSPC and gathered quotes by confused Intel executives to create a compelling story that like most things out of Intel's PR department, fail to make any sense when examined.
Most GSM networks can already carry data at 9.6kilobits, 14.4kilobits, or 43.2kilobits (using time-slot combining - HSCSCD). Some networks have GPRS extensions which allow packet switching at 40kilobits.
In other words, the networks have no problem with data.