Slashdot Mirror
19 megabits on 3G
haligan writes "Bell Labs research arm announced the development of two prototype chips that would allow mobile devices to receive more than 19 megabits of data per second on 3G networks." Power consumption is low enough for cel phone type applications.
now I can stream it directly to my 3G phone, while waiting in line at the video store.
I can't even get 0.056 Mbit (i.e. 56K) on a COPPER WIRE between myself and the ISP.
Wow I would actually be able to host a web site off my cell phone and be able to handle a slashdotting...
All we need now is an infrastructure to take advantage of it!
That'll be what? 10 more years before see anything like it in the U.S.?
19 megabit/s on 3e9 networks, that's what, 6 millibit/s/network?
That's more than 6 megabits per G. Incredible!
What could you possibly do on a cell phone that could fully utilize a connection with that sort of bandwidth? Uncompressed video?
This would rock for grabbing huge files for your laptop or iPaq, however.
think of the pron you could get on your phone!
Pr0n-on-the-go!!!
Warez games for cell phone?
Brain tumors at lightning fast speeds!
funar@multiplayergamers.com
Build this damn chip into laptops and don't charge me an arm and a leg to use it and I'll be the first to buy one
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
What exactly is a "cel" phone?
With the piece-meal rolling out of 3G phones and coverage, when can I really expect to take advantage of these data rates? My supposed 3G phone gets a good deal less than 128 kbit/s, not to mention the obscene $/data rates. Speaking of, does this not seem to you like the chicken and the egg: Expensive per kilobyte/megabyte rates for 3G phone data downloads won't change until more people sign up... but more people won't sign up until the service gets cheaper! Grrrr.
Bell Labs BLAST Off With New 3G Chips
By Ryan Naraine
Lucent's (Quote, Company Info, News) Bell Labs research arm on Thursday announced the development of two prototype chips that would allow mobile devices to receive more than 19 megabits of data per second on 3G (define) networks.
The Murray Hill, N.J.-based telecommunications equipment maker said the new chips are part of its Bell Labs Layered Space-Time (BLAST) wireless technology.
Lucent, which is working to introduce the multiple input/multiple output (MIMO) technology for commercial use, said the BLAST chops conform to industry standards for size and power consumption and passed lab tests to deliver data on 3G networks at higher speeds.
The fastest third generation (3G) network today offers maximum data transfer speeds of about 2.5 Megabits per second (Mbps) but Lucent said tests prove the new chips can allow data delivery at 19.2 Mbps.
Lucent plans to license the chips' designs to mobile handset, PC card and other device makers looking to integrate MIMO into future 3G products. It also plans to deploy the technology on its family of Flexent OneBTS base stations as part of plans to push commercial implementation.
"The two chips have been tested successfully in four-antenna terminal configuration that also uses four transmit antennas at the base station. These chips, one for detecting BLAST signals and the other for decoding them, are small enough and consume so little power that they could be used in cell phones or laptop computers with minimal impact on battery life," Lucent said.
Bell Labs researchers in Australia and New Jersey designed BLAST, which splits a single user's data stream into multiple sub-streams and uses multiple antennas at the terminal and base stations to transmit the wireless signals at ultra-high speeds.
"All the sub-streams are transmitted in the same frequency band, so spectrum is used very efficiently. At the receiver, an array of antennas is again used to pick up the multiple transmitted sub-streams. Using the multiple antenna technique, the rate of transmission is increased roughly in proportion to the number of antennas used to transmit the signal," the company explained.
with enough room for Counter-Strike...
19MBps is about exactly what you need for HDTV! Now you can watch HD in all its glory on a 2 inch screen =)
Someone should let this guy know there's no such thing as +1, Inane.
ha!
but sadly, an +2, at best comment.
i'm putting 4:1 that it won't go higher than that.
For the area in which I have decided to make my home, this won't matter for a while. It would be nice to have, however, if there were a plan with a HUGE pool of minutes (or unlimited, even if after a certian time of day). If the technology really works, I won't half to wait for CenturyTel to get off their collective asses and give the town in which I live the DSL that so many of us have expressed an interest in.
*sigh*
bork bork bork!
So does this mean we might see phones with 10BaseT RJ45 jacks in them?
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
"the rate of transmission is increased roughly in proportion to the number of antennas used to transmit the signal"
How many per cell phone ?
see, there's no keyboard, or mouse on your cell phone.
i think you'd have a hard time aiming and moving around, using the keypad, especially since (afaik) you can't press multiple keys at once, to move at a slant.
i don't think you'd last long.
oh, going for +3 funny? try to fit some humour in next time.
jackass.
Imagine a Beowulf call center full of these.
In the article, it says they use multiple inputs and multiple outputs... IE, they give an example of using 4 transmitters and 4 antennas. They also say the 4 transmissions use the same band (ie, still 3G, but different channels).
What happens to the cell phone networks when every phone starts using 4 channels instead of 1? There's a limited number of channels in each band...
With all this development of 3G networks for phones, when might we see a true wireless internet over this network instead of the breadth of DSL and Cable companies? Surely there cannot be that much of a technology gap between making the 3G network accesible to wireless services, it would be a great last-mile solution in areas that have cellular coverage, but are outside of the range of an operations center.
Hey with a phone that has that good data transfer it probably can transfer some high quality realtime audio over the airwaves. So no say I want bootleg a concert (lets say one thats not friendly to bootlegging). They'll check for recording devices but won't think twice about a cell phone. BWAH HAHA thats where you got them.. All you do is have your phone start downloading the audio to your computer's hard drive and voila! sneaky bootlegging.. thats quality recording. Though I guess this might be limited by the quality of the mic on your phone but hey I just come up with these crazy ideas. If you're hardcore enough and a hardware hacker I'm sure you could fix a crappy mic problem pretty easy :)
Who makes you Sig?
Acording to the lecture i attended last year by a very sensior vodaphone engineer this bandwidth is the maximum available. It isnt all used for data in fact they reserve a few channels for voice and a few for data (depending on the area past usage etc) also if you are the only user then things get faster still. However it wtill wont be that fast most 3g implementations relie on doing TCP/IP on top of TCP/IP on top of another protocol or 5 yes there are 2 tcp/ip stacks. This is so the phone network can keep you inside there network
I can not decide which is more pathetic. The fact that so many articles get posted on /. with spelling errors or the fact that 90% of the posts criticizing the spelling errors have mistakes themselves.
/. for whom English is a second language (myself included) but if you are going to criticize spelling/punctuation/grammar for goodness sake make sure your post is free of the very same errors.
I cna appreciate there are many on
Is that too much to ask?
A corrolary of Shannon's theorem on channel capacity is that the greater the capacity of the channel, given an amount of noise, the greater power is necessary for it to maintain a given rate of information transmission. In other words, the faster you want to pump the data, the more power needed to transmit.
Therefore, while these chips may need little power to receive, what about transmissions? Would possibly thousands of 19 mbit/s transmissions floating around in the GHz band possibly have an increased detrimental effect on living things? Sure it's small, but would it be a factor at all?
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
You should write for the emmy-winning comedy, "Will and Grace"
Ok, 19 megabits per second is a little over 2 megabytes per second.
And your phone company charges you say 1 cent per megabyte (I wish!).
10 minutes (600 seconds) online could cost you $14.00
Why would anyone need 19megabits to a cell phone? In Slovakia cell phone users can watch live TV streams on their phones using "only" GPRS which is .1 megabit which is the first service of this kind in the world. Check out the URL to a http://media.a3boot.com/ta3/16102002/mobilvizia.as f . I dont see the need for 19 megabits. This cellphone would require an insane amount of storage to make this even remotely useful.
-Keep the Trolls out'-
How hard/costly/innefficient would it be to build a LAN out of this? If it is higher than 802.11b, wouldnt it be a better network? I am a kid, so just tell me if this was a stupid idea.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
The Warden, Cool Hand Luke
Just think of all the high-res detail you could squint at on the two inch screen. The greatest advancement since HDTV Watchmans.
Or maybe they're the sniper. Who can tell.
If the new stuff can only receive at such high speeds while still transmitting at low speeds, it's the old broadcast model again, with "producers" and "consumers" of content just like television. Phones were supposed to be so people could talk to each other, not have everyone receive the same stuff from AOL-TW. A fast one-way data phone is just another way for TV to follow us everywhere we go. From a human communications point of view, a device with 1 megabit send and receive is a heck of a lot more interesting than 8 kbps send, 20 megabits receive.
so my 16K SIM will be full in 0.007 seconds!
wow! I must quickly right a report reccomending my employers ditch all those expensive ATM WAN links and use cell phones - we'll have U's of rackage full of them! Hell we'll run the LANs off of them too - bits the crap out of 802.11b !
Wait! whats that strange bleeping sound? oh right - it's my bullshit detector...
"Power Consumption is low enough for cel phone type applications"
:)
;)
Only with CmdrTaco
On the other hand, acronymfinder lists CEL as possibly being "civilian employment level." In context, this would mean that business phones (as opposed to super-duper black-ops slashdot-effect proof military phones) would get this nifty tech.
So, while the possibility of this not being a spelling mistake exists, it is just not likely. Of course, I might just be led to believe that by the super-duper black-ops people who want to keep the existence of their phones, and the correspondingly nifty tech, out of public knowledge. In fact, I myself might be paid off by the military chaps. So take this whole post with a grain of salt
"Cel" is obviously a reference to cartoons.
so let's see...
if my cellphone provider charges me 1$ per megabyte like they do now for sms, that means (accounting for overhead) that i can accumulate charges of 1.90$ per minute!
i could get cheaper pr0n by calling a 900 number.
Note that the article only reports the ability to receive at 19 Mb/s. We still need the functionality to actually have a two way connection.
Transmitting at 19 Mb/s is quite a different task. According to Shannon (the mother of information theory) the power level required is proportional to the bitrate. This means that not only will such bitrates kill your battery - it will most likely also kill your brain.
Besides the 19 Mb/s was achieved in a lab environment. Having this technology work with varying radio conditions and handovers in a 200 km/h train is much more difficult.
For the next many years 3G will be a maximum of 144 kb/s when used in vehicles. For low mobility indoor situations 3G will give you much higher bitrates - but then wouldn't you rather be using 802.11a?
Back to digging up roads then...
Who uses 2.3mb/sec while browsing the internet?
Lets do the math.
320x240 (which is way better resolution than most full color screens) at 24 bit (RGB) is 230400 bytes at 10 f/s uncompressed video thats about 2.3mb/s. If you want to watch full color video at 320x480 on your phone for 10 minuites, then you deserve to pay $14
It's like he's not even trying. :)
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
A couple of points about this technique:
a.) I'd call this a 4G demonstration. Maximum data rates in the 3G specs/proposals (WCDMA, cdma2000, etc...) are much lower than 19 Mbps. e.g. 2-3 Mbps. e.g. By transmitting at 19 Mbps, they're not using WCDMA protocols.
b.) In a multiple Tx configuration, you're increasing the amount of interference. With 4 Tx antennas, the amount of interference seen by other users just went up by a factor of 4. This means your overall capacity just dropped by a factor of 4.
c.) Tranmitting at a higher data rate in WCDMA limits the number of other users you can have on the channel. You can only have a few users in a WCDMA cell transmitting at near maximum data rate.
FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
I keep reading the slashdot comments "What would I do with that on my phone?!".
/me waits for his wireless dsl to put the local telco out of business. :)
Really, the early adopters are public safety and large corporations. To them its worth the money to switch over to the 3G networks. The high speed and location based services are a very good combo for public safety.
Some of the things switching over to 3G data, ATMs, Point of Sale (CC readers), Vending machines, remote cameras, road survey equipment, police tracking equipement, cargo containers, etc.
After the early adopters, its consumer time.
What the hell would you be doing at the video store?
English is rather complex.
I rarely see lengthy documents any more without errors.
May we never see th
People tend to forget that sending out ACK packets upstream greatly effects the download speed of a connection. Asychronous connections with low upstreams often become saturated and drag down the downstream to unbearable levels.
In the UK a 'sensible' and 'affordable' pricing scheme sets the price for GPRS data at around 4UKP per Mb. (Cheaper if you buy a lot in advance). Most of the work involved in getting content to the phones is making sure as little data as possible is actually transmitted. This is to both make the access feel faster (works) and reduce the cost to the user (sorta works) or at least make the barefaced robbery a little less obvious.
19Mbit per second seems to me like I'd be sucking down a little over 2Mb/s (2 3/8) for a present cost of about 8UKP/s. Sheesh.
I can live with paying 5p per minute for GSM net access, perhaps with 3G for 20p p/m but it's stacking up to (non-sensationalist) about 400UKP/m. Even if I was willing to pay 40p p/m I am looking to massively debt-ridden companies to drop their data rate by 3 orders of magnitude... (I'm actually looking forwards to the arguments surrounding the relative pricing of data access on the networks...)
I realise the public won't stand for the extremes of pricing you get using that kind of math but I fear the pricing for these services are gonna remain on the high side of acceptable for a long time after they are available...
It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
How about a tilt/motion-sensor, like one of those 3D Virtual World setups?
I mean, who doesn't move their gamepads when they get excited?!
That would top out at around $1,425 per minute at current Sprint PCS "Vision" business rates...
Who needs 19 megabits? My penis has more bandwith then that http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=973934
8p
I went cell phone shopping this weekend and saw that the sprint plans generally included 2 megabytes, and $.02 /KB after that. At this speed you would finish the standard alotment in under a second, and then be paying $2,850 per minute after that.
The technology looks like: Take a data stream, split it into 4 streams, transmit them in separate channels, detect and re-assemble them in the same order. Isnt this something we already use in our download accelerator products? If not, how is this different?
"Do something man. Right now."
Which is why most latency-sensitive traffic (streaming audio/video) is sent over UDP... you don't have to worry about those ACKs.
Hell no, I want my pocket pc as fast as my 1.5 mbps cable connection so I can watch full broadband pr0n!
After Shawn incident, do you still believe in their claim. Wait till someone disproves their invention.
Why not just hook the goddamn cell phone up to your laptop, tardo?
a beowoulf cluster of these.....sorry, had to
-thanx4
See their web site. It may take a bit of time to figure it out.
honestly, i don't ever really believe anything unless its backed up by actual real life proof...sure theorhetically it can happen...but whats up with services like sprint pcs vision? i thought it was supposed to be nationwide 3G! at the very least its supposed be be like 56K...but honestly, it seems slower than their older network when i compare my phone browsing (sprint without vision) with my girlfriend's phone (who has vision).
yeah yeah yeah 19 mbits.
But how much bandwidth is consumed. how many simultaneous users can there be in a given cell?
Now I'll be able to download MP3's and movies to my phone in no time!!
... if they charge you per downloaded MB... like they do in Europe.
I hope we'll see the day when this is going to be implemented over here. (hopefully with a low cost per MB...)
This is relying on there being no-one else on earth using an EM emitting device (and Mother Nature being quiet too!), that you are sitting with your phone pressed up against the base station and your phone can handle lots and lots of data channels. WCDMA can do a theoretical 2Mb (if things are perfect), but that is broken up into data channels can do a maximum of 384Kb/s (and only a limited number of those per cell) Mere mortals will get about 128-160Kb/s.
BLAST has only been possible since a fundamental breakthrough by in 1996 by Foschini and friends. Foschini's work showed that the Shannon Law you learnt at Uni was not the full story. In fact, Shannon's Law can be written as a matrix equation and in the presence of multipath interference one effectively has a full capacity channel between each pair of antennae. 'N' Antennas at each end means 'N' times the capacity in the same bandwidth. Read Foschini's paper for a proper, quite readable, explanation:
G. J. Foschini, Layered Space-Time Architecture for Wireless Communication in a Fading Environment When Using Multiple Antennas , Bell Labs Technical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, Autumn 1996, pp 41-59.
Bell Lab's BLAST site also has more detail.
19 MBps ? Do really think that in a cell this capacity will _NOT_ be available for, say 100 people ?
.... not sure you'll have that !
Remember, 100 people x 20 MBps -> 4GHz band, thanks to shannon
Sorry. You could have a 19Mbit line, and yet it could be configured with time devision multiplexing in such a crazy way (This is an example) that you have to wait 60 seconds for each 5 second burst of data. Sure, you could transfer 5 * 19Mbit (95Mbit) in that burst, which is 1.58Mb/sec (Almost exactly a T1, in fact). So you'd have the bandwidth of a T1, with horrible latency. Streaming data would probably be fine (As long as you could cache all of that 95Mbit), but trying to do anything which is interactive wouldn't work.
TCP/IP on top of TCP/IP? Not really. What you'll find is that yes, there are lots of layers involved in your usual cell telecoms network. For (traditional) data, you would likely have:
1) Top layers from the OSI Model
2) TCP/IP
3) Air-Interface (E.g. TDMA, GSM, CDMA)
4) PDH (E.g. a T1 line from the base station controller to the BTS)
5) The data from that PDH link goes into a SONET network (SDH for us Europeans)
Then onto its destination where the reverse happens to a certain degree and we extract the original data.
So you have 5 layers at least, each of which has some overhead (Packet headers, framing, alignment, synchronisation, various network control data overheads).
Depending on what service you're using, your data may be taken out of the coms network at the PDH level and placed onto a seperate data network such as the Internet. However you may then find that the actual network your data is using is running TCP/IP over ATM over SONET anyway, so thats even more layers.
Telecoms networks are complicated things...
We've all seen it before, WAP - Internet on your mobile, yadda yadda... 3G - 2Mb to your phone. Telcos pay UKP 5bn each to get a license then discover that they can maybe, at most, get 128-256kbps to each phone.
This 19Mb figure is just another Hype generating figure to add a bit of spark to the ailing 3G industry. In reality, it may allow speeds up to 512kbps on your phone.
Oh yes, and I'm sure it'll push Lucent's stock a little higher appeasing the shareholders even more after the recent massive job cuts.
Paul.
i know this has been raised before, but it really is a pretty valid point...really, who needs 19Mbit downloads onto their PHONE? i peak out at about 5 at home, and that's more than enough for everything including video chats. now, what on earth am i going to do with four times the bandwidth onto a device that has maybe 2% of the functionality of my computer?
the only thing i can think of that this would be useful for with our current paradigm of cell phone size and esthetics is video chat, and even then i'd really rather not use the 2" screen of my phone as opposed to the 17" screen of my desktop. maybe if they come out with a palm/phone combo with a reasonably sized screen, and capabilities to use a 19Mbit connection then i might be interested...but until then, i'm perfectly happy with my old-fashioned trimode CDMA phone. hell, i can even get all the data downloads i want (email, news, scores) perfectly well on my phone.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
It's "cell phone" not "cel phone"
"cell" is a shortening of "cellular", which itself gets its name from the word "cell" - A cellular network comprises of a number of small cells with low-power base stations used to provide coverage rather than one extremely large high-power base station. (An example of that case - Police/fire/rescue squad VHF/UHF repeaters and amateur radio (ham) repeaters Many such systems operate at 14+ watts/channel as opposed to most CDMA systems operating around 200 mW/channel)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Ok all you morons, the point of this 19.2MBps stuff is not just to get that kind of speeds for a single handset. If you have multiple phones using this technique, you can get many many more handsets per cell. Think of it this way: given the number of channels in the system, you can have N many phones all running at 19.2MBps. As you add more phones, they interfere and you get lower speeds; with this scheme, you could add more phones before you get to the limit needed for transferring decent voice data. Alternatively, you could directly subdivide the newly created capacity into more channels using an appropriate coding scheme.
I wish we had something like 10 Gbps. I mean, even it had to use 120GHz frequency band, the actual bandwidth will be 17 Gbps, but too bad no one's doing that.
...with faster networking, does that mean we can make a beowulf cluster of these things?
*rimshot*
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Over at the Register
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
The problem ... is that we have run out of dinosaurs to form oil with.
Scientists working for the Department of Energy have tried to form oil using
other animals; they've piled thousands of tons of sand and Middle Eastern
countries on top of cows, raccoons, haddock, laboratory rats, etc., but so
far all they have managed to do is run up an enormous bulldozer-rental bill
and anger a lot of Middle Eastern persons. None of the animals turned into
oil, although most of the laboratory rats developed cancer.
-- Dave Barry, "Postpetroleum Guzzler"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...