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.
I can't even get 0.056 Mbit (i.e. 56K) on a COPPER WIRE between myself and the ISP.
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.?
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.
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!
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.
not nessacerialy true it all depends on what type of pages your serving and the webserver and ram (sorry i've3 been drinking )
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
think how much a 2inch screen would cost that supports higher hdtv resolutions, and how crisp and clear it would be, that is, if you can tell whether that's a person or just a blob
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
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...
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
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.
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?
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.
I suppose it could make sense in certain situations. 802.11a can supposedly give up to 72mbps by using the 5ghz spectrum. If you need wireless connectivity beyond 802.11(x) trasmission range, this might work. Mostly, I'd be concerned about latency more than bandwidth. Every noticed a fraction of a second delay while talking on a cell phone? That fraction is an eternity if you are a CPU. Lastly, allow me to kindly tell you to forget the "only a kid/stupid idea" apology stuff. We'd still be in the stone age if it weren't for kids coming up with brilliant ideas. Don't assume an idea is stupid, simply because stale old farts like me have some preconceived notions about how things are supposed to work. Never apologize for thinking.
-- Windows is not simply installed on a computer; it is inflicted.
That would top out at around $1,425 per minute at current Sprint PCS "Vision" business rates...
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?