Slashdot Mirror
Tomorrow's 5G Cell Phone
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to Mitre computer scientist Joseph Mitola, next-generation cell phones might be cognitive radios (CRs), or software radios learning from interaction with their users and acting in their best interest. InfoWorld talked with him about how his vision of "cognitive radio" would work, and how it could redefine cell phone technology. Mitola said his vision is still about five to 10 years from realization, but that it could mean a sea change as control is shifted from network operators to users. He also said that sending a 10 MB email in a zone where carrier charges are high might cause the CR to alert its user, and suggest waiting until getting to the office to use the LAN instead. Finally, he talked about serious issues like privacy and security. For example, he envisions that video recognition would allow CR cell phones to visually authenticate their owners. Check this column for selected Q&As or read the full InfoWorld's interview."
Do we really need all these extra functions on a mobile phone? I still use my phone mostly for calling only. It's still not sure if the next generation mobile phones (3G) will be successful. I think most of the people don't want all these gadgets.
Yay! It's another Slashdot story about cell phones! I can't wait to see a bunch of posts from Americans saying "Do we REALLY NEED all these USELESS FEATURES on our PHONES?"
What is it about these people? Don't they realize that they, personally, are not being forced to use any of these cool features?
Bah.
Personally, I want the coolest damn phone in the world. I want it to play MPEGs, have a high-resolution color--what the hell, 3D--display, Dolby Digital surround sound, a karaoke machine, and a bicycle. I want to be able to program my phone in Java, C++, Ruby, O'Caml, Lisp, and COBOL. I want my phone to be more powerful than my computer. I want to play Quake on my phone. I want it to be a PDA, a Walkman, a camera, an eBook reader, anything they can fit in.
And I want to punch the next guy who whines "Who NEEDS ALL THESE FEATURES on a PHONE?" in the face.
Quote: A cognitive radio would pop up and say, 'Hey, you're only 10 minutes from work, and the enterprise LAN is free. How about if I hold off on the attachment until I get to work?'
Somehow I doubt service providers will be quick to pick up devices that automatically minimize charges to the user. Since when have service providers acted in the interest of the user? They make the money by catching people out in the details of the plan - night/day minutes, overages, roaming, 1 minute minimums, etc. If the devices get smarter, the networks will have to become more clever about billing:
Phone: If he finishes the call in under 5 minutes he'll only be using his free minutes! I'd better tell him...
Network: Shut up! It sounds like his girlfriend is mad at him; he'll need at least another 10 to patch things up...
Phone: Maybe if I play this sweet music in the background they'll get through it faster!
Network: Don't you dare, or I'll drop the S/N ratio until they can't hear above the static!
Have you seen my stapler?
Not to be negative; visions of the future are always interesting, but there are so many problems with this idea.
It's solving some problems that don't exist, for example. Does Mitola really think that five or ten years out there will be 3G access that costs $1/minute? I wireless access will be next to free in most urban environments (in his example the setting is a subway). And $1/minute is not next to free, even if inflation kicks in.
Heart monitors... does he mean pacemakers? One problem with upgrading them is the installation can be a bit inconvenient.
Police using a cognitive radio system? Most police already have radio systems. These systems have multi-decade life spans, and take many years to roll out. So there's another installed base problem there.
And do we need a cognitive model and actual user interaction when higher voice quality is needed? If designers really want to give users access to that knob, it might be more simple to make it just an up-front option when the call is placed.
Another problem is a lot of the analysis assumes the current world of artificial wireless bandwidth scarcity and high prices. But that could change. Mesh networks could allow devices to create their own wireless infrastructure, with no access charges, obviating fancy tricks for saving money.
Then there's the face recognition for authentication scenario, where the user is wounded on the battlefield. What happens when the user is in the dark, in a dust storm, has hypothermia so the temperature sensor (required so a photo can not be used) doesn't work, or when the user is wearing cold weather gear that covers the face? A good way to determine if a concept is effectively useless is to ask yourself: how many times a year is this scenario going to happen to the average user? If the answer is less than 1, don't count on seeing that concept in any products any time soon. "Imagine you're an african american police officer and your partner is irish, and you are being held hostage in the back seat of your patrol car and you can see your phone through the rear view mirror... the criminal leaves the car for a minute, but the good guys don't know that because it happens to be a foggy day... now in this exact scenario, xyz technology will save the day!" This scenario fails the test of usefulness, because this situation simply does not happen that often.
Now if Mitola wants to solve a -real- problem of wireless device users, like how to convert any music to a ringtone and download it free to -any- phone, in reality (no links please; they are all vaporware... did you notice the word ANY?) then he might have something. But in the meantime he seems like a guy with a hammer trying to find a nail.