Slashdot Mirror


Linux Powers First Handheld Software Radio

An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at LinuxDevices.com, Vanu Technology is demonstrating what it claims represents the world's first handheld 'software radio' using an iPAQ PDA running Linux at a conference in Washington DC today. Vanu apparently has implemented the signal processing functions on the iPAQ's XScale processor, and their software uses POSIX APIs to make it platform independent. Software radios implement multiple radio standards and frequency bands in software, rather than hardware. A standard iPAQ expansion pack houses the radio transceiver."

161 comments

  1. w00t by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0, Funny

    Linux, radio, and my PDA. That rocks (or it would if I had a PDA). Anyone know about cheap PCI radio tuner cards? I'm itching to listen to the radio on my comp. :)

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:w00t by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention it has to be Linux compatible. :-p

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:w00t by jsse · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you've read the article, it's not just an reinvention of wheel:

      According to Vanu, unlike traditional hardware radios, which are limited to one specific type of communication service, "software radio" technology enables a single wireless device to implement multiple radio standards and frequency bands, thus eliminating the ened for multiple hardware radios when communication with multiple radio services is required.

      Check the local hardware shop. A hardware with comparable functionalities is very expensive. I'm sure the manufacturer has targeted this specific market segment correctly.

      Compare it with a home-use radio is just like comparing a professional camera with an instant-camera.

    3. Re:w00t by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      sweet!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  2. So when can I get it for my Zaurus SL-5600? by gschwim · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    This would add even more value to the already wonderful Z.

    1. Re:So when can I get it for my Zaurus SL-5600? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have a CF card out that has a am/fm radio for pda's that has software for the zaurus.

      and I am with you... the Z is a much better designed and overall machine than the ipaq can ever hope to be.

    2. Re:So when can I get it for my Zaurus SL-5600? by aqua_chigger · · Score: 1

      No doubt. My iPAQ comes with Pocket Windows and freezes up all the time. I mean, you really have to start from scratch every time that happens. Not all that useful...I see that the submission article about the software radio also had links for getting linux to run on your iPAQ. Me thinks the iPAQ may become Linux based this weekend... Anyone else do this here at /.?

    3. Re:So when can I get it for my Zaurus SL-5600? by class_A · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact I bought a used 3630 through eBay just for this purpose! Get over to Handhelds.org for info and browse the mailing list archives whilst you're there.

  3. Call me old fashioned... by craenor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I think transistors have been handling that whole portable radio thing just fine without Linux to help them. Sorry.

    1. Re:Call me old fashioned... by Mattwolf7 · · Score: 1

      I am assuming that this is useful as a Pocket Radio? err... scratch that look at the size of that bad boy! Maybe it is just another "we can do it so why not" kind of thing.

    2. Re:Call me old fashioned... by swtaarrs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And transistors/other solid state analog circuits are considerably more stable than Linux, or any operating system for that matter.

    3. Re:Call me old fashioned... by seann · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't be sorry that you're an elitist mother fucker. :)

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    4. Re:Call me old fashioned... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the benefits of software defined radio is that you can tune in any number of channels simultaneously...

      This would have many uses in the high-end radio communication field. Although I'm not sure anyone really needs a handheld version...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Call me old fashioned... by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and what do we need color TV's for anyway? We all dream in black and white...right?

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    6. Re:Call me old fashioned... by YellowElectricRat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're looking at this from the wrong level - this thing still has all the hardware to receive RF, the funky thing is that the radio demodulation/modulation et al is programmable. At the band's this is running at, it's not so interesting, but once you get up to 900MHz (and later at 2.4GHz+), you essentially have a device that can communicate with any RF device on its supported bands.

      What this means (in the future, with 2.4GHz+ capable devices) is that one device (be it your PDA, mobile phone, PCMCIA card) can be a GSM phone, can be a CDMA phone, can be a 3G phone, can be a CB/commercial/police radio receiver, it could even be used for 802.11b or Bluetooth. The possibilities for software radio are mind boggling. Linux is really irrelevant in the scheme of things, it's essentially just used to bolt the stuff together - it's the underlying technology that is impressive.

    7. Re:Call me old fashioned... by trenton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm pinning my hopes on software to revolutionize the entire wireless industry. And by entire, I mean anything with a processing unit and transceiver.

      For example, with software radio, cell phone manufacturers can make the guts of one phone and sell it in every market in the world. Equipment providers can make one cell phone tower, and use it everywhere. Wanna upgrade to a new standard? No problem. Distribute new software to the handsets and base stations and you're done. Imagine being able to roll out a new protocol to take advantage of just-made-available spectrum instantly.

      Your one cell phone could act as a wireless ethernet adaptor, a bluetooth adaptor, an FM radio, an AM radio, a VHF radio, whatever! The promise of this technology is incredible.

      --
      Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
    8. Re:Call me old fashioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Linux is really irrelevant"

      Dear God man!!!!! This is slashdot, remember?

    9. Re:Call me old fashioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the engineering prototype. This is what is being demo'ed.

    10. Re:Call me old fashioned... by afidel · · Score: 4, Funny

      The possibilities for software radio are mind boggling.

      And the short length of time your batteries will last will boggle the mind even more. Using a general purpose CPU to do all of that comm stuff would use many times more power then dedicated ASIC's. To find out how much this would suck, insert an 802.11b card into the PC Card sleeve on an iPaq, do a constant ping, and run an app that utilized 100% cpu.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Call me old fashioned... by GoRK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Erm.. No. That's not technically true.

      Although one of the little whiz-bang demos of software radio generally involves tuning two FM radio stations or something at the same time, there's nothing particularly unique about a software-defined radio that makes it possible. Couple the right wideband receiver with the right circuts to do some off-center modulation and you could build an analog radio that would tune a couple stations at the same time too.

      It's simply a question of how much bandwidth you can tune simeotaneously, how much bandwidth each component signal occupies, and the wideband rx having enough definition to clearly modulate a signal that it is not directly tuned to receive.

      Some of these issues are really going to be stickers with bringing software-defined radios to the general market on a large scale. Yes, in theory a software defined radio might be able to tune AM, FM, HDTV, 802.11b and every cellular protocol ever, but actually producing the analog part that could do the RF job for that software radio would be a real trick indeed! The radio in this article, for instance, only does 100-400MHz or so.

      Let's get some good software-defined antennas going here (Phased Gate Array antennas have some good promise here), and perhaps some software-defined RF electronics (think the analog equivalent of an FPGA) and then we'll really be in business for this software-defined junk!

      ~GoRK

    12. Re:Call me old fashioned... by k_stamour · · Score: 1

      "Linux is really irrelevant in the scheme of things, it's essentially just used to bolt the stuff together" Ugg I am such a tool....

      --
      Julius Caesar - Act I, Scene i: "What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow!"
    13. Re:Call me old fashioned... by shepd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but don't forget that in the US those transistors were banned from letting you listen to cell networks.

      I doubt that's likely to happen with a software radio (being that it would be hacked within minutes). Free airwaves for all, again! :-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    14. Re:Call me old fashioned... by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and a PLD wireless transciever to reach those higher frequencies would be even more fun.
      But I think your casual dismissal of the relevance of open source is misguided. In a closed source environment where a single vendor controls vast swaths of the market, there's little incentive to innovate in disruptive ways. This is a disruptive technology as it would potentially make many incompatible pieces of equipment irrelevant. While it could technically have been done in any language I would not say that open source is irrelevant to this project.

    15. Re:Call me old fashioned... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      And the acubus has been handling calculations just fine. A software radio is not your fathers transistor radio.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    16. Re:Call me old fashioned... by amorsen · · Score: 2, Informative
      To quote the PDF:

      The RF-to-digital block is implemented as a card that covers the frequency range from 30 MHz to 2.5Gz
      Later:
      The RF card contains several antenna ports. The active port can be selected through software to enable use of different antennas for different bands, or multiple can be activated for applications that exploit diversity.
      It seems that they have the analog part pretty much handled.
      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    17. Re:Call me old fashioned... by whitehat · · Score: 1

      That is a FEATURE..... weight loss walking around with a 25 pound Die Hard hanging off your belt...

      Also, wonder how good the scanning ability will be to wiretap phones from the park bench... 300 foot range?

    18. Re:Call me old fashioned... by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

      It can do 30Mhz to 2.5Ghz center frequency, and then sideband from that center up to a couple Mhz.

      This means you cannot simultaneously recieve from 30Mhz band and 2.5Ghz band.

  4. Re:The Cheap Alternative to Subscribing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you are using Mozilla, you are better of using a custom CSS stylesheet, with selectors to match the banner size and make the images hidden. This has the advantage of blocking all banners on all sites - plus it can be used to do a lot more too. Much better than a javascript hack.

  5. does it do DAB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have wanted a DAB radio, which are now becoming available in Canada.

    1. Re:does it do DAB? by BigBadBri · · Score: 1, Interesting
      It doesn't look like it from the specs, and with 22% CPU utilisation just for FM reception, I doubt that a PDA has the guts to perform the DAB decoding in anything like real time.

      Besides, £100 gets you a pretty capable DAB receiver here in the UK (if you're lucky enough to find one in stock), and I'd guess that the add-on card for the PDA costs at least that much.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Cost by Echelon309 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This looks really cool, but it seems that the cost will be prohibitive for people who just want to listen to the radio. As the article mentions, the ability to operate on many different formats is probably more geared towards industry uses. Oh, and of course it will save lives because emergency response teams will be able to communicate better ;)

  8. irony by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We developed compressed audio formats to combat the mindless crap that makes it onto the radio.

    Now we are using a processor with many million transistors to take the place of a single transistor radio. Anyways, this is a cool accomplishment, with or without a practical application.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:irony by ocelotbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but therein lies the rub. this does have useful applications; it's a transceiver, not just a receiver. Thus, you can use this as a packet modem/whatever. Think long range wireless and the like; it'll be a toy for most at first until someone plays with it enough to use everything a good wireless connection can provide.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:irony by evilviper · · Score: 1

      With this, you could broadcast/recieve raw Ogg streams, be them video, audio, text, images, whatever.

      You could over simplify just about anything. "We went from satellite, to cable, back to satellite." The differences are more numerous than the similarities...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  9. One of the concerns by Froze · · Score: 5, Interesting

    of software radio is the ability to modify the code and tromp all over someone elses legally protected frequency range. Some of the big nonos include sending on ATC (air traffic controll) frequencies and numerous other military and civil service bands.

    Someone corect me if I am wrong, but couldn't the transceiver be built with hardware filters on those bands and thus sidestep the issue of broadcast interference? I know this is not as nice as having a fully programmable software radio transmitter, but otherwise I really don't see the FCC granting any kind of production licensing for these.

    Anyone else have solutions to this dilemma?

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    1. Re:One of the concerns by Zeebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... Anyone else have solutions to this dilemma?

      I sure do, off-shore production and smuggling operation. If I want to wreak havoc and chaos it is my god given consitiutionally protected right to do so.

      Ahem... Excuse me, what I ment to say was that it's only a tool. You know guns don't have special attachments on their sights so you can only shoot in-season game. Hold the user responsible, not the maker or the tool.

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    2. Re:One of the concerns by cscx · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true libertarian :)

    3. Re:One of the concerns by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      "Radios that disrupt Air Traffic Control and ILS signals don't kill people, people kill people."

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    4. Re:One of the concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are plenty of radios able to operate on any frequency which you can name. In the case of ATC, not only are there plenty of aircraft radios around, but many transcievers can easily be modified for such frequencies. Although another way to disrupt operations is to just drive a truck through the antenna tower (no explosives needed).

      The universe has not protected any frequencies.

    5. Re:One of the concerns by Froze · · Score: 1

      Me thinks your analogy to guns is a little skewed.

      First of all, I have never seen a gun that was designed to shoot only one type of target or a narrow range of targets, ala todays hardware dependent frequency generators for transmittors.

      Second, if such guns had existed, do you really think that we would have the freedom to use them the way we do now? I mean seriously, no manufacturer would design the weapon to shoot month old babys, right?

      Just a little food for thought. FYI, I don't condone restriction of freedoms. But along the lines of free speech amendment, just because you have the right to say (transmit) what ever you want, doesn't force other to listen (receive). With that in mind, radio receivers are not currently smart enought to have selective "hearing" so in light of not forcing everyone to have to listen to your bable you should be restrained from babling in our ears.

      --
      -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    6. Re:One of the concerns by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      I don't see this being a dilemma. The folks who know how to stomp on restricted frequencies should know not to, and if they don't, they'll get busted.

      One of the huge benifits of software radio is that we no longer need restricted bands. The infrastructure we have in place will take a while to adjust to this, of course, but it will happen, and then this will not be a problem.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    7. Re:One of the concerns by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Someone corect me if I am wrong, but couldn't the transceiver be built with hardware filters on those bands and thus sidestep the issue of broadcast interference? I know this is not as nice as having a fully programmable software radio transmitter, but otherwise I really don't see the FCC granting any kind of production licensing for these."

      Translated:

      This is really cool. Can't we cripple it to protect existing interests?

    8. Re:One of the concerns by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      Someone knowledgeable about the inner workings of radio could put together a rig that could transmit on any frequency he wished, using cheap off the shelf electronics components. I'm pretty sure you can get schematics online too. It's not really a new problem that software radio introduces, it just makes it a bit easier to achieve the same thing.

    9. Re:One of the concerns by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Arsehole. Anyone with the tiniest amount of electronics knowledge could build a very simple radio transmitter which will trample all over any band you care to name. A hint though - much higher than 400MHz is hard to make yourself without going to special techniques like stripline and the like.

    10. Re:One of the concerns by excessive · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? A standard radio could easily be modified to tromp all over the bands and while the software one can crash, the hardware one could have its joints dry out changing the frequency... GSM phones typically use a software radio, anyway...

    11. Re:One of the concerns by excessive · · Score: 1

      a la' here (GSM soft radio...)

    12. Re:One of the concerns by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "I have never seen a gun that was designed to shoot only one type of target or a narrow range of targets"

      I have.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    13. Re:One of the concerns by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      ahem, except there are hunting guns and made-for-war-assault-weapons. Its pretty much those assault weapons people have a beef with -- there sole purpose is to kill people, not game.

      The Anti-Gun Crowd (of which I am one) (mostly) *do* recognize the difference. Here's my proposal: Ban assault weapons/hand-guns. Register/Restrict (like, you cant buy them without waiting period, felons cannot purchse) distributuion of hunting weapons. 200 years from now, all the weapons currently in posession of the criminals (who I understand will *not* follow these laws - *they are* criminals) will be ill functioning/antiquated and people who's only intent is to use a weapon lawfully will be free to do so. Weapons meant to be used in crimes will be *much* more difficult to obtain.

      This is how the problem is approached virtually everywhere but the US (and it works)... dont even make me get into the poor understanding people have of your 14th :) that can wait for another day...

    14. Re:One of the concerns by PD · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cool. A nail gun that doesn't need either an air compressor, an extension cord, or a battery.

    15. Re:One of the concerns by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      I can just as easily kill you with a 200 year old black powder flintlock as a modern AR-15. In fact the damage from that 200 year old weapon will be far more devastating then the .223 round. Or if you like a 14th century crossbow, Roman spear or the jawbone of an ass , so whats your point? For every argument against fire arms I can give you just as logical an argument against fists, beer, concrete blocks, rope, cars, gasoline, tree limbs, nitrogen fertilizer, kitchen knives, money, pointy sticks, bottles, trucks, junk food, cigarettes, rocks (large and small), fire pokers, 2x4 lumber, height places, duct tape, plastic bags, most psychotropic drugs, feel good politically correct prison sentences, propane tanks, fire axes, hammers, lighter fluid, wine, hard alcohol, natural gas, gas ranges and water heaters, electricity, toasters, wire ( all types larger the 18g ), all police non-lethal weapons, car crushers, large dogs, trophies, lamps, vases, some chairs, bridges, water, recycled plastics grinders, wood chippers, most sharp wood working tools, self expanding foam sealant in a can, rat poison, bleach and ammonia, yadda yadda yadda. If some one lashes out with evil in their heart nothing you do can stop them from hurting or killing someone else. There is no way for you to make me safe, I am responsible for me. My only hope is that society sees to the punishment and if appropriate the removal from society the one that hurts/kills me. Accepted social behavior is taught not controlled, teach shit (turn on your TV or try public school) and you get shit, force control and you get a fight because that is what you have taught and inherited. P.S. Everyone wishing to argue needs to take a few college logic classes and stick to them honestly, something the left fails to do.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  10. Tungsten T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know if this runs on 'the T' ?

  11. But.... by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but does it run Li... ...oh, never mind....

    --
    Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
  12. PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I second that question, I'd really like a radio receiving card for my computer.

    I looked a bit, but could not find any PCI card that could pick up AM radio!! What's with that?

    Does anyone have one that can point me in the right direction?

  13. So instead of winmodem by joeflies · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    is this gonna be called "linradio"?

  14. Transceiver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means I can not only LISTEN to the radio, but also start my own illegal/pirate station? (transceiver = transmitter and receiver. I would really expect it to be only a receiver).

    Wouter.

    1. Re:Transceiver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can just go to Radio Shack and get a simple FM transmitter. Duh.

    2. Re:Transceiver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would really expect it to be only a receiver.

      You've misunderstood the type of radio here. It has a transmitter so it can be used as a walkie-talkie or a cell-phone, which use the radio frequency spectrum although they are not "radios" in the layman's use of the term. The transmission power can be very small because it only needs to reach a base station which has a huge recieving antenna, or another walkie-talkie within a normal walkie-talkie range. There is no indication in the article that the tiny transmitting antenna could generate a useful pirate radio station signal.

      Besides, it is trivially easy to set up a pirate FM transmitter with readily available parts. This gives no obvious advantage for that application.

  15. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by z84976 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You really don't want to try to get AM inside a computer. It's so full of nasty EMI you'll just get a head full of static and pops and buzzes.

  16. Is it a real "plus" ? by chrispy666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless the software solution offers significant improvements/advantages (like super fine tuning, rms, ta, like the stuff on the car audio tuners) and catching international radio stations, I just don't really see the point of having linux in something that works great as it is already (i.e., the old fashioned way)...

    --
    Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
    1. Re:Is it a real "plus" ? by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

      significant improvements/advantages (like super fine tuning, rms, ta, like the stuff on the car audio tuners)

      Lets not get carried away. Theres NO way Stallman will fit in the box.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Is it a real "plus" ? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless the software solution offers significant improvements/advantages (like super fine tuning, rms, ta, like the stuff on the car audio tuners) and catching international radio stations

      The advantage is that someone can post code on the internet for things like super fine tuning, rms, ta, or catching international stations. Then you just download it and BAM, you have a radio with that feature.

      You can download cellphone code, or beeper code, or video-cellphone code, or SMS, or GPS, or a radio controller for that toy remote-control car you have.

      The REAL advantage is that you'll be able to download stuff that hasn't even been invented yet.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. reminds me of my old heath kit by Gizzmonic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Still available! I can't believe that people can still be ham radio dorks in 2003...God bless geeks and their intractibility!

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  18. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bah! Sheilding is very very easy. How many people here have PCI TV-Tuner cards that also recieve FM? A whole $0.05 of tin to sheild the analog parts of the system, and everything is fine.

    That's the one redeeming quality of computers over every other electronic device, at least they are adequately sheilded. You will probably get more interference from your TV set than you computer.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care if I have to hook it up to some long antenna or something...

  21. Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by flyneye · · Score: 2, Funny

    radios in software......instead of hardware....*scratches head*
    so listening in on cop band and other unautorized channels could be a few lines of code away then...
    nah too f***ing good to be true.some biatch with a herfgun come along and take it out anyway*continues daydreaming*

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      The first thing that crossed my mind was that this would be superb for listening to "unauthorized" frequencies.

      Too bad all the fun stuff (phones, cops, etc.) are mostly digital now.

    2. Re:Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      oh...we were just discussing cops and military using tube radios in the HERFgun article earlier,because they tend to continue to work in case of national emergencies such as nuke attack(the E.M. field wont take em out like solid state electronics.)well heck ,if it is software maybe someone will make a patch and we can listen to information being freed.LOL

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      When I was in the Army, I was a radio operator for a "special weapons" unit. We had old, tube type radios as backup for our high tech digital satellite terminals.

      Yeah, software will allow listening on any freq, but who cares if all you hear is digital white noise...

    4. Re:Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      well maybe software scanners for software radios would keep the action happenin.

      kinda figured tubes were still there.AFAIK EM pulses are the reason.y,know,just in case you need to call for help as the radiation cooks the flesh from your bones.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:Hmmmm....so does this mean..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...That the "cop band" radios will have strong encrytion, so you'll never hear a peep out of 'em. Now the DCMA can be used to club anybody who dares to offer the decryption device/code. If you thought the "trunked" radios made scanners harder to build, you ain't seen 'nuthin yet!

  22. CF version? by Derg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Is there the possibility of turning what currently fits into a iPaq addon into a CF card? That, imho, would be a really killer device..

    just a poor geeks dream...

    --
    I'm a little tea pot.
    1. Re:CF version? by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      iPaQ addons are CompactFlash...

      unless i'm way out of the loop :)

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
    2. Re:CF version? by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      No this uses the huge sleeve addon for the iPaq, it's about 3/4 as thick as the iPaq and the same in all of the other dimensions.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:CF version? by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      Just as i suspected. I *am* out of the loop. oh well. *fidgets with his Zaurus*

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  23. Expansion pack by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't it just a pcmcia interface? So potentially this item could be reproduced for a laptop computer?

    1. Re:Expansion pack by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well the current prototype is the size of the entire PC-Card sleeve for the iPaq so I don't think it's quite ready for even Type 3 PC Card form factor.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  24. Yup :-) by sonamchauhan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny you say that... http://www.linradio.com/

    This is a software-defined-radio PCI card.

    1. Re:Yup :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this is only the receiver part. It get's funny once you have the transmitter, too. Then you can do some cool research stuff...

      ineiti

  25. Get with it, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy cheeses, man, who the hell wants to listen to a $5 transistor radio when you can hear the same thing on $1500 worth of uber-geek gear?

  26. here's the press release by CowBovNeal · · Score: 1

    Customized iPAQ promising as public safety and homeland defense interoperability solution

    Washington, DC - May 12, 2003 - Vanu, Inc. is demonstrating the first hand-held software radio device today at the "Wireless Innovations: New Technologies and Evolving Policies" Showcase in Washington, DC. The event, hosted by the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the FCC and the U.S. Department of State's International Communications and Information Policy group, brings together premier wireless technology demonstrations and facilitates policy discussions about the state of technology and innovation in the wireless telecommunications industry.

    Vanu, Inc., selected by show organizers as a "leading edge" participant, is a developer of software radios. Unlike traditional hardware radios, which are limited to one specific type of communication service, software radios allow a single wireless device to provide multiple services. This means one software radio can now support a range of capabilities that previously required multiple hardware radios.

    Featured among Vanu, Inc.'s demonstrations is the first hand-held software radio using general purpose processors. "This device is the culmination of nine years of software radio research, coupled with the advancements in processing power promised by Moore's Law," says Dr. Vanu Bose, founder and CEO of Vanu, Inc.

    The standard off-the-shelf Hewlett-Packard iPAQ, runs on a Xscale processor from Intel and a Linux operating system. The radio transceiver operates from 100 MHz to 475 MHz and is housed in a standard iPAQ expansion pack. The iPAQ utilizes Vanu Software RadioTM to implement all of the signal processing. The current configuration of the device supports commercial analog FM radio service, including Family Band Radio, as well as the public safety APCO 25 digital standard. Future prototypes under development include operational capabilities of up to 900 MHz and support for cellular and PCS standards such as TDMA and GSM.

    Such a device has great appeal in the public safety community, where decentralized purchasing decisions, legacy systems and advancements in technology have left first responders unable to communicate with other agencies at an emergency scene. A handheld software radio with the capability of operating among several standards and frequencies alleviates the communications problems caused by incompatible radio systems.

    "Someday, most public safety radios will be software-based," said David Coursey, executive editor of ZDNet AnchorDesk, an online technology newsletter. "Making the best use of spectrum while improving compatibility and multi-agency connectivity are problems that software radios seem best-suited to solve. Vanu, Inc. is way ahead of this curve."

    "I want this kind of technology for my own emergency communications work," added Mr. Coursey, who also has nearly 20 years' experience working with emergency services agencies.

    In addition to the hand-held software radio, Vanu, Inc. is also demonstrating their software radio GSM basestation and a multi-mode laptop system with the ability to support multiple standards on a single system. The second day of the event features a roundtable on Unlicensed Wireless Technologies. Dr. Bose is participating as a panelist for the Spectrum Policy and Regulatory Issues discussion, along with business leaders, policy makers and experts from industry, government and academia.

    About Vanu, Inc.
    Vanu, Inc. has revolutionized SDR through the development of Vanu Software Radio. Their approach applies modern software engineering techniques to the high-speed signal processing elements at the core of wireless devices to create portable software radio applications that will greatly increase the pace of innovation in wireless devices. Vanu, Inc. licenses software radio components and applications and provides design-consulting services to wireless OEMs, system integrators and service providers. Vanu, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Vanu Software Radio(TM) is a registered trademark of Vanu, Inc.

    All other names and trademarks are registered property of their respective companies

    --
    Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Software-defined radio ain't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just junked 3 cabinets full of 10-year-old SDRs. Each rack had an i960 card that controlled a half dozen "radio" cards that were full of old TI DSP chips.

  29. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by sixdotoh · · Score: 2, Informative
    ham radio is still alive and kicking, i believe, although obviously not with the same popularity. i have at least 1 friend, and another online friend, that are into ham radio.

    thanks for a new vocab word too ;)

    --

    This post was brought to you by the number 584811 and the characters / and .

  30. not just an fm receiver... by KingJeremyTheWicked_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone else got it right. This is more like being able to configure a particular device to do any wireless standard without requiring custom RF hardware, ASICs, and DSPs to do the signal processing and modulation/demodulation for each technology it handles. All the protocols and such (if we're talking about something like a GSM/TDMA/CDMA phone) would already be handled in software anyway. It's the low layer h/w receiver, transmitter, and signal processing (i.e. radio) stuff that's expensive to design and build and fit into portable devices. It sounds like this is their reference design and probably their intention is to try and license this technology to PDA and mobile phone makers.

    1. Re:not just an fm receiver... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Parent got it right; please mod him up!
      This is more like being able to configure a particular device to do any wireless standard without requiring custom RF hardware, ASICs, and DSPs to do the signal processing and modulation/demodulation for each technology it handles.
      The win is that with new software ONLY, the device can implement additional protocols (two-way radio, cellular phone, blackberry, wireless data services, etc.) and switch between them at the user's discretion.

      The press release gave some examples... "...the public safety APCO 25 digital standard. Future prototypes under development include operational capabilities of up to 900 MHz and support for cellular and PCS standards such as TDMA and GSM."

  31. Re:second post by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    YOU FAIL IT!

  32. Cool no more transistor radio needed by nzyank · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now instead of $5 for a transistor radio I can get a really cool one for $500. Technology rocks.

  33. next privacy issue? by torre · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What exists to stop this from becoming the next supper scanner?...

    The current configuration of the device is said to support commercial analog FM radio services, including Family Band Radio as well as the public safety APCO 25 digital standard, with future prototypes under development that will include operational capabilities of up to 900 MHz and support for cellular and PCS standards such as TDMA and GSM.

    With such a huge frequency range under its belt and the fact that it's all process via software all it needs is some voice recognition software and it could become the ultimate scanner/big brother toy. Simply put, you enter a few key words, and it scans the airways for you looking for them until it finds them and either logs it or tunes you into it. The NSA has had stuff like this for listening in on international call, but I don't know if I like the idea of my neighbour being able to selectively listen in on my calls especially with such power...

    me->Hi I'd like to buy blah
    staff-> will that be Visa or MasterCard
    me-> Visa...
    person with smart scanner->Chaching!

    1. Re:next privacy issue? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe technology will force people who broadcast their voice all over the known universe to realize that they are broadcasting their voice all over the known universe. Anybody with $0.30 in their pockets can order the parts necessary to eavesdrop on your phone call with hardware. Why is it scarier that you can do it in software?

    2. Re:next privacy issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exists to stop this from becoming the next supper scanner?

      The cell phone companies are supposed to be encrypting the digital packets for modern cellular protocols. All the phones have the technical capability, the companies are just too cheap to enable it. Perhaps it makes theer basestation hardware more expensive? Now if the basestation used software radio...

    3. Re:next privacy issue? by torre · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Anybody with $0.30 in their pockets can order the parts necessary to eavesdrop on your phone call with hardware. Why is it scarier that you can do it in software?"

      First off I'd like to see you make a pcs decoder for $0.30 seeing that its a digital signal.

      Secondly, its not scarier in software per say... but rather the automation that can be done. Just like spammers can send out millions of emails each night with a few machines hooked up to the net, so too can this make it too easy to use. With just a few scanners automatically looking over the 49 Mhz (old cordless), 900 Mhz cordless, 800Mhz cell phones, PCS standard frequencies such as TDMA and GSM and any other private band increases the odds of finding something... Now mount this into a truck and drive it into a residential location or a really busy business location and poof.. with a twenty of these little babies with voice recognition aided scanning they could easily scan airwaves looking for potential targets... Its bad enough one person may be able to listen in... Its another once things get automated. You run a much bigger chance of being on the receiving end of privacy invasion.

      To drive my point in... say these things (all numbers are fictitious to illustrate point) end up costing 40 bux in parts each. Now, somebody with a clue with the potential adds keyword voice recognition scanning (which includes a vast amount of freely available information to aid this just like the link I posted in my post) to the software so they can listen in and start recording once they find a specific keyword.

      Now the scary part..
      A typical $1000 PC say can handle 10 of them per machine...that's $1400 to scan 10 channels at a time. You add 10 PC in the back of truck for 14000 and you can scan 100 channels at time for useful information... if there's nothing on a particular channel say somebody hung up, it could always hunt for open channels... So they guy with this truck parked on the street in the middle of wall street drinking his latté now has all the inside trading information that he wants and retires with such a small investment.

      Technology is a great thing... but with such power the old saying applies. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    4. Re:next privacy issue? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude I can't get voice recognition to work reliably when fed by a voice cancelling headphone on a 1.2Ghz machine and a couple hours of training, why do you think you would be able to track tons of CMDA signals (this is not trivial due to the way CDMA works), decode the audio or random voices, and process it with voice recognition software? It would cost a lot more than $14K to do this over 100 channels. Now targeted scanning could be a problem, but then maybe I can get my freaking cellular provider to turn on basic GSM encryption (phone supports it but none of the cell sites in the US do AFAIK).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:next privacy issue? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Doh, that of course should read noise cancelling headset, maybe 3am is too late to post....

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:next privacy issue? by makapuf · · Score: 1

      Of course, frequency Hopping & CDMA techniques were made to prevent this at the beginning (jump frequently eg 1000 times/s from a frequency to another).

      Besides, GSM was implemnted properly and the channel is considered open to eavesdropping. So all communications are cyphered with a session key, negociated with the network.

    7. Re:next privacy issue? by torre · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Dude I can't get voice recognition to work reliably when fed by a voice cancelling headphone on a 1.2Ghz machine and a couple hours of training,..."

      Funny.... I've had reliable keyword recognition since way back in '95 via my P133 and IBM via voice on OS/2 and the Mwave dsp addon board. Keyword isn't that big of a deal (relatively that is) if your selected vocabulary is relatively small. Keyword voice recognition is an almost solved problem and is used often from automated phone systems with amazing accuracy given poor signal quality. The automated collect call system's come to mind as a simple example. I have seen more complicated systems in work which are currently in research and some of the toolkits are open sourced if I'm not mistaken (would have to check to be sure)

      As for difficulty.... that's not difficult at all seeing that the goal of the project is to ultimately provide that functionality.

      from they're website
      "IS-136, IS-95, GSM
      A complete cell phone implementation"

      All some interested party has to do is take they're freely available cell phone friendly code when it comes up make some modifications so that the signal is piped through a keyword recognizer instead of the speakers and poof... Its not as hard as you claim when sooo many people are willing to give you what you need.

      "It would cost a lot more than $14K to do this over 100 channels."

      As for cost, first of all I was using fictitious numbers as I stated... but seeing that you've brought up cost as unrealistic... I'll bring more realistic number and now overestimate. First, the paper associated with the article states that a dual 2Ghz machine could handle upto 32 GMS channels.. so.. lets see... lets say it costs $100 (which is probably being conservative) in Radio shack hardware to make the hardware to support 1 channel seeing that they say it only requires fairly inexpensive hardware... that's 3200 for 32 channels. Now add an overpriced Dell dual CPU server @ 3,444. now to get 96 channels it would cost you $19,932. Now, the average person could dig up a dual machine for less than 2000 with similar spec (minus scsi)... so realistically.... It be more like $15,600 which isn't that far off from my original $14k fictitious guess.

      "Now targeted scanning could be a problem, but then maybe I can get my freaking cellular provider to turn on basic GSM encryption (phone supports it but none of the cell sites in the US do AFAIK)."

      Unfortunately encryption won't end up being much of a stopping stone. It however will probably be the hardest part to deal with. There's a couple of ways that could be thwarted. 1. with so many distributed system for encryption breaking, a brute force could be used, not elegant... but hey... it works... 2. social engineering could be used to gain access to the information... Its certainly not the first time that a provider's phone password has popped up on the net. 3. if the original purpose of the system trickles down to the cellphone/pda... then you could simply walk up to your service provider and ask them to set it up, and voila you know have the encryption key.

      I could keep circumventing different ideas all night.... And that's what's scary... cell phone scanners currently exist but are really pricey. Adding the cost of one sc

    8. Re:next privacy issue? by mutts · · Score: 1

      The hard part here would be getting a RF subsystem with the kind of range you are talking about. As someone else has pointed out in another comment below, software radio is essentially applying a wideband analog-to-digital conversion, followed by software demodulation (bit like a winmodem, come to think of it).

      To get the whole range from 0 to 2.4GHz or so sampled, you would need to be sampling at above 5Giga Samples per second (GSPS). Realistic sampling at least today is closer to few 10s of MSPS. Instead, what is typically done is to target a specific center frequency, say 910MHz, and sample at about 50MSPS around that. This means you need some other hardware that takes care of shifting the center freq to the right place, and this would reduce the utility according to how much you can afford here.

      The real utility of Software Defined Radio would most likely at least initially be in places like base stations that have a legitimate reason to want to talk many protocols at once without adding hardware. Software defined handsets are less useful because of the power and cost.

      Apart from all this, of course, privacy is still a separate issue - it depends on your encryption, not on the way the modulation is implemented.

    9. Re:next privacy issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? so when did they break the digital encryption that is in 99.997% of the phones?

      This is an exciting thing!

      Or are you making wild assumptions without any basis or knowlege.....

      oh...

      For your information.. less than 3% of cell phones are unencrypted analog. cell companies are giving away free phones (and have been for 10 years now) to get people that have analog phones in order to stop all the analog services that waste bandwidth.

    10. Re:next privacy issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it entirely possible though that as this technology develops that someone will program the capability for these vrery same chips to also do PGP style encryption of the digital information that is being transacted over the phone, in essence securinmg the conversation from overhearers. For isn't there a counter technological solution for every newly created technological problem?

    11. Re:next privacy issue? by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that GSM phones encrypted their communications, exactly to prevent this kind of thing? Of course, I don't know about those other systems you've got in the US, and if you're still running analogue phones, you're hosed, but in most of the world, you should be fairly secure.

      Certainly in the UK the insecurity of analogue systems came very much to the fore with a few high-profile scanning incidents, one of which involved a rather saucy conversation between Prince Charles and his lover, Camilla Parker-Bowles, which may be one of the reasons that digital systems overtook the analogue ones so quickly.

    12. Re:next privacy issue? by eurostar · · Score: 1

      What exists to stop this from becoming the next supper scanner?...

      huh ? you want to find out what's in your evening meal ?

    13. Re:next privacy issue? by Cyberdyne · · Score: 2, Informative
      Besides, GSM was implemnted properly and the channel is considered open to eavesdropping. So all communications are cyphered with a session key, negociated with the network.

      Unfortunately, that key takes Here is a page talking about it: both A5/1 and A5/2 are trivial to crack - probably significantly easier than receiving the radio signal itself!

      ISTR France insisted on limiting GSM's crypto strength; at the time the standards were being written, their crypto laws made US export restrictions seem positively libertarian! (Remember when browsers came in three crypto strengths - US domestic [128 bit], export [40 bit] and French [no crypto at all]?) I can't see any obvious reports on this in Google, but Lucky Green has some, er, "suspect" results - for example, the GSM key generation is deliberately crippled. (10 of the 64 bits are hard-wired to 0...) GSM was certainly designed with priorities other than the user's privacy...

    14. Re:next privacy issue? by rcs1000 · · Score: 1

      Scary?

      Frabkly that's a bit bleeding heart liberal, isn't it?

      We'll use this to spy on foreign nations and corporations and make sure they're not stealing our secrets.

      And if we do a little insider trading, that's only fair given that we - American taxpayers - have to bear the financial burden of doing all this spying.

      --
      --- My dad's political betting
    15. Re:next privacy issue? by wrt · · Score: 0

      A paper was published a few years ago that made "deciphering" a CDMA voice link trivial. The technique exploited a weakness in the data redundancy used to make the link more robust. The problem then boiled down to solving 42 equations w/ 42 unknowns.

    16. Re:next privacy issue? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Aargh!!! Hot button alert!

      It's per se, not "per say"!!!!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    17. Re:next privacy issue? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Look, you are totally missing my point. Firstly, I can easily build a radio to eavesdrop on your cordless phone calls (49MHz, 900MHz FH) with parts that probably cost less than their own shipping fee. Secondly, for rather more money, Innovative Computer Engineering will sell you enough DSPs on a PCI card to tune and record 32 channels of whatever band you desire. You feed it IF, it feeds you whatever you want. They have been selling this hardware for YEARS. So the invention of a stupid little Palm with a tuner is hardly remarkable. If you are afraid of guys in vans mass-tuning your phone calls with software-defined radio, I regret to inform you that the future was yesterday.

  34. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Montag2k · · Score: 2, Funny
    You really don't want to try to get AM inside a computer. It's so full of nasty EMI you'll just get a head full of static and pops and buzzes.
    So how do you tell the difference between that and Rush Limbaugh?
  35. Amar Bose's son by baldass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    runs Vanu Technology

  36. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ADT Cadet is an ISA card with AM/FM reception. Actually, that chip can receive SW also, but that particular card doesn't have the necessary antenna interface. See if they have PCI or PCMCIA (you could try a PCI adapter :-) products. Cadet has Linux drivers.

  37. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by tazking · · Score: 1

    Rush Limbaugh is clear and full of truth. Better than any AM,FM or any computer Card.

  38. Linux Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so this is the hardware for listening to Free Radio Linux? Good, now I can listen to my kernel anywhere.

  39. Yeah - it's call the FCC by rfmobile · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah - it's called the FCC and includes the process of type acceptance for a manufacturer to sell or even advertise radio equipment.


    Anyone can purchase a transmitter or two-way radio and begin transmitting without a license on top of legit communications.

    This is an old problem with an old solution. Do a 'net search for "Riley's Hammer" ...


    For an example of this in action see fcc.gov
  40. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Wordsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's full of something ...

  41. More usefull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish I could turn my normal radio into a PDA running Linux...
    This is ok I guess. But I still prefer to use a radio to do a radios job and a PDA to use as a PDA.

  42. So this doesn't count? by jaaron · · Score: 1, Informative

    tkcRadio doesn't count then? Okay, so it's internet radio not normal AM/FM, but still, tkcRadio has been out for a while. [and yes, it's for the Zaurus, of course!]

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:So this doesn't count? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      tkcRadio [thekompany.com] doesn't count then?

      Nope.

      This article is about a fully programmable communication device. Listening to the radio is just one program. Load up a different program and you have a cellphone, or a beeper, or a TV, or a wireless access point, or a CB.

      Just doenload a new program off the internet and it becomes a garage door opener if you want.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  43. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha. Yeah. Rush Rulez dude. Heh heh heh.

    Yeah, yeah, I want to see his butt. That would be cool.

  44. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by Nonillion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey! I resemble that remark. Ham radio is still alive and kicking. Hams are just as much geeks as any other computer geek. Some of us (like me) enjoy computers and amateur radio. I have spent many thousands of dollars in ham gear and many thousands of dollars in computer gear. The only difference is not only will my ham radio gear work without the internet, but it will hold it's value far longer than any of my computer equipment. DSP radios are not new, our local group here is working on a DSP based data radio. Other groups like TAPR sell a DSP radio kit.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  45. Grrr... "powered by linux" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are the dumbass editors going to realize that these little hand-held devices are powered by BATTERIES? They RUN Linux; they're powered by BATTERIES. Cretins.

  46. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by sydb · · Score: 1

    Ummm... MS Project for Mac 4.0?

    What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  47. The point is... by munter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Eliminating government control of spectrum.

    You guys are all missing the point. If you have a software radio you have something that is inherently able to adapt to the spectral environment that it currently "sees". Develop logic that deals with interference, and you've eliminated the concept of management bands and spectrum management agencies. You've essentially automated the process that these agencies seek to fufill, and you've eliminated the politics, lobbying mechanisms and the grip that the old world broadcast industry has on the raw resource that should be essentially free for everyone to use.

    Some people may argue that you've taken revenue (licensing) away from central government. That is true. But my belief is that Central Government should be focussing on developing innovative smart technology rather than maintaining archaic processes. Revenue through process rather than red-tape.

    Are radiowaves the electromagnetic equivalent of GNU bandwidth?

    Check here and here for clue.

    somewhere in texas, a village is missing it's idiot

    1. Re:The point is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somewhere in texas, a village is missing it's idiot

      Actually, they're all democrats and hiding out in Ardmore Ok. at the moment...

      story here...

    2. Re:The point is... by Justice8096 · · Score: 1

      The US and other governments are concentrating on this technology, for the reasons you have stated. What this device lacks that is in the current standards are: 1. Corba (or some other buss) connectivity 2. A secure and non-secure side (think of hackers getting into your encrypted data) 3. Matching of standards (SCA version 2.2, API standards), which make the waveforms and radio hardware independent. 4. A source of an accurate timing signal. The current military specs are actually well written - I was impressed when reading them. My guess is that the waveforms used here would be very specific to the hardware in question, to get around the hardware speed. BTW - don't think that they could just buy this hardware and use it. If someone's life is going to be in the balance, this stuff would need much more testing, and security to make sure that there are no hidden viruses that could disable it on command. Still, I was thinking of making one of these for myself... Good going. :-)

  48. Useful for "first responders"? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    The article mentions how this could be useful for "first responders", like, presumably, the emergency workers who arrived at the WTC, where the police radios couldn't talk to the FD radios.

    Might using software radios introduce a new risk for emergency workers? Might the software include a security hole vandals or terrorists could use to disrupt all the emergency services radios at once?

  49. Winmodem of radio by amorsen · · Score: 3, Informative
    These things are the radio equivalent of winmodems - cheap frontend with an already-available processor. They have the potential to get really really cheap, just like winmodems. And like winmodems, in the beginning the processing power needed is annoyingly high. These days noone care that 2% of the CPU is spent on the winmodem. One day, noone will care that 10% of the CPU is spent on software radio. Instead they will love how they can get access to WLAN, bluetooth, and cellular with one simple and cheap device. Oh and listen to radio, whether analog or digital.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Winmodem of radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're e.e. cummings, it's "no one".

      anyone lived in a pretty how town
      (with up so floating many bells down)
      spring summer autumn winter
      he sang his didn't he danced his did.

      Women and men (both little and small)
      cared for anyone not at all
      they sowed their isn't they reaped their same
      sun moon stars rain

      children guessed (but only a few
      and down they forgot as up they grew
      autumn winter spring summer)
      that noone loved him more by more

      when by now and tree by leaf
      she laughed his joy she cried his grief
      bird by snow and stir by still
      anyone's any was all to her

      someones married their everyones
      laughed their cryings and did their dance
      (sleep wake hope and then) they
      said their nevers they slept their dream

      stars rain sun moon
      (and only the snow can begin to explain
      how children are apt to forget to remember
      with up so floating many bells down)

      one day anyone died i guess
      (and noone stooped to kiss his face)
      busy folk buried them side by side
      little by little and was by was

      all by all and deep by deep
      and more by more they dream their sleep
      noone and anyone earth by april
      wish by spirit and if by yes.

      Women and men (both dong and ding)
      summer autumn winter spring
      reaped their sowing and went their came
      sun moon stars rain
      -e.e. cummings

    2. Re:Winmodem of radio by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

      One day, noone will care that 10% of the CPU is spent on software radio.

      In general you're right, but I would point out that in order to be truly successful, SDR must be workable on a mobile, battery-powered device. We're a far cry away from that now. Battery time is not mentioned in the article and it's no wonder -- the demo IPAQ probably runs for less than 30 minutes on battery in radio mode (a pure guess, YMMV, etc).

      Also, I would point out that although the XScale (at least the variant that I'm familiar with) has some DSP-like operations, it's a far cry from a real DSP, and the "signal processing" being done on the IPAQ is likely pretty lightweight. The CPU is more likely doing the messaging protocol - something well within its power. Any serious signal processing is probably done with hardware logic in the Altera FPGA (that big honkin' silver thing on the PCB in the photo). Of course that counts as SDR since the logic is still Software-Defined, and the FPGA device is reconfigurable.

      In the end, the IPAQ is a nice form and all -- probably a good marketing strategy for these guys to demo their product -- but hardly a practical host computer for battery-powered SDR at this point.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
  50. Tungsten T would be better by Mechanik · · Score: 1

    This would be a much more useful announcment if they had written the software for Palm's Tungsten T and the on-board C55x DSP half of its OMAP 1510 processor.

    This way:

    a) It wouldn't hog 100% of your CPU... you'd actually be able to, you know, DO STUFF while listening to the radio

    b) You wouldn't hose your whole battery in virtually no time. The C55x has a WAY better power/mips ratio than XScale, not to mention you're going to use way less mips in the first place by virtue of it being a DSP that's actually designed to do Digital Signal Processing.


    Mechanik

    1. Re:Tungsten T would be better by bjb · · Score: 1
      Actually, I just bought a Tungsten C, which has the same 400MHz XScale processor as the top of the line iPaq. It'd be nice if they ported this program for this device.

      My thoughts on the Tungsten C? VERY nice machine, a little cheap feeling (plastic case VS metal, as they did with the T and other Palm models), wonderful features, but lacking a microphone (has 2.5mm earbud /mic jack). The screen and processor are WONDERFUL, but I feel that the software just hasn't been tuned to this much power yet. Things scroll down WAY too fast, and it just feels that someone put a 800hp motor in a compact car. I'm not complaining, but I'd appreciate some OS tuning in this area.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
  51. Re:second post by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    >> who the fuck cares.. a $10 piece of shit radio from radio shack does the same thing. and it never needs firmware updates.

    Why was this modded as a troll? He's entirely correct! Was it just the silly-assed sig you didn't like?

    Instead of forking out $50+ for a radio card, I can spend half that for a nice little FM radio and not waste system resources. The only time I can see a radio card as practical in a computer is for something like a software controlled shortwave receiver, where precision tuning controls and filtering often come into play.

    Installing a card in your system to pick up basic AM/FM is like towing a 30 foot travel trailer behind your RV.

  52. Patent it NOW! by Ja-Ja-Jamin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before some LLC patent leach does!

  53. Its not the first... by excessive · · Score: 3, Informative
    It is not the first software radio

    Besides which, GSM mobile phones typically use they're processing power to allow them to do fast frequency hopping, etc.

    1. Re:Its not the first... by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      The headline says "Linux Powers First Handheld Software Radio".

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    2. Re:Its not the first... by excessive · · Score: 1
      Is a GSM mobile phone not a handheld radio? :-)

      Alright, fair enough, I know ya mean FM style thang...

    3. Re:Its not the first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also not that either!

      And people talk about Microsoft constantly claiming to be the first at theings they didn't invent?

      Sheesh!

  54. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by llamafresh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, funny you should mention that. Maybe these guys should get involved. Or maybe these instead. Software-defined radios have been built and marketed for hams for quite a while now.

    I haven't seen one available for VHF/UHF until now. I'm sure someone will correct me though.

    llamafresh

    --
    I couldn't find a long little dogie, so I got two short ones and spliced 'em...
  55. SDR has been done, but not this small by mrFur · · Score: 2, Interesting
    SDR has been done before. WinRadio has a "DC to Daylight" receiver that fits on a PCI card, and allows you to play with the demodulation. A lot of amateurs are working are working with this, and one gives you the VB source for the demodulator with a pretty front end. (I don't want to /. him, so look for SDR-1000 at Google).

    The interesting part of this is that it was built into a hand-held computer for the first time, and the practical implementation means that any new radio service is a software upgrade. Think back to the Telco's when call display came out. Instead of upgrading the phones, they had to upgrade the entire network just for a service. This is an infrastructure for radio like the Internet, where services are layered over the basic medium.

    --
    My $0.05 (AUD - we don't have pennies any more)
  56. Re:second post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, installing this card in a PC is like adding a trailer hitch to an RV. not only can it do all the stuff an RV can do, it can now tow a car with it, tow additional luggage on the trailer, carry more passengers (with the right trailer), maybe anchor the RV in a storm, all kinds of things. the card is a general purpose card. you do with it what you want. this just lets a general purpose PC talk to the airwaves in a general purpose way.

  57. Paranoid hardware dreamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the scneario of the bad guy building a truck mounted, 100 channel, multi protocol, rf sniffing, voice decoding, trasncribing, and keyword searching technology bonanza for $14000 is certainly possible, it's unlikely as hell.

    First, find me voice recognition for linux that doesn't suck. No, IBM via voice for linux doesn't actually work and was pulled from the web. And you'd need at least 30 pc's doing voice decoding for you application if you could find such software. Load Dragon natuarally speaking onto 100 cheap winboxen, Add $25,000

    I could go on...

    But wait, you're talking about the future when these things will be easier to build? Well, in the future all the easy to crack 900Mhz phones would be replaced by software defined radios that do dynamic frequency hopping and encryption. Technology matches technology.

    I wouldn't worry about joe cracker.

  58. Computerised Wireless by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    What I want a wireless set to do, is to monitor several stations at once besides the one I am listening to; and then, if an advert comes on, or a song I've already heard, it will retune itself to another station carrying something more interesting.

    That way, I would get the benefit of the BBC (no adverts!) as well as some of the local stations (tho' GWR / 96 Bent / Sheep FM still suck).

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  59. Get 4... by DrCode · · Score: 1

    Put together 4 (a Beowolf cluster!), and you could get surround-sound.

  60. Re:second post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK...so you're going to listen to ten radio stations at once. Now this makes real sense!

  61. Egress has much more in store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    .

    This way to the egress which will have just what you're looking for, all for only an extra fiver, mate.

  62. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by themophead · · Score: 1

    It's interesting to me that this would come up this week. The Dayton Hamvention which is this weekend where I'll be spending a large amount of time. According to the promoters, it's the largest show of it's kind in the world.

  63. winmodems all over again? by MbM · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does this start to look like the software defined modem (aka winmodem) craze? What's to stop hardware manufacturers from releasing 802.11b gear based around a software radio?

    Sure it'd be able to adapt to newer standards but I really don't want my cpu time wasted with host based encoding/decoding, especially if it turns out I need a proprietary driver to do so.

    --
    - MbM
  64. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    And truth is not one of the things he's filled with. ;)

    I'm thinking along the lines of hot air, bullshit, or something similar. ;)

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  65. Re:reminds me of my old heath kit by garignak · · Score: 1
    Icom makes a software controlled receiver and some pc controllable HF (some with VHF/UHF) rigs, like the 706mkIIg. And as another poster pointed out TAPR sells a software defined 2m transceiver kit. I believe Yaesu has a few
    computer controllable rigs as well.


    There is even a programming library and some applications available to control various radios.

    --
    "Sometimes a man's gotta do what a woman wouldn't consider." - Red Green
  66. Re:PCI Card for computer? AM Too? by z84976 · · Score: 1

    Ahh yes, you make a good point... they get FM on those tuner cards. FM = Frequency Modulation... the only way to get clicks and pops to be audible is for those to occur at a frequency range that varies slightly but is centered around the currently-tuned frequency. AM on the other hand, is just all about amplitude, so any time any timed computer parts hit a frequency (or one of many harmonics) similar to the one you are tuned to, you get massive noise. Just get a little poratble AM radio and move it around (and spin it around, etc) all around your computer. When you get a good "noise" that sounds artificial, start typing or something. Bet you hear it. The old (heavily shielded, btw, much more than today's pc's) Apple //e was GREAT for making controllable noise since so much of it ran at slower speeds.

  67. Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a beowulf cluster of those!

    Select Post Anonymously. Submit.