Slashdot Mirror
Siemens Develops 1 gbit/sec Wireless Link
jonknee writes "Siemens has developed mobile wireless technology with transfer rates as high as 1 gigbit per second. This blows the doors off of '3G' technology, or EV-DO (the high-speed data technology used by Verizon Wireless and soon by Sprint PCS). Not all the specs are out yet (more info is expected early next year), but it uses three transmitting and four receiving antennas. With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."
How can it be possible to get a cellular data service that's faster than a WiFi LAN?
Also, if this is for real, surely this has implications for the many planned city-wide wifi grids (Wi-Max, etc) and other mobile broadband solutions, as it could make them obsolete very quickly.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
it will take a big pocket to fit in :)
5 years from now.....
;)
Spammers will be on the run from the law with a gsm in their pocket using it's 1Gbp/s connection to spam the hell out of us....?
Apply that to all the lamer crackers and related lameness out there.
-- Isak Ben.
according to the article, the bandwidth is only 100 MHz for the experimental setup that they have running.
1Gb/s is supposed to be what it's capable of in the future - or at least that's how I read it
What would we need it for? Im sure people will think of things to use it for. But I cant think of anything to use it for.
Without the details, it strikes me that this nice bit of hype is entirely pointless.
Great - I 1Gig link. And the power requirements are? And the suspectability to multipath problems in built up areas are? And the size of the antenna on the phone is how big? And the patent issues are what?
Sorry to be such a grumpy old thing, but getting RF technology to work in the lab is one thing. Getting to work in messy, interference soaked urban environments without cooking the user's head is quite another.
Most Americans I know pronounce it See-mens. So it sounds like a pluralization of semen or maybe sailors. Hilarious huh?
With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015.
By which time it won't seem that amazing at all.
I'm very skeptical of the viability of this for a consumer market and I'm pretty certain I can get 3 randomly selected users to agree with me. Firstly, the large amounts of antennas would suggest this can't make it outside of a research lab. Secondly, you can't even get 54Mbps without paying thousands of dollars per month WITH WIRES. Maybe they could transmit this much between the tower with a single client (scalability anyone?) but if our current wired infrastructure has trouble managing 100 Mbps then what good will that link be?
Anyway, my point here is that maybe you'll see a speed increase but don't expect anything in the real world faster than a wireless G setup anytime soon. It'd be damn cool though.
I'd like this in my home wireless network, please. And used by Apple in a nice streaming solution for video, so I can stream everything from my home server to my tv. I only use my phone for SMS and making phone calls, so I don't need this on the go. But for home multimedia, well, this really opens up nice possibilities!
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."
;-)
Having a phone in your pocket may be obsolete in 2015
We can develop brain tumors 4 times faster than with a standard cell phone.
Yes in 2015... you won't need a webcam,DSL,computer combo to do a video-conference.. all u need is a fscking Siemens WDCFSCK 2354 model smartest phone in your pocket.
fifteen jugglers, five believers
The article doesn't mention range at all. Its not hard if the range is 10 cm (4" for you imperialists out there).
Hee hee, oh well.
...and I thought my phone would be a chip in my cranium by the year 2005.
I don't want to read
You'll be able to make a cluster out of your cell phone?
;)
Oh, joy. 640KB/s ought to be enough for anybody
At night, you will emit a pleasing glow!
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Given the number of receiving and transmitting antennas, it would sound like they are using a variant of BLAST - this is a technique that uses multipath to enhance the signal - think of it as doing spatial-domain multiplexing. By using multiple antennas, and using the multipath time difference on the signal, they are able to discriminate signals in the same band of frequecies based upon the physical location of the antennas.
However, the odds that this will fit "in your pocket" as the story poster said are pretty slim - the physical seperation of the antennas would tend to preclude that.
www.eFax.com are spammers
We'll finally be able to watch a HDTV film in a crowded bus on a 2cm-large screen. Cool!
... that actually using the new 1 Gigabit phone will cook your eyes and brain. Owners already are using the new phones as a portable replacement for their microwaves.
Seriously: putting that much transmitting power into a phone cannot be healthy now can it ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
* This is just a few researchers in a lab. This is far from an implemenation. It IS the way future wireless standards will go.
* Future standards will blur the lines between wireless LAN and cellular standards. Your cell phone will provide high rates, your wireless internet connection may handle higher mobility.
* The multiple antennas mentioned here need only be at the cellular base station, or on the access point.
this is great but there still is going to be bottlenecks some where. there is no use un less you have fiber. whats comcast 3mbs? maybe if you run a pirate ring wirelessly in your own home it would be useful. Only big corperation and universities would really use it. right?
The worst we can get these days are annoying text messages containing ads. Imagine the possibilities of combining polyphone ringingtunes, stunning visuals on high resolution screens and this 1gbit up/downlink facility for the advertising/marketing industry. My guess for the future: a serious amount of spam, ads, adware on your cellular would be part of the forseeable future. Why ads over cellular? Because this technology wouldn't be commercially sustainable without. Now. Can you say "This call is proudly sponsored by Heineken/Coca-Cola/..."
"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."
Why? I doubt the cell phone processor would be able to do anything with data sent at that rate, other than drop it or have it essentially be a DoS attack.
What stops manufactorers of PC from puting this technology into PCs. If it can fit in a phone, it can fit in a PC or even better, a ... one of those portable hand held PCs (no, the ones smaller than laptops). I mean why not? I guess there must be some reason for it. Wouldnt it be great if our PCs had access to a 3G network or even better, this one?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Here's a picture of the first prototype.
I think I'll wait until the flip version...
It's getting like the hilarious Razor Wars... Wilkinson introduce the double-blade cartridge, Gillette fight back with the Mach III, Wilkinson work doubletime to bring you the state-of-the-art Quattro!
Same thing as the megapixel nonsense, the sheep start to believe a higher number means a better product without worrying too much what the number represents, or whether having lots of that thing is necessarily good.
You know, you can transfer a lot of porn over a gigabit link. (And fast, too!)
People object to 2G and 3G masts saying they cause health problems. Faster tech will bound to have more risks.
This article is interesting in the standard kind of wow, high bandwidth wireless kind of way. However, as wireless LAN technologies become more long distance (Wi-Max) and cellular technologies become more high bandwidth (this article), when will the two converge into a united space?
I know there is a difference in the licensing of the spectrum, but disregarding governmental interferences, prevents wireless LAN and cellular from essentially becoming the same type of standard?
The march of wifi seems to be ongoing, and may end up trumping 3G. Partly I think it's the low cost and flexible market.
I've compared the price of 3G cards with using a hotspot. For £25/month from BT I can get 4,000 minutes on hotspots(16 hours). For £23.50 from Vodafone I can get a massive 75mb (yes mb) of data downloaded per month. Whilst 3G may be more useful in terms of use anywhere (although coverage is not that great yet), the price is just rubbish. If I'm going to get 75mb, I may as well just use GPRS.
carry cell phone in back pocket away from testicles.
ack, you've caught me thinking aloud again
A blog I run for the wealth
Excerpt from original article:
"One of the reasons why multiple-antenna systems are not typically used today is the very high computing power that is required at the receiving end. This is because the information that is transmitted simultaneously by multiple antennas is received by multiple receiving antennas and has to be reconstructed in realtime for the receiving device. This exceeds the capabilities of the typical chips that are currently being employed in the mobile communication industry. The researchers at Siemens overcame this challenge by developing new and optimizing signal processing algorithms that can be efficiently implemented on the hardware modules that are available today."
http://www.quagga.net
Is that a gigabit phone your pocket or are you happy to see me?
... I think new phones will actually benefit from using less power:
With " everyone " owning a cellphone, the cells actually start to overlap each other.
This opens up the possibility of grid phoning, requiring basestations in only a few central or deserted points - whilst providing coverage through the cellphones that are near to you (and so forth until the signal finds its way to the basestation).
Apart from the health-benefit, the phones would require a lot less power than now. The grid's latency would be the only thing that needs to be solved for this to work (assuming that each cellphone in the signal's path, call it a hop, will add a little bit to the overall network latency).
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Elected by people who say "moran," apparently.
Did I read that right? 3 for transmit and 4 for receiving?
I can't imagine what a cell phone sportin' that technology would look like... would I need to hook it up to my tin-foil hat for better reception?
Is tech moving so slow that we have to wait until 2015....a decade?
I would think that something like this would appear (implemented) in a couple of years at most - with new phones going for some crazy price so about 3-4 years before the average person gets one.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Super! Just what I needed!
I can get 1 gig wireless transfer rate.... but only 112k download rate, and I have to pay PER megabyte charges if I connect my phone to a laptop.
Now, if you could get wireless phone to wireless phone transfer rates... that would be interesting! With bandwidth like that, you could set up your own long distance network. Use a mux to send all kinds of different data and voice connections over wireless, and make a bazillion dollars. Certainly more than an unlimited wireless account.
-- No sig for you!
http://www.wi-lan.com/products/libramx.htm
A similar, single antenna system: 288 Mbits/sec that is going into beta next month.
This is being pitched, as the Siemens system will be, as a wireless backhaul solution. Not for devices. That will be the responsibility of another technology.
So all the references in the article to increasing consumer bandwidth demand are being used to underline the need for a big, fat, cost-effective (i.e. wireless) backhaul solution.
In 2010, we'll all be using IP SIP phones that will roam seamlessly between local area access points, but they won't be mothers like the one Siemens has developed.
WiFi and VOIP are already here. It's only a (short) matter of time before people in urban areas can toss their cell phones in the dustbin.
When I'm talking on my new gigabit phone...
smells like something's cookin'.. like.. hamburgers.. the longer I talk.. the more pungent the aroma! ya know?
[stranger] Far out man... Far out!
Smile.
This is highly irrelevant, but I was wondering if so many electromagnetic fields are going to make us glow in the dark. Seriously, we have mobiles, TV, radio, Wi-Fi and of course all other electronic devices. Are these devices safe? I know it's not X-ray or gamma radiation but so many emissions in our houses make me worry. I could live with 1MBps wireless if 1GBps wireless is going to fry my precious fragile DNA.
Just for the record, I'm currently studying the non-homologous end join mechanism for the repair of double strand DNA breaks, which are often induced by radiation. Am I getting paranoid?
P.
Sounds like their using something like BLAST (bell labs asyncronous space time). Where you can transmit multiple signal on the same frequence at the same.
c dm a-pub/asil98_cdma_paper.pdf)
(http://www.bell-labs.com/org/wireless/1131k0/w
It uses the fact that signals bounce off walls and other object and ends up taking multiple paths to the receiver.
"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."
Meanwhile, voice communication (you know, "telephone") still only uses bandwidth of about 4kHz and is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
will hi tech still look keen?
will tv be obscene?
in the year 2026...
will we be ruled by a buncha pricks?
will google fail from phony clicks?
antennas, it will be like carrying a porcupine in your pocket.
What?
Why dont we use microwave in our houses instead.. the effect would be the same.. directional non direction pff who cares its all radiation.. why not help fry our brains.
Got a question about UNIX ask it here : Unix/xBSD Forum
"bandwidth of 100 MHz"
That's 10b:Hz. I can't wait to hear about their novel encoding strategy.
--
make install -not war
100MHz isn't fast enough to keep up with a couple of teens gabbing about their boyfriends.
This is a multiple-antenna technology, called MIMO for Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output. Instead of modeling the "medium" (electromagnetic spectrum) as a "box" taking a single signal as input and outputting a single signal, the medium is modelled as a matrix taking multiple signals on input and outputting multiple signals, on the same frequencies and at the same time.
The capacity increase is *theoretically* limited by the max number of antennae in input or output: say there are N transmitters and N receivers, if you assign each transmitter to a receiver and place a shielded coax cable between the pair instead of relying on em free-range transmission, there should not be much interference for sure. Thus you have N times the throughput, and that's how MIMO throughput numbers are computed *for PR purposes*...
In practice, when you use the air medium, there is a good deal of interference between the antennae, but research can derive some increased capacity (by "diagonalizing" the MIMO channel, i.e. identifying linearly independent sub-channels in this matrix of channels).
However, the practical increase is *in no way* linear as a function of the size of the MIMO array as some would obviously like other people (press, stock analysts, investors...) to believe. Additionally, MIMO works best in certain environments; independent sub-channels are best created by channel irregularities that are at a distance comparable to the scale of the antenna array. It means, for instance, that MIMO does not generally improve much the capacity of line-of-sight transmission but provides better improvements indoors!
20 years ago, Microsoft Word for the Mac fit on two 800KB floppies.
Today it's several hundred times as big.
By the time this ships, it will be a reasonable-sized improvement over what's already out there, and 5 years later people will be asking themselves how they ever got along without it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015.
Yeah, and we'll all be sterile by 2016. Go humans!
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Is this just some sort of trick with existing equipment? The article mentions that it uses several transmitting and several receiving links. Could I just set up 3 point-to-point (several hundred mbit) radio's (in a nice little box) at each location, plug them into a switch with aggregation capabilities at each end and then send data through the switches? The switch could then distribute the load between the 3 radio's and perhaps achive close to 1Gbit with current technology. The article mentions WiFi (point-to-multipoint), but doesn't clearly state whether or not this technology is point-to-multipoint or not. It is talking about 4G Cell technology so that would be point-to-multipoint, but if you require 3 or 4 antennas, and its 5Ghz, then this will never work for cellphones - 5Ghz blows for penetration (I said that kind of funny). This just looks like todays technology but jammed into an "Intelligent antenna system" (taking a bunch of existing wireless backhaul technology, sticking it into one box, aggregating it, calling it new). Am I missing something?
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
Due to ongoing litigation by the Santa Cranium Organization, the cranium-phone is on hold for the time being.
We hope to have this litigation done by the end of 2005 and begin shipping shortly thereafter.
Sammy "J. is for Justice" Palmsbeatsms
President and CEO,
Intelligent Brain Machines
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hertz is the signaling rate (baud rate), throughput depends on more than that.
If I have 4 possible states per signal, I can encode 2 bits per signal change.
Your old 33.6Kbps modem changes signals far less often - it encodes multiple bits per signal change. That's why they aren't called "33.6Kbaud" modems.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I never quite realized the telecom illiteracy of /. readers reached such levels, but a +4 informative for this one is too much (I hope that by now it has fallen).
Hz (bandwidth) is not bps (bitrate)!
With a strong enough Signal-to-Noise ratio, you can fit the largest of bitrates in the narrowest of bandwidths. See the Hartley-Shannon law for this...
"Baud" is "symbols per second", while "Hertz" is "cycles per second". A bit is a symbol, and the bandwidth is in cycles per second, probably a square (-ish) wave. The actual ambiguity in the article that might be at play here is that the "bandwidth" of 100MHz might be 100MHz centered around a 1GHz frequency, with, say, 10 independent frequencies each encoding an average of 100Mbps. So each frequency in the demultiplexed transmitted signal is transmitting about 10Hz:b simultaneous with the other frequencies. As I said, I'm waiting to see them release details of their encoding protocol, scheduled in 2/2005.
--
make install -not war
"With any luck the phone in your pocket will have a gigabit link by the year 2015."
With a GigaBucks price...plus taxes, fees, misc charges, usage fees, misc fees, we want more money fees, tax taxes, pass-thru taxes, pass-thru fees, it cost us money to set this up fees, etc etc etc.
you will already be out of 100 dollars in
on second...................
This is an interesting link. Is is a gross oversimplification to state that Hartley-Shannon gets 'super Nyquest' rates by using the amplitude to encode multiple bits per cycle? I'm sure that this could be done 'in principle', but in practice, the amplitude is dropping off as 1/r (power drops as 1/r^2) and amplitude is messed up by all sorts of other things (wall, rain, me ...). How in practice do people achieve this theoretical bitrates? Do you have to send a 'reference singnal' and use the relative amplitudes?
Think global, act loco
See-mens is actually the correct way to pronounce it. I'm a native German speaker, I pretend to know.
I want 128kbps. It shouldn't add more than 20-30 ms to a ping time. I want it anytime/anywhere. For a flat monthly fee, and don't count my minutes. I'd be happy to pay $75-$100/month for this. Much more and I probably wouldn't bite.
I'm an indie developer, and do *alot* of remote sessions by SSH. Such service would free me (at last) from having to plan trips and vacations around which hotels provide DSL Internet service to its guests. (although, to be fair, it's much easier to find that now than it used to be, but it does suck that I frequently have to pay $9.95/day)
Verizon Wireless, are you listening?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Let's chill for a second and think about this.
It is pretty clear that this is prototype technology. Especially given their 10-year timeline. They've got a lot of time to figure things out. But they didn't say it was for the phones either.
There is pretty much no reason to provide that type of bitrate on a phone. The human voice only needs a 3KHz bandwith to sound pretty darn good. Assuming the sound waves are being transmitted digitally, even with no compression, that translates to only 6Kbps (gotta sample at least twice per cycle of the highest frequency component). Let's say that overhead in multiple levels of protocol wrappings is 200% of the data size (seems large to me, but I could be wrong). That ups the necessary transfer rate to 18Kbps.
Granted, that may not be ideal for the increasing variety of data services offered on the phones. But 1Gbps? That's a bit extreme. Our PCs do just fine at 100Mbps (or less if they're wireless). I just can't believe they'd be talking about the actual phones. It has to be the backend.
You know, if we could actually see radio waves, we'd still be communicating by pony express.
free online diet tracking.
... by 2015
Isn't that also the year we all get our pink Mattel Hoverboards? Is that gonna be a cool year or what?!
What else?
Don't think voice, think realtime uncompressed two way hi-def video.
Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
Of course there is still a big question in the industry whether people really want that. Those of us who are geeks no doubt think it is "cool", but even of us, how many of us would really want to use a video phone all the time? There are guaranteed to be times that you're going to want to remain unseen. And the question is, do those outweigh the times you want to be seen? If the answer is yes, video will have to remain a just a feature of the phone, rather than the main selling point, which means it will need to not have a big price impact. The corps are worried about that, because it means the technology will have to be cheap before they can sell it to the general populace.
Hence the 10-year timeline, which still should put things in perspective for the original poster.
yes
In practice it would be difficult to get 1Gb/s in 100MHz of bandwidth. You need extremely good linearity in your link to get such a large constellation. To beat the noise figure problem you need either short distances or high transmit power. 1Gb/s links are being researched usning 60GHz carriers and a lot more bandwidth. 802.16 will more likely be used for 4G when low power solutions become available on the market.
Vote for Pedro
Where the heck could they get that much spectrum space? For 1Gb/sec we'd need at least 100 to 300 Mhz of spectrum per user per cell. There just ain't that much spectrum available anywhere below 6GHz. Eventually when the current analog TV channels go away that will free up some space but not enough.
Heh. I wonder just how many different bands there are, and how many wardrivers scanning them...?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The industry is craving for the MIMO-technology (Multiple Input-Multiple Output). The frequency spectrum is getting more and more stuffed. MIMO gives diversity to the system, which basically means that you can send more data on the same bandwidth. For a common user, this technology might only give a high quality improvement, but for an operator it means that he can stuff more users to their systems, which in turn generates more money for them.
It has so far inadvertantly cooked 3 people standing too close to the antennas!
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
You can't compare two technologies solely on bitrate, you are forgetting power, range, spectrum, equipment size and equipment cost as factors in your comparison.
But you can compare them when you take some of those items into account.
WiMAX (802.11g) - in the appropriate codec for this comparison - gets 70 Mbps out of a 14 MHz channel (a little wider than two TV channels). This system claims 1 Gbps out of a 100 MHz channel and spatial diversity. That's twice the bps/cps, which is about right for using 3->4 spatial diversity on a channel with the same signal/noise ratio and propagation characteristics.
So this is not a breakthrough. It's just a faster-and-wider version of the same level of technology. Which is about right, since some of the coding options used in WiMAX are within single-digit dB of the shannon limit, so there isn't much more left to get out of the spectrum.
The kicker is the bandwidth of the channel. WHERE are you going to get a spare 100 MHz of bandwidth to use?
The 802 working groups are already begging for bandwidth, getting some thanks to cooperation by the FCC and its opposite numbers in other countries - over strong oppostion from broadcasters and other users of the spectrum. But that bandwidth gets broken up into channels - so a deployment can use multiple channels in nearby cells/sectors to avoid interference and multiple players can use different channels in the same area. This proposal would use up essentially ALL the bandwidth in a given allocation for ONE channel for ONE carrier.
Is it going to be licensed? Who will own the license? Nobody else can play - monopoly carrier time again. Is it going to be unlicensed? How will a carrier write terms-of-service giving quality-of-service guarantees?
Further, spatial diversity requres the antennas to have non-trivial separation between the component antennas with respect to the length of the transmission path. Inches gets you across the room, but more is needed to get you across the city.
I wonder if this article is missing something: Perhaps the system is intended, not as a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network - a last-mile solution), but as a LAN or PAN (Personal Area Network - a very short range wireless link - like bluetooth - intended to replace cabling around a computer or a few cubes in a room.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So what happens when you accidently cross the link between 2 receivers?
Does your head blow up (buffer overflow!) or something?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
You obviously never heard of the cliche. Pop a google for "get a brain morans".
A new technology that's faster than 3g? Great! Well.. not really. I'm sure it could be utilized in countries that eagerly adopt these new technologies... but here in the good ole Bricks and Mortar USA we HATE CHANGES. My cell phone works. I'm happy. Nobody wants more, they just want some. Technology is second to image. I'm sure most of us would rather have that new Vertu leather-wrapped magnesium-alloy thingermajig than a matte-black phone that you can stream internet radio across. Industry doesnt see the need to roll out these new innovations, which is why we dont even have 3g! We're looking waaay to far into the future here. Our garbage CDMA/TDMA networks are already taxed, and things don't get fixed or improved because everyone's buying everyone else every other week! These providers, as well as the RnD department need to start working solutions that can work with what we *have*, not what we can build in a laboratory for the cost of the nations budget deficit. Rock on with innovations and new technologies, but let's think practical rather than racing to be the first to the tB/s wireless mark.
Technology you can buy today gets you 54Mbps (in wireless tech marketing speak -- that is NOT 54Mbps of real data throughput) on a 20MHz channel. The article specifies a 100MHz channel for the 1Gbps technology. 5 * 54Mbps = 270Mbps. So really they're just talking about a ~4x increase over today's technology, in 10 years. Not so exciting, ey?
Secondly, note that to get 54Mbps (again, that's a marketing number) you need to have a receive signal strength of -73dBm or higher, with a signal to noise ratio of 23dB. If you put your cell phone into debug mode, or look at the network status on your sidekick, see how often you get a -73dBm signal today. The technology will probably require higher powered base station radios. If wireless providers are having problems getting adequate cell phone coverage today, those problems are going to continue with the high bandwidth services in the future. And all that power is going to come at a cost of raising the noise floor. Making this stuff happen is non-trivial.
Bottom line is what everyone already knew -- this press release it too short on information to show if they've really made any breakthroughs. The article gives me the impression that they've improved on the easy part, and they're giving themselves 10 years to deal with the hard part. To quote Homer, "booooooring!"
It probably radiates so much power, you could heat your coffee by keeping it next to the 1gbps transmitter :-)
Okay... three transmitting antennae and four receiving antennae... hmm...
I'm trying to picture the kind of interferrence this causes with all three/four antennae doing spread spectrum and hopping around to find open channels to load up on.
Also kinda wondering if this will drop like crazy when I heat up my muffin in the morning in the microwave. Hmm...
I'm also wondering whether I would feel safe having this kind of device on my person... as it is, current celphones emit quite a bit of power.
The next question: Is the billing going to be kb/sec? If it is, count me out.
Would be interesting to see what this will be like. Would also be interesting to see whether or not it would be feasible given the limited backbone most wireless cell providers make availab le currently.
Winged Power Photography
Yeah, I really need three times as much radiation blasting the side of my head or irradiating my pubics if I wear it on a belt with hands free.