Slashdot Mirror
Intel Working on Agile Wireless Chip
Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that Intel has announced that its scientists had
invented a new type of chip that can process signals from different types of wireless
networks. The chip also could handle upcoming WiMax technology, that promises
wireless internet connectivity for up to 30 miles, and future flavors of WiFi."
The next Apple portable chip?
Doesn't seem like a "Nothing to see here" situation. They're just admitting it's R&D.
I mean, obviously, they also hope to stir up investors and get good press, but, who wouldn't want to do that?
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
"Won't we have to beef up network security?"
I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but if they could deliver this gargantuan wireless range, won't that provoke more crackers to break through the security so they can leech net access off of the Starbucks HotSpot a few miles away?
It just seems logical to me that with such an impressive possible range of operation, there would be a greater tempation to pickpocket with telekinesis, so to speak.
That's just my thought on it.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
Sigh....
And we have solved all the hidden station problems have we? Shannon has been found to be tosh? Nyquist a mathematical bungler?
Yes, you may get 40 Mbps if you are close enough, both sides are running enough (legal) power and you are the only two ends on the channel without any interference of any kind. Note the word "may".
Look, there are some fundamental problems with using wireless for network connectivity. They are to do with the medium, the nature of transmitters and receivers (and the delays inherent), the lack of bandwidth (because we all want two pieces and there is way not enough to go around) and then there is terrain (which helps for frequency re-use but in all other ways doesn't) and the fact that, even in an ideal world, more than two ends to a conversation on a channel degrades the experience geometrically for everyone when you start to add more users.
In the home / small office for a few units not doing much simultanious work then fine. But please, don't expect anything even approaching some of the figures people quote because, in practice you won't ever get them (and that's assuming WiMAX is full duplex which 802.11[b-g] aren't).
Go an read up on it. Computer Networks by Andrew S Tanenbaum is probably a good place to start.
Remember all those wonderful thruput figures for GPRS, 3G etc. Notice how they have all come down to numbers that make ISDN look fast? Do yourself a favour: get yourself an erlang, use a piece of wet string (or wire or fibre) or better still - two.
Hah! I'm not an Intel analyst, but even I could come up with something like this if I din't have to actually say how it works :P
I'm very confused and unsure what you mean by this. Here are some of my thoughts after reading it:
1) You think that Intel analysts are the ones who "come up with something like this". This is definitely a problem -- it is generally Intel employees (i.e. smart engineers who research and develop, not mediocre marketing people) who would come up with ideas and create proofs of concept to demonstrate them.
2) You don't understand that a "Proof of Concept" is a milestone on the way to a complete product. A POC demonstrates a capability that you did not previously have and that you had doubts about. These milestones are required by senior management to continue funding a product. Additionally, it may or may not have been meant to demonstrate a capability to the public or at least Intel sales targets to increase their confidence in Intel's ability to take wireless networking to the next stage.
3) You think that a corporation is "hiding" something from you if they don't contact you personally to give you a demonstration. Note this is not a revolutionary concept to combine multiple transceivers on the same piece of silicon, and there are some (but probably not too many) others with this capability. Consequently, it should not be necessary for them to give a demo just to "prove it to you".
4) You think companies should have to "say how it works" in order for the general public to accept that they are capable of implementing something. First of all, the general public does not have the ability to comprehend most of what is implemented in silicon, much less a piece of analog wireless transceiver. Heck, most people in the semiconductor industry haven't a clue about either analog design or digital communications. So what makes you think "saying how it works" would help their case? Second, you must not be aware of the concepts of Intellectual Property and competitive advandage. Why would someone want to disclose more information than they need to disclose? It would potentially disclose secrets or defeat a competitive advantage they have over the competition.
5) You are giving yourself too much credit. I highly doubt that even you could come up with something like this. Like I said above, there aren't too many who can do this, and to date, apparently even Intel could not.