Slashdot Mirror


Speculating On the Far Future of Cellphones

Trio writes "What will cellphones look like in in future? silicon.com explores five future characteristics that could shape tomorrow's phones — from a wearable prototype such as MIT's SixthSense device which projects mobile data into the user's world, to a mobile that mixes the real and the virtual by using holographic telepresence. So far, so futuristic, but one question remains: will there be enough spectrum to support all this wireless communication?"

7 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. a REAL cellphone by frecky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, a real cellphone that let you dial a number and speak with someone. Not those with tons of addons that you forget you can dial number with !

  2. Spectrum? Limitless, except for the State... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the U.S., we have the slow, bureaucratic and oligarchic FCC that limits technology from acquiring near limitless spectrum/bandwidth.

    We're moving to a truly digital age, but still we have the FCC regulating that we should keep analog/digital spectrum separate for various "needs" such as TV, radio, ham, cordless phones, FRS, etc. It's ridiculous.

    We have technology TODAY that allows for frequency hopping, for signal strength negotiation, for handling multiple devices on the same frequencies/channels, etc. Private industries can blossom to utilize the right frequency, the right transceiving power, the right tower hopping mechanisms, etc. But they can't get there because the FCC overregulates and strangulates the future.

    On my 3G phone (I'm on AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint, shared via my lovely Cradlepoint router on-the-go even), I can watch TV on-demand. I can listen to music, on-demand. I can read my websites, send my emails, talk via Google voice/Gizmo5 VoIP, send SMS via Google Voice, etc. But there's a limited run of bandwidth.

    I don't have a TV at home, so the TV spectrum is useless. I don't listen to radio in the car, so radio spectrum is useless. So much that we do today would be better suited to a HUGE amount of spectrum divvied up and utilized by every device that could hop frequencies as needed to find a clean channel, that could raise power needs when a tower is far but drop them significantly when towers are near.

    The future is nearly endless bandwidth for endless users, but we're throttled because our lovely State decides it wants only the powerful to play ball, with the weak kept out of the game.

    But what would happen if the FCC went away, and all of a sudden the power players who control TV, radio and other spectra would need to compete with the YouTube amateurs of the world? The powerful would fall. And the State can't let that happen.

  3. Fun, but pointless by podom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can imagine a similar discussion in 1875: "What will telegraphs look like in the future?"
     

    --
    We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
    1. Re:Fun, but pointless by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'll be small enough for even a Lady to carry unaided and you'll be able to pay the nearest urchin 'tuppence to scramble up the telegraph pole and connect the wires for you nearly anywhere in the city!

  4. Re:Spectrum? Limitless, except for the State... by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I listen to the radio.

    Why is it that because you don't listen to the radio, it is useless?

    Radio is cool. It's completely free and I can find really good music on it. For free. No payments necessary to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, or Sprint.

  5. "elsewhere-ness" by peter303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where you are with a small group of humans with no electronics you are talking directly to each other, looking them in the eye, or at their body language. Sometimes you touch too.

    Now when you are in a public space like a coffee-house, walking the street, sitting on the train, etc. many people are communicating with those out of sight and completely ignoring those in sight. To me it feels like a zombie movie.

  6. Re:Features, and lots of them! by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that the most-used features of cellphones are things other than talking on the phone (presumably included in the "Other 9%")

    Even if this were serious, it only seems odd because we use the misnomer "cellphone" instead of something more accurate like, I dunno, personal digital assistant. Imagine if people insisted on thinking of PCs as typewriters (since word processing was an early killer app) and they were still called typewriters, and people started whinging that PCs shouldn't be able to run web browsers because "that's not typing," and "when will we all return to typewriters that just type!" It's nonsense.