Slashdot Mirror
Huawei Claims 30Gbps Wireless 'Beyond LTE'
shreshtha writes "Huawei says it has 'recently introduced ... Beyond LTE technology, which significantly increases peak rates to 30Gbps — over 20 times faster than existing commercial LTE networks.' It claims to have achieved this with 'key breakthroughs in antenna structure, radio frequency architecture, IF (intermediate frequency) algorithms, and multi-user MIMO (multi-input multi-output).'"
Of course it's a "peak" rate. If you sustain that rate for two seconds, you'll have already more than blown through your entire cap of 5 GB (40 Gbit) per month.
So which company had its fancy new antenna tech lifted for this. China's R&D = Reconnaissance and Deception.
Sure, if I were using my phone to play 40,000 concurrent games of Battle Tetris on Facebook this would be great. Otherwise, who cares?
Seriously, I think we are entering into a period where the bandwidth is way more important than the processor. I am sure that Moore's law can be manipulated into something that will predict how quickly things will advance.
It wasn't that long ago that mobile bandwidth was pretty much useless, now we have speeds that have surpassed early home wireless networking.
I live in a rural area, only have 2G, I'm waiting for 3G, but I'm not sure it will ever quite get there, my provider will most likely just jump it and go to whatever the next level is, making my phone obsolete in the process. Of course with a bit of luck, the standard will be backwards compatible, but at some point they will have to just abandon some technology and look forwards.
and AT&T will be able to charge overages in less than 1 second. I wonder if their servers will be able to throttle you in at 0.7 seconds into a large download.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
They achieved that with "much greater bandwidth". The reason why bandwidth is restricted in current systems is because cell stations have to support thousands of users simultaneously providing 30 Gbps even with all sorts of multi-antenna systems with signal processing seems unlikely for unicast systems; it might be possible for downlink multicast, though.
I'm not a luddite, I work in high tech, but could someone explain the lure of 4G to me? I can already stream video on 3G, I can send and receive email in arbitrary volumes, browse the web, everything is reasonably speedy. Why would I want this kind of speed? I'd rather carriers focused on building up the capacity for the existing 3G devices and improving the efficiency of spectrum utilization (so that 3G would not crap out in SF and NY), and handset manufacturers focused on battery life. I couldn't care less about loading a web page half a second sooner, if the price for it is half a day in battery life and cap on my data plan.
Christ, it can see itself arriving.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
I find it refreshing to see them creating new technology instead of just implementing standards.
Plus it just confirms my comments yesterday about even engineering and design talent moving overseas; that no job is "safe" any more from the risk of being offshored. Given Huawei's market share in the telco industry, this particular bit of engineering should make anyone still working for the formerly big names in telecommunications some serious pause when they think about their job security.
It isn't that long ago that people thought a job with Northern Telecom would last a life time, and we know how that turned out for those who believed in that dream.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
"It claims to have achieved this with 'key breakthroughs in antenna structure, radio frequency architecture, IF (intermediate frequency) algorithms, and multi-user MIMO (multi-input multi-output).'"
Huawei is a Chinese company just recently been banned from quoting on Australian government contracts amid suspicion of putting backdoors into its kit for the Chinese government:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/24/0424215/australian-govt-bans-huawei-from-national-network-bids
So we have a lot of announcements recently about how amazing and indispensable Huawei kit is. But like this one, they can't point to a single breakthrough, its all kind of vague claims that can't even pinpoint what breakthrough they made. It's all very much like a Chinese pride thing.
I am not interested.. Unless, of course, they have busted Shannon's channel capacity theorem. But I am guessing that is not likely.
Not only can they not shake off the reputation of being too close to the Chinese government, their hardware is usually lower-tier.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? " As we all know, "640kb ought to be enough for anybody."
I find it refreshing to see them creating new technology instead of just implementing standards.
Which came from espionage of a First World company, as Chinese "companies" are wont to do.
Plus it just confirms my comments yesterday about even engineering and design talent moving overseas; that no job is "safe" any more from the risk of being offshored. Given Huawei's market share in the telco industry, this particular bit of engineering should make anyone still working for the formerly big names in telecommunications some serious pause when they think about their job security.
The more reason to halt the move and reverse it, even if it takes force. With enough force, even the most "irreversible" things in economics can be made to reverse course back to the First World. Job security is something worth preserving in the First World, even if it comes at political costs.
It isn't that long ago that people thought a job with Northern Telecom would last a life time, and we know how that turned out for those who believed in that dream.
That can be restored with law. Given how badly Huawei implements things, their technology is only good for a political prop when countries rightfully reject it(Australia, US).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network
erm.. well.. at least you can read about it.
muahahhaaa..
(Even if I do not know why/how this news with almost no specific fact at all hit /.) if true, this is not threat for LTE: it is a real competitor of GPON and all FTTH technologies.
And I don't mean achieving 30Gbps: A technology that can deliver, let's say, good/sustained 150Mbps in the air for a home user, would kill all fiber project being developed nowadays.
MIMO (multi-input multi-output)
That means they could do 300Gbps with 10 times the antennas, huh?
Standards are wonderful things, oddly enough almost nobody actually rolls into active service products meeting all these fancy numbers.
In Down Under Land (Oz tray Lee Uh) Telstra rolled out an LTE network. Sure In Theory LTE can deliver "Up To" 300Mbps. Despite Telstra being very much a PREMIUM service provider their shiny-new tech delivers speeds which are not even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark. (to use an Americanism)
Now don't get me wrong folks, LTE is MUCH better than HSPA+, but absolutely nobody on the Telstra LTE network is getting even HALF of the "maximum theoretical throughput of an LTE network".
So if "LTE can do 300Mbps" means end-users are getting maybe 35Mbps, then the JOYous claims of "up to 3.5Gbps" might maybe one day deliver 100-200Mbps of real-world actual throughput.
And while I'd hate to be the person who claimed that "640K is enough for anybody", I do honestly believe it will be quite some time yet before a mobile-handset (phone, iPad, etc) would need more than "one hundred megabits per second" (or thereabouts).
People driving WiFi gateways or using cellular communications from a "fixed location" scenario would. And that will lead to a two-tiered service, you can pay X for "mobile usage" which is FAST (by todays standards) but not pushing the limits of the technology, or you can pay XXXtra for Ludicrous Speed and the caveat being "not for mobile handsets".
This would keep the vast unwashed masses from snowing the network, and the premium/business-grade/etc users will still have plenty of capacity.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
NTT Docomo achieved 5Gbps 5 years ago.
http://www.nttdocomo.com/pr/2007/001319.html
Theft. Huawei is famous for it.
While some might dream of a return to "America First" and "Made In Canada" policies and tarrifs, I can't imagine us ever returning to such systems.
First and foremost, the consumer won't stand for it. The consumer now expects computers at under $1000 instead of the $2000 plus it used to cost to manufacture them onshore.
A recent article I read pegged the "Made in America" price of an iPad at roughly $1400 -- more than double the market price. At such prices, people simply would stop buying them, because it's pretty damned hard to justify toys over $1000 in most people's minds.
I don't think it's a good situation for the "First World" at all, but I can't see any of the companies involved in offshoring being willing to return to North American manufacturing and assembly when it would make their products completely uncompetitive in the rest of the world markets. Quite frankly, companies like Apple make far more from their foreign sales than they do from North American sales. As a result, if you returned to a nationalistic policy on manufacturing, they'd simply pull up the remainder of their North American roots, officially become a foreign company, and keep on with business as usual. With the US one jewel less in the globalization crown.
And the same goes for all the other big multinationals. The only thing keeping their head offices in the US or Canada is tradition. Globalization has become an unstoppable behemoth; no one with real influence over the government through lobbyists would tolerate stepping back from globalization.
Let's face it -- the corporations sold out the people by lobbying the government for years or decades, and the people were too engrossed by their television sets and Big Macs to notice until it was too late.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> The internet should be more like shirts Oh, it is, inventing it is just another low-end job we've outsourced to China...
Just a tidbit of info here. In the industry, the assignment of the 4G name requires 1Gbit/s; but playing on people's perceptions that we should expect 4G now, a lot of companies brand what is inside known as 3.9G as 4G. While competitors adapt same practice, court cases are built slowly. Both 3.9 and 4G is LTE ( though diff freq). 3.9G is ~20Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken.
AFAIK (only secondhand info) only South Korea has true 4G.
Couldn't be bothered to fact check, as it doesn't really interest me.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Please tell me what kind of infrastructure that is needed to achieve this to each tower.
Fiber?
If then continue your digging into the homes directly instead.
"I don't think it's a good situation for the "First World" at all"
Sure it is. Think of offshoring as your tax for helping the third world to industrialize faster. Conditions and labour rates rise in the beneficiary countries until they start their own post-industrial economies. Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, India and Mexico are past the initial industrialization stages. China is getting there. Soon we'll (all) be outsourcing to Africa and getting them up to speed. Just like England did with America.
While some might dream of a return to "America First" and "Made In Canada" policies and tarrifs, I can't imagine us ever returning to such systems. ...
And the same goes for all the other big multinationals. The only thing keeping their head offices in the US or Canada is tradition. Globalization has become an unstoppable behemoth; no one with real influence over the government through lobbyists would tolerate stepping back from globalization.
England would gladly like to inform you otherwise - for it once sent back . It can be stopped with enough force, just that you end up with a ton of dead lobbyists and a country more capable to deal with threats like China's industrial espionage.
That, and the US has a large enough internal market that can withstand pressures from outside well. Include the rest of the NATO-defined First World where workers are treated favorably, and you have a way to lock-out the vagaries of the Third World.
First and foremost, the consumer won't stand for it. The consumer now expects computers at under $1000 instead of the $2000 plus it used to cost to manufacture them onshore.
The prototypical "consumer" is only a construct that is used to defend the devolution of the First World into the standards of the Third. It is portrayed as a voracious, treasonous beast that is used to marginalize people that object to the anti-First World measures.
A recent article I read pegged the "Made in America" price of an iPad at roughly $1400 -- more than double the market price. At such prices, people simply would stop buying them, because it's pretty damned hard to justify toys over $1000 in most people's minds.
I'd highly suspect those numbers, given that they're more likely to be closer to $800 than the $1400 given the efficiencies that would be used in the US.
I don't think it's a good situation for the "First World" at all, but I can't see any of the companies involved in offshoring being willing to return to North American manufacturing and assembly when it would make their products completely uncompetitive in the rest of the world markets. Quite frankly, companies like Apple make far more from their foreign sales than they do from North American sales. As a result, if you returned to a nationalistic policy on manufacturing, they'd simply pull up the remainder of their North American roots, officially become a foreign company, and keep on with business as usual. With the US one jewel less in the globalization crown.
The problem with that is the various divisions of the US military along with the intelligence divisions would make that painfully impossible. If they pull up their roots, they find themselves with their assets seized and executives looking as horizontal as OBL for committing treason & terrorism.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The problem is that the cost is paid by the First World, especially the US, and the citizens of those nations. As deep as it has become a problem, the only way to fix it is to kill globalization until citizens of the First World are not penalized for their citizenship as they are now.
There is no problem if the benefits were direct and dislocation was non-existent. However, it would not allow businesses to enslave people.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Some report says 4G is currently being pilot phase in China, and will then then scal up and roll out across the country this year. By Hey-Deals
Maybe this is what they’re referring to. NOTE they refer to SITE PEAK SPEEDS, NOT USER SPEEDS. It’s more like a backhaul solution for LTE and LTE-A towers. By 30 Gbits/sec, they might simply mean the tower can support 100 LTE users at 300 Mbits each or 10 LTE-A users at 3 Gbits each.
http://www.huawei.com/ilink/en/about-huawei/rss-feeds/huawei-updates/index.htm
” Huawei announced the demonstration of Beyond LTE technology at the 2012 Mobile World Congress. This new technology will significantly increase site peak rate to 30Gbps, over 20 times faster than existing commercial LTE network.”
Also this is the actual announcement they made at the 2012 MWC, a new 10 Gbit/sec ETHERNET router for Cell Sites. It’s ETHERNET, not wireless – that’s why there are no references to spectrum requirements
http://www.huawei.com/en/about-huawei/newsroom/press-release/hw-124155-world-sfirst10geatn950bltebackhualmobileworldcongr.htm
As the world’s first 10GE CSR, ATN 950B covers bandwidth increase from 1GE to 10GE during LTE phases, even beyond LTE.
not really at all. read this as to why the iPhone isn`t made in the USA
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all
employee costs are far less important than the availability of labor to quick ramping up of production and proximity to parts suppliers.