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.
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.
Christ, it can see itself arriving.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Seriously?
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.
He probably made the same claim when 3G was being released.
"What do we need 3G for, I'm just happy on my 2G connection!"
"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.
Soooo unimaginative. Ever considered that phones aren't the only devices using mobile internet? Realised that in areas only serviced by ADSL and cable, that LTE gives you by far the highest upload speed?
Geez get a fucking imagination; your stupid toy phones aren't the only things using mobile internet.
No kidding. Employees in the field with tablets, Self service kiosks, any number of devices that need to be connected to networks, etc.
Phones are just the smallest part. Businesses right now have very few options, and most of them expensive as fuck due to some very arbitrary decisions. Most of those decisions centered around greedy bastards.
Any technology that has the possibility of adding more bandwidth and competition is welcome.
These comments that call for "I'd rather xyz was improved, why are they bothering with foo?" are silly. Very simply: the scientists who study xyz don't know a darn thing about foo.
Also 30 gigabits/second is so effing fast that they hopefully wouldn't need data caps at the 2 to 4 gig mark, but could go higher. Because, in theory, those data caps exist because that's the cell companies can reasonably provide to everyone. yeah I know I'm being way too hopeful given the nature of cell phone companies.
... improving the efficiency of spectrum utilization ...
Like by introducing 4g? OK, maybe that wasn't an intelligent response of me. What other techniques are there that increase spectrum effeciency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
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.
yeah, that's what I came to post: it seems to be a violation of Shannon's Law. But, then again, the Chinese are known for violating all kinds of laws.
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.
So more people can do what you do in a limited volume of space and finite frequency bands.
(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.
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.
They don't need caps at the 2 or 4 mark even now. It's just the abusive practices of a tight-fisted duopoly. Consider that the towers go virtually unused between 12 AM and 8 AM. Why not give everyone unlimited data during off-peak hours, the same way they did with voice (unlimited nights and weekends)? Now you see this is about earning more money through punitive overages than about providing service.
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.
Fixed wireless (3G, or now 4G) also services homes and business in areas not covered by other forms of (wired) internet. And it beats the hell out of the alternative (i.e. satellite).
> The internet should be more like shirts Oh, it is, inventing it is just another low-end job we've outsourced to China...
Doesn't Shannon's Limit only apply to continous time bandwidth. I'm not sure MIMO applies to that?
For example (thinking out of my arse) you could interweave the channels somehow to provide additional error correction giving you a massive SNR.
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
Also remember that this is likely to be 30Gb/s of total throughput between the cell and all clients (or maybe all in one direction, depending on the antenna design), it's not 30Gb/s to every person (well, it might be, I didn't RTFA). 30Gb/s is way more than one person can use at the moment - during my PhD a few years ago I had a 1Gb/s connection to the Internet and had to be careful if I clicked on large download links because my hard disk couldn't keep up with the network speed and the machine would fill up RAM trying to cache everything and then become unresponsive until the download finished. 100Mb/s, however, is quite easy to saturate without placing any strain on the local machine and 10Mb/s is very easy. Ignoring other overheads, this means that one cell can give 300 people a 100Mb/s connection or 3,000 people a 10Mb/s connection. That means that 3,000 people in the same cell can be streaming HD video without any problems.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
640KB is not enough for everyone, but it is enough for some people. It's just about enough to edit long text documents and simple images. 6.4MB is enough for more, it's enough for long rich text documents and occasional more complex images. 64MB is enough for more, it's enough for editing large photos. 640MB is enough for nondestructively editing complex photos and enough for simple video editing. 6.4GB is enough for realtime nondestructive video editing. 64GB is enough for... pretty much anything we use computers for today.
There will always be new applications that require more RAM, but often they are fairly niche products. The same is true of bandwidth. Waiting to load web pages irritates everyone. Waiting to load images irritates most people. Not being able to stream video irritates fewer people. Not being able to stream HD video irritates even fewer. Not being able to interactively stream 3D volume datasets probably only irritates a few dozen...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Real" 4G has not only to do with increase bandwidth but also with lower latency, standardization, simpler network architecture for operators, will eventually be all IP based, failover to older gens may be feasable, etc.
From the user POV - Speed, Bandwidth, Rich Applications, Increase in opportunity to make new apps.
From Op POV - Speed, Bandwidth, Better Network Architecture, Simpler Network Management, Increase in opportunity to make new apps, new revenue streams, etc.
The "Real" 4G standard requires 1 gbps for stationary mobile devices, as in when you are not moving.
It requires 100 mbps for moving mobile devices, as in when you are on the move, even at speeds of over 350 kmph. (maybe mph, can't quite remember)
3G cannot deliver that.
So yes, we do need 4G.
Forget 4G, 5G is already being discussed.
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.
Hear hear. For example, my mother uses 3G (and soon LTE) for internet access to her home, which is a rural area that isn't served by either cable or DSL, and has no line-of-sight access for satellite service.
my mother uses fios... to get recipes online
"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.
Only because you don't understand Shannon's law. It applies to a channel. Shannon has nothing to say about how many channels you can pack into a given bit of spectrum.
If they had free data at night, I'm pretty sure that'd lead to people running bit-torrent at those particular hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
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.
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.