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).'"

16 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Cap by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Cap by chr1st1anSoldier · · Score: 4, Funny

      The internet should be more like shirts... :D

  2. Security Breach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So which company had its fancy new antenna tech lifted for this. China's R&D = Reconnaissance and Deception.

    1. Re:Security Breach... by c0lo · · Score: 5, Funny

      So which company had its fancy new antenna tech lifted for this. China's R&D = Reconnaissance and Deception.

      Certainly, it is not Apple... get a grip.

      (duck)

      .

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  3. It was bound to happen sometime by dakohli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It was bound to happen sometime by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think bandwidth (as in transfer rates) will hit diminishing returns rather soon. Once your phone can stream live HD video and audio...what's the incentive to improve? Sure, file downloads could be faster, but most people would rather just stream their content, and unless your mobile devices have terabyte hard drives in them you won't be downloading a huge amount anyway.

      I'd say once mobile devices can consistently transfer at ~10Mbps, the focus should really switch to increasing coverage and caps. All the speed in the world doesn't help if you can't get reliable service or you use up your monthly allotment in five minutes.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:It was bound to happen sometime by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. If I could stream a video stream that was my phone's full resolution along with audio that was decent, I couldn't care less if I got a faster stream. Give me an auto login to my home server and a Linux (or something else) desktop that is sized for my phone with remote desktop and I will have peaked my transfer speed needs. Honestly I don't even want most of my data on my phone, or on some third party's server. I want it stored in my home and streamed via vpn to my phone as I need it. If I lose my phone, I just change the password, grab a new phone and it is like nothing ever happened. This would also mean that I wouldn't care how fast of a processor the phone had, or how much storage it had. As long as it could decode the audio/video stream, I'm good to go.

    3. Re:It was bound to happen sometime by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Moore's law? Not really. There are theoretical limits on maximum bandwidth that are far more restrictive than theoretical computation limits. For a given SNR, the maximum digital bandwidth of a communication channel is proportional to the frequency bandwidth. You can get closer to the Shannon-Hartley limit with better rf circuits coding, noise models, etc... but there's still a limit.

    4. Re:It was bound to happen sometime by DarkFencer · · Score: 5, Funny

      3. Mobile data pricing.

      Yeah - that's covered by the well known "Pay Us Moore" law.

  4. sweet! by alienzed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  5. This is refreshing by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Or they just made it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re:Or they just made it up by geekpowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reason why Huawei stuff is so prolific is that they literally give it away. Undercutting competitors and getting market share is their principal concern, not providing a decent product.

      Of all the stuff you find in a typical telco cool room, Huawei consistently, in my experience at least, is the most problematic. Serious quality issues, things feel like they are held together with duck tape and string. Fragile and prone to regular failure. Software interfaces are rubbish. Poor quality and change control. e.g. two products with same product designation in two different telcos will be essentially different products. Awful stuff.

      I've worked with a number of telco CIOs not one of them has had glowing things to say about them. They all buy on price and later regret it.

  7. Re:So? by MiG82au · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  8. Re:Shannon's Limit by drwho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Not if you are on the wrong end (i.e. 1st World by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.