Slashdot Mirror


Qualcomm Unveils First mmWave 5G Antennas For Smartphones (theverge.com)

Qualcomm announced its new QTM052 mmWave antenna modules that will enable 5G networks on select mobile phones. The penny-sized antenna array features four antennas that can accurately point toward the nearest 5G tower. It can even bounce signals off of surrounding surfaces, if needed. The Verge reports: The QTM052 is designed to be small enough that device manufacturers will be able to embed it into the bezel of a phone. Qualcomm's X50 5G modem is already designed to support up to four of the antenna arrays, one for each side of the phone, allowing for 16 total antennas and ensuring that no matter how you hold your phone, the signal won't get blocked. Qualcomm says that the first devices with the QTM052 antennas should be launching as early as the beginning of 2019 -- and hopefully, there'll be some actual 5G networks to use them with by then.

45 comments

  1. penny sized in a bezel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess manufactures will have to be told they need to bring the bezel back.

    1. Re:penny sized in a bezel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think your youtube link is quite what you think it is.

    2. Re:penny sized in a bezel? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      A longer bigger thicker notch on each side.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:penny sized in a bezel? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      At last!

      Now I'll be able to send my text messages in 1us instead of the 1ms it typically takes at the moment.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:penny sized in a bezel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean: Your youtube link isn't quite what I thought it was.

  2. No thanks by MTEK · · Score: 1

    I imagine you'll want to selectively enable this modem (it's separate from 4G) in next year's high-end phones; otherwise, it will kill battery life.

    1. Re:No thanks by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Has any consumer actually asked for 5G or is it just marketing?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:No thanks by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I have limited hope it may break the ISP monopoly, otherwise I'm fine with the few mbps I got on my phone pre 4g (and really see no need for the 50 I get now).

      Especially since I can't stream HD audio, and don't personally download large files on my phone.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will also kill you, with poisonous radiation.

    4. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha no,it will in fact make them stronger as they absorb the Cellular providers.

    5. Re: No thanks by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The time to absorb cellular providers has passed though. If Comcast wanted a cellular company, they should have been trying to purchase TMO or Sprint, not buying their own bandwidth. Instead they're trying to compete with cellular.

      For one thing if 5G does turn out to be viable competition, that's going to make the cellular companies more, not less valuable.

      We already have 2 cellular companies trying to compete with TV (Verizon and T-Mobile). Verizon claims (grain of salt and all) that the reason they stopped the FiOS roll-out in our area (from an employee, not official, I think officially they're still rolling out, but SLOW) was that they were going to offer 5G internet access to the home, and that it would be good.

      It seems credibly possible, I don't know how much better it'd be than the LoS ISP in my area though (trees block my access to both of their sites).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so adorable that you guys think the major cell carriers aren't already the biggest isp's on the block. Verizon and AT&T each hold 35%+ of the cellular market, with the remaining third distributed among effective non factors.

    7. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My testicles eagerly await this extra heat source

    8. Re: No thanks by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      No, I simply think they'd like to be bigger, and squeeze out Comcast as much as they can, as Comcast tries to do the same to them.

      They have room for growth.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's HD Audio? I'm curious :)
      48KHz 16bit audio data provably matches or exceeds the limits of human hearing and lossless 44.1KHz 16bit which existed before I was born is pretty much perfect.

      The 4G bandwidth may be mostly useless but it worked for what I anticipated, in my country at least. Data allowances (gigabytes) went 10x-20x bigger at same or lower cost. I was a bit surprised seeing an ad last year for a cheap 60GB plan, and from a historical asshole operator at that.
      So with 5G I expect to be things like unlimited with 300GB cap, or even uncapped when you're on 5G. Something better than non-residential wifi which is provided by random assholes anyway that you have to authenticate with and/or suffer the spying and blocking, such that even using your mobile carrier would be better.

    10. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already have 2 cellular companies trying to compete with TV (Verizon and T-Mobile). Verizon claims (grain of salt and all) that the reason they stopped the FiOS roll-out in our area (from an employee, not official, I think officially they're still rolling out, but SLOW) was that they were going to offer 5G internet access to the home, and that it would be good.

      I'm sure you realize that's some lame excuse to not deploy their FiOS. They just want people to be stuck on DSL, or have oligopoly agreements. And with the way prices in the US are "localized" the worse the infrastructure is in an area, the more expensive Internet access is to the consumers. So they lack the negative incentive that copper networks should be more expensive to operate.

      The easiest way to have 5G Internet access in the home is probably to have FiOS in your home and a 5G femto-cell linked to the router or included in the router. Then your phone would roam to outdoors 5G if available seamlessly, drop to 4G LTE, hop back to 5G.

    11. Re: No thanks by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I didn't realize it was less expensive to run fiber to every house than it is to run it to a location every other block or so.

      I guess we'll see with Sacramento and Houston tests happening now though.

      If o had unlimited budget it seems unlikely I'd want to set up a wired ISP, it sounds like a lot of capital expense when there's a competitor that can drive down prices and makes market share an uphill battle (even if everybody hates the incumbent, 2 free months and price reduction can buy loyalty).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    12. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your insights.
      It's true afterall that wireless can be dramatically cost effective. E.g. third world users on 3G who don't have land line, or even electricity to the home.

      The fear I have is this will end up like a mom and pop wireless ISP (with your 5G receiver thing hanging out of a window, on the roof or a mast?). Which might be very fine. But if you get 500 Mbps on a clear day, when everyone is out to work or at 4 AM, then you get 0.5 Mbps at 6 PM and 10% packet loss, or such rain fade loss in mild moist weather, then that wouldn't be fine at all.

      If this scenario works well, outdoors antenna and good connection for the very most of the time, that's not bad at all and might be excellent.
      If your deal is to use outdoors 5G from your indoors 5G laptop and the signal is so weak from going through the wall or iron shutter, it might be a bad deal.
      Thinking of the worst is how I believe that a femto-cell or femto-cells with fibre or cable Internet would be best.
      You may mix both if you wish, fixed 5G residential with a 5G femto-cell. In a favorable case it'll be great.

      In the boonies the carrier/ISP 5G tower could itself be linked by microwave or LEO satellite or anything to the wider Internet. Could be great too, or in cases cables would be looted or vandalized.

    13. Re:No thanks by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What's HD Audio? I'm curious :)
      48KHz 16bit audio data provably matches or exceeds the limits of human hearing

      But.... bigger numbers MUST be better!!!!!

      (insert "digital show and tell" by Monty here...)

      --
      No sig today...
  3. mm Frequencies means MORE cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Higher than 5Ghz? MM frequencies near skin? Sounds like a great recipe.

    1. Re:mm Frequencies means MORE cancer by chill · · Score: 1

      Specifically, up to 800 MHz of bandwidth in the 26.5-29.5 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, and 37-40 GHz spectrum bands.

      See: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2016_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re: mm Frequencies means MORE cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably facebook, with all their garbage data, tested it on rats and sand monkeys.

  4. 5G thing or industry trend? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sort of surprised to see Qualcomm releasing a discrete part at this level of integration (rather than "here's an entire cell modem on module so you can 5G your widget with minimum regulatory hassle and without adding an RF witch doctor to your traffic light control company's team" or "here's the silicon and some design guide docs; engineering support for larger customers").

    Is there just more demand than I realize from people who are doing things too tightly integrated/space constrained for the full "lump of cell module" treatment(would be phone ODMs with limited RF experience, such that they buy antennas rather than integrate them as trace antennas or into phone body/structure?) or do the requirements of '5G' impose sufficiently new and stringent requirements that it's expected that relatively few will be able to so it in house, at least for the first generation or two?

    1. Re:5G thing or industry trend? by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not so easy to make a phased array by using traces on the PCB. Modules like these make it easier to implement, which will help out the smaller companies the most. It's easier to switch to differently located arrays within the phone with these modules as well. You need something like this when you go run 26-47Ghz like these do as the signals are easily attenuated.

      One of my pet peeves about cell phone antenna design is form over function, with a larger and more sophisticated antenna the range can be enhanced significantly as you can increase the gain and area over which the signal is captured. Instead, as the signal to noise ratio dropped due to advancements on the radio side, manufacturers let the antennas atrophy and hid them wherever they could leading to designs where customers simply are "holding them wrong".

    2. Re:5G thing or industry trend? by MTEK · · Score: 0

      This is a first-to-market stunt. Early adopters beware. It's going to need two or more iterations.

    3. Re:5G thing or industry trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      buy antennas rather than integrate them as trace antennas or into phone body/structure?

      Couple reasons. This antenna is likely far more dense and complex than possible on a standard PCB. Custom dielectric materials play a role and with all those pins on the connectors, this is probably active in some way. Plus when you use your PCB for an antenna you can't use that space for anything else and the whole PCB needs to be the right dielectric for the antenna to work. A few other good reasons I'm sure plus all of the business reasons which are beyond the scope of this comment.

    4. Re:5G thing or industry trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct about the dielectric at these frequencies. You not only have to worry about the loss of the material, but the material ratios can vary from each batch. Even a small change in the dielectric would throw off the tuning for these frequencies. Not that they would use FR4 for this, but as an example, even small changes in the ratio of fiberglass to epoxy can easily detune a pcb filter at much much lower frequencies.

    5. Re:5G thing or industry trend? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I'm sort of surprised to see Qualcomm releasing a discrete part at this level of integration (rather than "here's an entire cell modem on module so you can 5G your widget with minimum regulatory hassle and without adding an RF witch doctor to your traffic light control company's team" or "here's the silicon and some design guide docs; engineering support for larger customers").

      Qualcomm makes parts. They sell parts. They do not sell modules. You cannot go to Qualcomm and buy a complete cellular module.

      Instead, companies like Sierra Wireless, U-Blox, Widcomm and tons of others take Qualcomm's chips and turn them into modules of all sorts of form factors. Qualcomm provides support to those companies, while end users of those modules either use provided software by the module vendor, or write their own based on the 3GPP specification documents.

  5. mmWave is very line of sight. by pcjunky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The spectrum they are using is very line of sight. Even a sheet of cardboard will significantly attenuate the signal. Trees and even tinted windows will 99% block these signals. These frequencies (like the 38GHz that Verizon bought Straight Path to get) have been used for point to point links very sparingly over the last few decades due to the extreme short range and rain fade problems that make it very difficult to use beyond 1/2 mile. A couple years ago Straight Path gave us two Cerigon FiberAir radios to use at 38GHz because no one in SW Florida was using 38GHz and the FCC was threatening to revoke their license. We were only only ones using the spectrum (they told us so) and even with trying to give away the radios (about $10k for the pair) they couldn't find anyone to use in in the counties just to the north of us. We used them for a 1000 foot (300 meter) link (we will still be operating this link until Sept when the license expires). This was with 1 foot dishes on each end. Rain fade does effect the link when the rain gets heavy, but due to the very short distance it still operates. I just can't see them using these frequencies on devices like cell phones to much effect. I predict this will be an epic fail.

    1. Re:mmWave is very line of sight. by pcjunky · · Score: 1

      It should be noted these frequencies are much higher than of those used by satellite TV services like Directv (around 12GHz) that already have rain fade problems and suffer much more from rain fade.

    2. Re:mmWave is very line of sight. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the plan is to cut down all the trees and ban tinted windows.

    3. Re: mmWave is very line of sight. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      These frequencies (like the 38GHz that Verizon bought Straight Path to get) have been used for point to point links very sparingly over the last few decades

      Decades?? No... not really; in fact not at all.

    4. Re:mmWave is very line of sight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The benefit of this technology if you're cynical, is to think of all the millions "access points" or micro cell towers that would be sold and installed to have a wide coverage.

      Beside some luxury Internet access or e.g. journalists and professionals uploading footage it seems useful for extremely crowded places. Line of sight is almost a feature i.e. you have cells in the expo booths area, a cell in each huge conference hall, a cell in the casino floor, a cell in the parliament/congress/national assembly, a cell or set of cells in a stadium (but why the hell not watch what's going on instead of using computers!).

      Then we have these things that have already existed for a decade with 3G - residential cells leased by the ISP to consumers.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtocell
      I will not debate the security - much potential for abuse if anybody and his grandmother can have a femtocell but I'll leave this to security specialists.

      I predict that your prediction will be wrong and they'll sell/lease a million cells a year, I don't know. Albeit this depends on cost and some things are too high end to succeed (Firewire, 10GBase-T, 60GHz wifi?). Nevertheless high end phones are a mass market product like VCR and dishwasher in the 90s.

  6. They have no working part or 5G modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is just to create some sense of defeat with the other contending manufacturers. Until there is a working part which can be ordered and shown to function satisfactory, all you see announced is just attempts at marketing.

    It currently looks like Ericsson or Huawei will be the first to win the 5G race.

  7. 16 antennas!!?? by mugurel · · Score: 1

    allowing for 16 total antennas and ensuring that no matter how you hold your phone, the signal won't get blocked.

    "Four antennas ought to be enough for anybody." -- Steve Jobs

  8. Allows OEMs to Prototype with Qualcomm by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how many small companies (ie "traffic light control company") would take advantage of this, but I would suspect that the target market is larger OEMs to help them get 5G prototypes together faster so they can evaluate it with their existing hardware architecture.

    I've been out of the cell phone business for a few years, but a step increase in bandwidth like this would put a lot of strain on the communications processor and hardware and handset companies would probably want to evaluate how they actually work compared to how the datasheet says they work at these datarates. Along with just working, I suspect that there will be power usage implications that would have to be evaluated.

    And, of course by providing a path to do this prototyping, Qualcomm is getting the OEM's engineers experienced with their product earlier, helping to lock out the competition.

  9. Millimeter-wave: triangulation? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    If 5G needs millimeter-wave antennas, does that mean it would be possible to very accurately triangulate your 5G phones' position between towers?

    1. Re:Millimeter-wave: triangulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the answer is that you are within 20ft of the tower that is currently working.

    2. Re:Millimeter-wave: triangulation? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Haha that's very nice. Now could I get a real answer from someone who knows what they're talking about and not some fucktard AC talking out of his ass?

    3. Re:Millimeter-wave: triangulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, right back you lefty fucktard.. if you knew anything about RF, you would already know that it won't make any difference. The size of the antenna isn't going to affect the speed of EM propagation in the atmosphere. Hope that clears up your simple geometry question for you.

    4. Re:Millimeter-wave: triangulation? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If 5G needs millimeter-wave antennas, does that mean it would be possible to very accurately triangulate your 5G phones' position between towers?

      In theory it allows greater angular resolution for the same physical antenna size. In practice I doubt it would help.