Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2-Megabit Bandwidth for Your Cell Phone

Posted by Hemos on from the watch-streaming-video-on-your-phone dept.

A reader wrote to us with the latest wireless advance from Qualcomm: 2.4 megabit bandwidth for cell phones. They call it high data rate and are hoping to compete with cable modems and other personal high-bandwidth subscription methods. Me, I just want to have a usable cell modem.

11 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Does it really matter for the United States? by rahuljain · · Score: 3

    I have heard that Nippen Telephone and Telegraph of Japan has gotten the contract for their "G3" technology to be deployed as the next standard in Europe. Their technology seems to have the exact same amount of wireless data capability. So what does this do for the U.S? We have always been one step behind the Europeans in cell phone technology because we failed to adopt the standard, instead creating our own version(s). For example, now we have CDMA, TDMA, Analog, and whatever nextel uses as the main forms of communication. Europe on the other hand has GSM, and only GSM. Hence making it easier for wireless giants to develop better phones for the network, since they are not stuck making several versions of one phone to work on all the different mediums. Regardless if qualcomm has the technology, we will end up having issues as the past has shown.

  2. Video Cellular Phones by Lonesmurf · · Score: 2

    Here, in Israel, the main phone company, Bezek international, is airing a commercial about the future of communications. It has about as much substance as those blasted Intel PIII commercials.. but i did notice that they showed a cellular phone with a small (say 140*120) pixel video-phone.. on cellular.

    With compression technology what it is, and this new higher-bandwidth technology, wouldn't it be rather simple to have some sort of portable video conferencing device?

    --

    --

    rJames.org - illustration
  3. 2.4GHz band by dattaway · · Score: 2

    I doubt cell providers will use the unlicenced 2.4GHz band. Its a "free" band for consumers.

    The 2.4GHz band seems like its going to be mighty crowded. I have a 2.4GHz Zoomair network that runs at 100mW and a 2.4GHz camera from X10. The camera seems to run on a lot less power as it would work a block away through houses, it works only a few feet when the network is running.

    Oh, if you need ethernet for your laptop and get tired of breaking dongles, I'd strongly recommend getting one of these things.

  4. its super nice but... by Haven · · Score: 2

    What's the battery life? Is the frequency high enough that I will be able to take it on a plane? (doubtful) Does it use DHCP? Do I have to have a computer or can I browse e-mail striaght off my phone? How much does it cost? What's the range? Is it 2 mega-bit , or mega-byte?

    1. Re:its super nice but... by Amadawn · · Score: 2

      Using a cell (or mobile as we say in Europe) phone on a plane is not a matter of frequency, but a matter of how the network works.

      Basically, the network is composed by a set of cells that (ideally) cover the area where costumers are. Those cells are served by Base Stations. The Base Stations have antennas, and those antennas, being non ideal, have a certain directivity. As most users are on the ground, the antennas are designed to have their best response in the direction pointing from the Base Station to the ground (usually -3 to -10 degrees). On the other hand, the antennas have the worst directivity in the areas that there are less users (you don't want to waste your power). So antennas do not send almost any power towars the air (or the ground below for the same reason).

      That is mainly why you can't use a mobile phone in a (flying plane).

      As for the data rates, they are in MegaBITS per second (Mbps), not MegaBYTES per second. And those claims are just theoretical. All 3G (3rd generation) proposed architectures claim speeds up to 2Mbps when the user is still or walking at very low speed, and up to 384 Kbps at velocitis of up to 500 Km/h! (This is so that you could use your phone on a (future) high speed train to connect to the Internet).

      But those are theoretical fields, and (almost)everybody working in this field (as I do) believes that the real data rates will be of 384 Kbps when STILL and about 114 Kbps when going at high speed (but probably not that high!).

      About the frequency plan that somebody asked about I recomend to check the 3GPP and the IMT2000 sites, where you'll find tons of info about 3rd generation mobile phones. And by the way, Qualcomms proposal is only one among many others, although most of them are based on Wideband CDMA technology, and the only comercial(narrowband) CDMA network is Qualcomm's IS-95, which is mainly deploid in the US, Brazil and some oriental countries. Qualcomm's CDMA proposal is called (last time I checked!) cdma2000, although the extension of IS-95 is cdmaOne, and I don't know if the one they are talking about in this article is the first or the latter.

      I hope this clarified some of the issues raised here!

      Cheers!

      Angel

  5. argh by Haven · · Score: 2

    I'm sure Hemos didn't read the article. The article says 2megabit and the headline says 2 megabyte.
    bits != bytes

  6. Re:Somewhat doubtful use... by Haven · · Score: 2

    I'm sure they have thought of the bandwidth issue. Its not like AOL where you have to dial in. Once your cell phone is on your are connected. As slow as it may be you are connected.

  7. Rural areas need bandwidth the most by evilandi · · Score: 2

    2MByte or 2MBit, either way mobile telephone bandwidth can only help the most bandwith-starved areas of the world- the rural ones.

    I live a bit out in the sticks as my wife points out ( Cotswolds, UK ). Whilst I'm only 500 metres from the telephone exchange, my 'phone line takes a 4 kilometre detour through three neighbouring villages before it gets there. Which means that ADSL and BT ISDN Highway are out of the question.

    I consider myself pretty lucky to get 49.3kbps from my telephone line. People in rural parts of America, Asia or Africa will be getting far less.

    Yet it is rural areas that need the Internet most. Why would townsfolk want cable TV, teleshopping, multi-user chatlines and home offices when the video shop, supermarket, pub and place of work are on their doorstep? These amenities are often not available to rural users where not only remote location, but sheer lack of numbers, make even subsidised facilities uneconomic.

    It is high-bandwidth wireless services like GPRS that will lead the revolution, not cable.

    If the post office has to send written data nationwide, regardless of urban or rural boundaries, for the same price, why shouldn't telecoms operators be forced to send digital data nationwide, regardless of urban or rural boundaries, for the same price?

    --

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  8. Re:Where does it say Cell Phone? by Thomas+Charron · · Score: 2

    Your right, it doesn't. I think people just 'assumed' wireless = cell, which is really not the case at all, but it could be.. ;-P

    --
    -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
  9. Re:Cancer by alhaz · · Score: 2

    Regular cell phone usage? Who exactly does a lab mouse call? And how often do they have to chat before they consider it a "regular" call?

    --
    This is just like television, only you can see much further.
  10. Whoa! by Hrunting · · Score: 2

    Imagine the number of MP3s you could download from Carnegie-Mellon with this sucker!

    DoH!