Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Wireless Networking China Networking Upgrades

Huawei Claims 30Gbps Wireless 'Beyond LTE' 146

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).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huawei Claims 30Gbps Wireless 'Beyond LTE'

Comments Filter:
  • by dakohli ( 1442929 ) on Sunday March 25, 2012 @11:17PM (#39471309)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25, 2012 @11:33PM (#39471409)

    "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:

    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.

  • Re:Cap (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26, 2012 @12:03AM (#39471567)

    No, what it will be used for is to constantly provide LTE speeds in very densely populated areas, and possibly to connect towers together in a standalone mesh.

  • by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Monday March 26, 2012 @12:03AM (#39471569)
    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.
  • by jpmorgan ( 517966 ) on Monday March 26, 2012 @12:05AM (#39471575) Homepage

    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.

  • by mccrew ( 62494 ) on Monday March 26, 2012 @12:09AM (#39471587)
    Moore's Law does not apply to:
    1. Bandwidth
    2. Battery life
  • Re:Shannon's Limit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drwho ( 4190 ) on Monday March 26, 2012 @12:20AM (#39471625) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Monday March 26, 2012 @01:10AM (#39471785) Homepage Journal
    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.

A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. -- Seneca