CSIRO Develops 10 Gbps Microwave Backhaul 121
theweatherelectric writes "James Hutchinson of iTnews writes, 'CSIRO has begun talks with global manufacturers to commercialise microwave technology it says can provide at least 10 Gbps symmetric backhaul services to mobile towers. The project, funded out of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund and a year in planning, could provide a ten-fold increase in the speed of point-to-point microwave transmission systems within two years, according to project manager, Dr Jay Guo. Microwave transmission is used to link mobile towers back to a carrier's network where it is physically difficult or economically unviable to run fibre to the tower. Where current technology has an upper limit of a gigabit per second to multiple towers over backhaul, the government organisation said it could provide the 10 Gbps symmetric speeds over ranges of up to 50 kilometres.'"
Damn patent trolls (Score:5, Funny)
CSIRO != NPE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CSIRO != NPE (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that's a whoosh.
The GP would have to not read the title, let alone the summary, to honestly think what he said.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, using italics is never an indication of sarcasm on the internet. Neither are exclamation points! Or @!*%ing inappropriate expletives!1
1's are a dead give-away though.
csiro? new tech? (Score:1, Troll)
You sure it was CSIRO's innovation and not recycling of ideas that are otherwise trivial and done by someone else?
Re:csiro? new tech? (Score:5, Informative)
Solar hot water [csiro.au]
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent [wikipedia.org]
Atomic absorption spectroscopy [wikipedia.org]
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation [wikipedia.org]
Gene shears [csiro.au]
Extended Wear Contact Lenses [csiro.au]
Interscan Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft [csiro.au]
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer (plastic) banknotes, or "funny money"
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
X-ray phase contrast imaging
Buffalo fly trap
EXELGRAM (optical anti-counterfeiting technology)
RAFT (Reversible Addition-Fragmentation chain Transfer) Polymerisation [csiro.au]
The Mills Cross radiotelescope design
Supercapacitors [csiro.au]
24 hour tests for Tuberculosis in animals and humans [csiro.au]
It was also the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope that beamed the Moon Landing.
CSIRO isn't a patent troll, they're a government owned R&D organisation. They get money from inventions, but who doesn't? Patent trolls come up with (obvious) ideas and never make it work. CSIRO actually patents completed inventions.
Some more achievements for you. [csiro.au]
Re: (Score:3)
Funny but it all looks like basic research or things with military applications. Sort of like what the NACA did in the US from 1920 that and a lot of basic medical research.
You know I am a republican and so was my mother and father. Thing is that even a conservative fellow like myself can see the benefit looking back at history that things like this gave the US. The problem is that back in the day people thought hey corporations where getting the fruits of government research for free so why not let them pa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You say "socialism" as though it is a bad thing.
Many many countries that are not the USA don't agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the posting again. I proposed a view where socialization of applied research was bad, but fundamental research was good.
I have mixed views on the topic - over my lifetime I have seen that true socialism, that is government ownership of the means of production seldom works out well. That is a practice that is not very common in the world today.
However I am not averse to some aspects of a more expansive definitions of socialism. For example socialized medicine or government funding of fundamental researc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Go read their patents.
BTW learn how to troll, you suck at it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Go read their patents." So you have nothing.
I think you might have a point. [google.com] Just look at how vague and unspecific that diagram is.. Everyone was doing wireless LANs in 1993 after all, these guys are hopeless.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The predecessor of Watt's engine was a steam engine too. Granted, it was entirely different beast than Newcomen's engine, but you just said "steam engine". That patent shouldn't have been granted. Everything described here has ample prior art described in the literature - even by ancient greeks!
Did you know that you have to read past the "Title: Wireless LAN" to find out what exactly is being patented? Hint: it's not the concept of "wireless LAN", it's a specif
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, it was an entirely different beast than 802.11, but you just said "wireless LANs"
With air-tight arguments like that you would have got CSIRO thrown out of court in no time. The manufacturer group must be kicking themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
The airtight arguments were made in court filings. For example, it appears that the central "innovation" under dispute here is the use of OFDM to deal with multipath distortion. That's a technology that was invented in the 1957 (Kineplex). Bell Labs made some major improvements in the 1960s. It was perfected in the 1980s by other people than CSRIO. At best, the patent covers an obvious incremental improvement.
Thrown out of court? You haven't heard of the Eastern District of Texas, then? The most ridiculous
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, obvious now. But was it then? No idea, now isn't then. All things considered, your posts just smack of sour grapes because for a fucking change it's an American company being shafted by a patent.
See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:5, Insightful)
See? The CSIRO engages in actual research, and patents its own work, and licences its own patented work to others.
It doesn't go around buying up patents from other companies with the aim of litigation.
The result of non-Australians paying for the use of CSIRO patents will be further research by CSIRO that could improve technology for the rest of the world - not just for Australians. If patents are to exist at all, this is how it should work.
Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:5, Insightful)
then patenting it and charging those same citizens to use what they paid to invent.
Or, in this case, charging billion-dollar companies incorporated in another country. Australian taxes should fund research for American companies - that way the tax-payers are sure to get their money's worth!
Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:5, Informative)
I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force
Pay tax much? Governments get to charge taxes because they have standing armies. This has been the way since the dawn of city states and will not change because you don't like it.
Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't NASA have thousands of patents? The NSA has patents that are not disclosed unless someone makes a similar claim.
You could argue that any R&D is "BIG GOVERNMENT" spending. The problem is that government spending must show an election-cycle profit. Which is why organizations like NASA can't send people into space anymore. This is what happens when vast standing armies - the ultimate threat of force - soak up public money and literally burn it. People are actually convinced that this is OK, but aff
Re: (Score:2)
NASA owns less than a thousand patents. I have never heard of them suing anyone for infringement. In fact it may be that under US law the US government cannot sue for infringement.
They do run a licensing office though. I imagine if they were to license someone the licensee could sue an unlicensed party.
This is just a guess though. IANAL although I do have some patent experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand the idea of government taking someones money under threat of force
I can't stand the idea that a person believes they can reap all the rewards of a functioning society without giving something back to maintain it at a reasonable standard. In effect, these people are using force to leech of everyone else's contribution to society.
Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Australians pay for wireless research just so foreign multi-billion dollar organisations can use it for free?
Re: (Score:1)
Why should Americans pay for Internet research so foreigners can use it for free? I'm Australian and your argument is useless.
If it weren't for the Americans, there would be no Internet to try and make wireless. Last time I checked, I don't pay a license for the Internet.
Wireless was not new research. It was built on the shoulders of giants.
Re:See? CSIRO is no troll (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really astonishing how out of touch some people are. I really don't know how you managed to avoid the PR that Universities push out about the new technologies they have patented.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government doesn't patent things they caused to be invented because they "partner" with private enterprises and just give them the patent. Your government is just as bad, if not worse.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what CSIRO is doing. Australian taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding research so that American companies can get it free. If anything, CSIRO should just implement a no-cost license for their patents for Australian companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you mentioned that you come from the land of the free (ride for bankers and other folk who produce no tangible works..). Australia is not the only country where the idea that research organizations funded by the community via the elected government helps defray the considerable costs of doing the research by patenting and licensing new innovations is customary - try the UK or France..
I can't speak for your form of government, but the last time I filled in a Tax Return, there weren't armed soldiers at
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'll get it wedged into an industry standard and have the fund rolling in from suckers who think standards mean "free to use".
CSIRO are now trolls. (Score:3, Interesting)
No. CSIRO are trolls.
I've been meeting them for quite some years now and the CSIRO guys I've met are about protectionism. Since they lost their .edu status, they are about turning a buck. They will lie, cheat and steal their way through any bit of technology and pawn it off as their own. They may once have had skill but those days have gone.
The CSIRO are pretending to be elite. They plant themselves into the University system and pinch any idea that has the smallest amount of creativity. They will tak
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind so much except they never deliver on more than 90% of projects.
That's why it's called science and research you retard. If you have a way of knowing which scientific study or development project based on new studies will be successful beforehand, please enlighten us, because we would like to bypass all that theorizing stuff and just plug numbers in formulae.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that, CSIRO troll. There is a difference between research grants and projects you retard.
I'm talking about the product development projects; The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product. Just a little document that stated how hard it was and there were all sorts of difficulties. "But if you give us another couple of million, we'll deliver it. We promise."
The governme
Re: (Score:1)
The ones where other companies had existing contracts and the CSIRO came in and said 'No we can do better. We are the CSIRO.' Years later on delivery date and no product.
So that makes them patent trolls does it? Nice to know that you think because you hate an organization, you'll put any label on them even if it doesn't actually mean what you intend.
If the CSIRO are incompetent, then the correct label is "incompetent". "Patent troll" does not mean incompetent. "Patent troll" does not just mean "a company that has patents and have sued".
Again, you miss the important point that the CSIRO works on projects, whether scientific studies or product development where the scienc
Re: (Score:2)
I said troll. Not patent troll. You're reading comprehension skills are something to be desired mate.
Re: (Score:2)
s/you're/your/g
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people believe they are trolls.The appellation is generally applied to non-practicing holders who sue infringers, especially if they try to get a permanent injunction to cease practicing the invention, or if the patent covers an implementation standard.
In this case CSIRO is suing people who implement IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g and go after permanent injunctions. This is poor behavior.
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-amp-wireless/58796/court-puts-csiro-wi-fi-injunction-hold [itworld.com]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networ [zdnet.com]
Cost? (Score:4, Informative)
10 Gbps would be nice, but I'm guessing the cost of this system would be at least a magnitude greater than the AirFibers.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you actually follow the url he provided (shame on him for not making it a link :)), they have a pre-order page where they're offering it for $2,995.00 (although with "Final tax and shipping costs to determined upon fulfillment."). It also says that "Each order contains two radio units." I'm a little unclear on whether that means that each order contains both endpoints or just that there are two "radio units" (send and receive?) in each endpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it is a 24 GHz system. Anything much above 11 GHz is going to have rain-fade problems. We have had years of experience with 24 GHz systems. Even though these links are less than 2 km and have very significant fade margins, we still lose them during any significant rainfall. The reliability of a 13 km link will be frustratingly poor. Been there, done that.
Second, as the AC points out, the cost is not the unit itself. The cost is in the installation and grounding. The structure you put this thing on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Two links will be fine on the same tower. The beamwidth is very narrow at 24GHz and the radios are GPS synched.
http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?t=50005
Re: (Score:1)
Probably aiming at slightly different markets
airfiber range, 13km, fta band
csiro range, 50km, not specified but probably aimed for licensed bands
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like the Ubiquitis could be installed by a highly trained monkey with the software they've included.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's actually 700 Mbps symmetric, and that is achievable at about 1.5 miles (Direct from the engineers mouthes at the release conference). 24gHz is also prone to "rain fade". This will be a great product but make sure you read through all the marketing BS. As a note Ubiquity is in the market to have "Disruptive Pricing". Most other vendors are selling PtP links at the same speed for closer to $13K - $25K.
Good work by the Australians (Score:5, Interesting)
Now they can implement this into the NBN and allow those that can only have wireless access and not cable have this.Actually at this speed it could exceed the cable part of the NBN.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I believe you'll find this tech is expensive, having to install large microwave equipment aside rather tall towers. I doubt the government is going to pay to erect a huge ass tower and gigantic microwave dish and the same on a tower 50km away pointing directly at you. I'm sure it's the least of costs, but it probably uses much more power than your microwave too.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Point to point microwave technology is not helpful to get connectivity out to lots of people. The dishes need to be perfectly aligned to each other since the signal is deliberately kept within a very narrow beam. Microwave doesn't bounce off things like the lower frequencies used for wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Point to point microwave technology is not helpful to get connectivity out to lots of people. The dishes need to be perfectly aligned to each other since the signal is deliberately kept within a very narrow beam. Microwave doesn't bounce off things like the lower frequencies used for wifi.
Alignment of dishes is also needed to preserve a good signal / noise ratio needed by high efficiency modulation. The alternative would be to increase the transmitter power a lot with the downside of leaking interference all around.
I assume special antenna construction is part of this high-speed technology too.
Re: (Score:2)
My workplace was on a microwave link for a while.
It royally sucked. Every time it rained, snowed or was windy or foggy the link degraded severely. Unless this technology improves link quality in bad weather I'd say it was a waste of time to develop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are smart enough to live in a place where water is easily available.
Re: (Score:1)
I think they may have developed this for the NBN.There is not the goal of getting fiber to every home in the NBNs plans. Those last few percent of the population in difficult to cable areas - I can't remember percentage but as much as five percent - are to be serviced by wireless technologies.
This is not for end users. It is to get the link to the tower.
Subtle but important addition ... (Score:5, Informative)
A vital point not explicitly highlighted in the summary - the Science and Industry Endowment Fund providing some of the funding for this work was the main beneficiary of last year's settlement around CSIRO's wireless patent.
That is, the settlement money is being directly reinvested in new research to further develop wireless technologies, as well as public good research in other fields.
Fair licensing; the system works. (Score:2)
CSIRO develop technologies, patent them, then license them at fair terms. They then use that licensing revenue to develop new technologies, patent them, and license them at fair terms. And repeat.
It's not like CSIRO are patent trolls. The WLAN thing only got dragged out in course because greedy companies were not interested in fair licensing terms.
And yet, somehow, (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I pay less for 500GB/month at 100mbit today than I did for 80GB/month at 20mbit five years ago.
However, I do wish that locally mirrored content wasn't counted towards quotas. Then maybe we could somewhat reduce (not eliminate) our relative reliance on our international links
Here's an idea (Score:1)
Make patents non-tradable. If a company is sold or goes under, the patents go to the public domain. Same thing if a person holds the patent. Person dies, patents evaporate. Even better? Extend the law to also include copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
All the people who would need to vote on such a thing are the same people being paid by the 'rights holders' not to allow such things to happen.
It is a nice dream though :3
Re: (Score:1)
To do that, you need to make patents non-licensable, or you could just sign a contract that says "I allow you to use this patent in full, for the lifetime of the patent, and promise that I won't use it myself.". Has exactly the same effect as trading it.
And if you do that, then you lose a lot of the benefit of patents. If some dude comes up with a better seat belt design in his garage, he's not going to produce a line of cars by himself: he's going to license the design to auto manufacturers. If he can't
Re: (Score:1)
No license fees? Pure profit!
Precipitation (Score:4, Interesting)
Microwave transmission is/can be blocked/degraded by precipitation which is not a good thing. If this is a problem with this technology it will likely be implemented in only the most extreme locations -- where laying cable is very very expensive and utilization will be light.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, it never bloody rains in Western Australia these days.
Looks like the tech would be useless on the eastern coast though... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, some tell ARS (Score:1)
Oh no, CSIRO are inventing wireless tech again, quick someone tell Joe Mullins so he can claim someone else did it!
Perhaps I'm just dumb (Score:2)
Am I the only person who had to look up what a 'backhaul' was? In >15 years of working with IT I have never heard this term.
As I am reading about it, it looks like this applies to phone networks almost exclusively. It seems to be the same thing as a 'backbone' when discussing a network.
I suppose as we get closer and closer to phones=internet=telecommunications=data becoming true it becomes hard to distinguish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you are. I've heard it time and time again from broadband network engineers here.
Re: (Score:2)
'Backbone' refers to core network links, while 'backhaul' usually refers to secondary links which connect edge networks or endpoint aggregators to the backbone.