narcosis219
Member
Based on that video they have an "adaptation" feature that tracks the device.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DIDO Wireless Technology (this is the future)
- Thread starter Casp0r
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Based on that video they have an "adaptation" feature that tracks the device.
Based on that video they have an "adaptation" feature that tracks the device.
Yes, current MIMO systems do this too based on device feedback. This is not scalable to many multiple users as the number of Tx/Rx antennas has to increase by one for each spatially multiplexed signal (the number of users you have). You would physically run out of space to place all these antennas.
Maybe they are doing this, but:
if it requires device feedback to estimate the interference environment, you'd need a massive amount of antennas
or:
if it requires the network to keep track of all devices exact positions all the time and be able to send out the next signal quickly enough so that the interference environment hasn't changed by the time the device receives it. The added complexity here is that they decided to compute everything from a centralized location, so there's that extra latency to deal with (exactly the opposite way that 3GPP is moving!)
My totally limited understanding is that this is basically like mass-transit, where instead of having individual cars, everyone hops into the same one.
Or more specifically, all signals are packed together, like taking the letters of two different books and putting the letters of one book in the empty spaces of the other, than separating them back. The implications on a security level seem be that everything will go through the same channel, naked. You couldn't send secure information over the system. That's the only way I can imagine that they can have the signals on the same frequency not take turns.
I'm probably 100% wrong, but I'd be curious to know. If this is what it is, you'd need a monopoly on the communications channel, and probably a government-run one.
No, they've got multiple broadcasters (and probably more than one antenna in that box that they showed) - each broadcaster sends out at its maximum bandwidth - but what's sent carries bits and pieces of each user's data - and is only unencoded properly and fully (through trigonometry) at the specific location of the user's PCell.
So in actual fact, it makes wireless communication even more secure, because unless you're where the PCell is, you can't full intercept or decode the data received by the PCell... and the way it's shown is that it's so exact in pin pointing the location of the PCell, that you can't even get another device close enough to it before you bump into literal physical barriers of the device itself.
So instead of having one tower send messages to all the users - and the more data sent to more devices, the more sharing that needs to happen - you have these boxes that send thousands of messages that are a scrambled mess of everyone's messages - that are only interpretable once you get to a very specific location.
And it happens so fast and iteratively, that it's good enough to track mobile devices moving in hands stacking on top of one another.
Wonder how well it performs in vehicles.
FreddieQuell
Member
Yes, current MIMO systems do this too based on device feedback. This is not scalable to many multiple users as the number of Tx/Rx antennas has to increase by one for each spatially multiplexed signal (the number of users you have). You would physically run out of space to place all these antennas.
Maybe they are doing this, but:
if it requires device feedback to estimate the interference environment, you'd need a massive amount of antennas
or:
if it requires the network to keep track of all devices exact positions all the time and be able to send out the next signal quickly enough so that the interference environment hasn't changed by the time the device receives it. The added complexity here is that they decided to compute everything from a centralized location, so there's that extra latency to deal with (exactly the opposite way that 3GPP is moving!)
In the white paper linked in the OP (from a few years ago) they were adding one antenna per user.
In the white paper linked in the OP (from a few years ago) they were adding one antenna per user.
Unless I'm mistaken, for each spatial channel that is being transmitted, the device needs a new antenna to estimate that spatial channel so that it can inform the network about the interference. I may be wrong.
Hm, I probably am, I think the UE only needs multiple receive antennas if it needs to separate the spatial channels for itself.
googleplex
Member
If Google bought these guys out and got into the mobile broadband business it would be pretty awesome.
The software that runs the servers doesn't require a constant connection to these people does it? I can understand if they want to treat the software like classic Windows where you purchase the program and upgrade if you want when a new version comes out I guess. Think they will license (or give the specs away) for the "routers" and let anyone make one? Really curious what we'll all end up paying if this becomes real. Shouldn't it make costs incredibly low?
MarzipaNMOS
Member
steve perlman ("a name we will all soon know") was also behind OnLive - a name we all soon forgot. so excuse the skepticism of other posters when the dude has a history of over hyping his tech...
steve perlman ("a name we will all soon know") was also behind OnLive - a name we all soon forgot. so excuse the skepticism of other posters when the dude has a history of over hyping his tech...
To be fair, if this tech pans out, streaming services like onlive could gain renewed traction with the appropriate technology.
Of course, that's still too late for OnLive.
And he's got a pretty impressive resume all things considered - division pres at MS, chief scientist at Apple, creator of WebTV and Quicktime.
Having said that... while the technology is great, the real trick of it will be the business side of the deal. I mean who's going to shell out the billions in infrastructure and d devices to roll out a completely new wireless standard that has no compatibility with existing equipment?
FreddieQuell
Member
I wonder what the actual bandwidth of that is.
Supposedly it is whatever the max bandwidth of the frequency they are operating on is.
Only this isn't some quack in a garage, it's done by an extremely reputable industrial icon.
It has been proven to work already and more importantly it hasn't been proven on paper it can't work, despite Steve Perlman actually hiring people to do so.
I thought I'd let the articles I linked do all the hard work. I was tempted to copypasta, however it would have made the post way to long to fit it all in.
But yeah that aside, it's my first thread, so sue me.
Read the articles and you'll realize it's already proven itself. Current wireless understanding calls what he's already done with those 10 devices impossible, that alone says enough about this technology.
Anyway some of you guys might not fully understand what extremely low latency fast wireless connections like this could do. So check out something else Steve Perlmans been working on. Onlive streams games right? Well why not a windows desktop ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znfA-WLAsAE#t=27m46s
Yes that is him running Autodesk Maya through an iPad ...
Alright I need this. But Maya on an iPad? You can't really do much except camera controls/paint...
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
edit: woops
Next time at least familiarize yourself with the subject being discussed, according to the video linked in thread it is BC with LTE devices. Hundreds of millions of devices. Hopefully this tech works, isn't overhyped, and pans out because it seems fucking awesome.To be fair, if this tech pans out, streaming services like onlive could gain renewed traction with the appropriate technology.
Of course, that's still too late for OnLive.
And he's got a pretty impressive resume all things considered - division pres at MS, chief scientist at Apple, creator of WebTV and Quicktime.
Having said that... while the technology is great, the real trick of it will be the business side of the deal. I mean who's going to shell out the billions in infrastructure and d devices to roll out a completely new wireless standard that has no compatibility with existing equipment?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.