backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 11 comment(s) - last by tygrus.. on Oct 14 at 5:49 PM
Qualcomm calls for integrating existing networks with femtocells

Any customer of AT&T knows that the wireless giant has pushed its wireless networks to the limits. The iPhone and its group of prolific users of bandwidth consume as much, and at times more bandwidth than AT&T can provide.

This fact is evidenced by the high number of dropped calls and the poor availability of 3G connectivity from AT&T in many areas. Apple considers 30% dropped calls on the AT&T network in NYC normal for example, and in rural areas, the amount of dropped calls is often higher than that.

Mobile data service provider Qualcomm announced last week that speed increases for mobile data services would require more densely built networks. Qualcomm specifically points to tightly integrating Femtocell networks with existing hardware at the provider level.

Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs said, "We are getting to the point in the lab (where) we have done what we know how to do to optimize any given radio wave." He continued saying, "That's [femto network integration] how we're going to get these big increases. We think we can get eight to 10 times improvement in user experience by building up a dense network and managing the interference between the macro network and these femto networks."

Qualcomm's Irwin Jacobs said that wireless operators need to realize that femto network integration "does indeed expand our available spectrum (and) allows us to give many more services and therefore will be good for our business." Reuters reports that Qualcomm's Paul Jacobs also said that he supports the right for wireless operators to manage data traffic, but providers should not be deciding what  types of services are allowed on their networks.

He said, "We are on the side of, yes, you have to be able to do something to manage your network, but it's not the right thing to go in and say one service or another is OK."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
File this one under, "S**t I already know"
By Boze on 10/12/2009 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
Shane, just for the record, I'm not knocking your reporting so much as I'm knocking this CEO, and anyone else for that matter, who talks about the pathetic state of wireless networks in America.

That should be obvious to anyone who has purchased a cell phone and a carrier plan, or anyone who has purchased a netbook and a data plan, recently.

In fact, I'd like to share my experience here at Mississippi State University a few weeks back when Cellular South had a booth set up on the Drill Field during some sort of Student Involvement / Career Exploration week. I've wanted a netbook for some time - something to take notes in class, study notes between classes, check my mail, etc. When I saw "$199 Netbooks" plastered on a sign near the Cellular South tent, it piqued my interest. I assumed that was with some sort of wireless data plan for the netbook, and I was interested in seeing what kind of rates they offered.

Well, you can pick up a Dell Mini 10 netbook for $199.99, as long as you agree to a 2 year plan at $59.99 a month for 5 gigabytes of data transfer per month. When the representative said the data cap was 5 gigabytes per month, I laughed in his face. I wasn't even trying to be rude, or upset his business, I just found a 5 gigabyte monthly cap to be so comical I couldn't contain myself. Younger, less tech-savvy students nearby looked at me quizically... so naturally I explained to them, "Guys, this is about 40 to 50 YouTube videos a month. That's all. Combine this with e-mail, web browsing, accessing our online courseware, and most of you will hit that cap in 10 days or less, I guarantee it."

Naturally, the rep was looking a bit flustered, so I said to him, "Look, I know its not your fault - you don't set the prices or the data cap, but this is really quite pathetic... you might want to talk to some higher-ups in your company and tell them to come back to campus when they've returned to reality."

In conclusion, I did not get a netbook and data plan from Cellular South. I don't know anyone with a netbook and data plan from Cellular South. The reasons are pretty simple. For $300 or so, you can buy a netbook. MSU's wireless network covers the entire campus and then some. You can connect to it using your university logon and password. There's no reason for a student to ever consider a netbook from Cellular South or any other provider for that matter.

So what's the moral of this story? The current data caps for cellularly connected devices (iPhone, Palm Pre, carrier-sponsored netbooks) are pathetically inadequate for any remotely tech-savvy person, and most non-tech savvy ones as well. The netwook is stretched beyond capacity because these wireless companies were so enamored with their ridiculous profits they couldn't be bothered to look into the Internet-connected future and see where all this was headed... so now they have to play catch up. And you can bet your bottom dollar that they intend to pass that cost along to us.




By Drag0nFire on 10/12/2009 12:53:33 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I think the point of this article is that the cellular infrastructure is not sufficient to handle that sort of traffic. Although Cellular South's prices are too high, the monthly cap cannot be helped. If you need that kind of mobility, you'll have to do without all your youtube videos (btw, the cellular service will probably be too slow for youtube anyways).

However, since you are on a college campus, perhaps wifi would be a productive alternative. The higher density of access points will allow for a much greater bandwidth at a fraction of the cost. This is the princple behind femtocells. And as you pointed out, a netbook alone is cheap.

Just my 2c, but I think the statement by Qualcomm is actually quite valuable. It describes the future directions we need to take (we being wireless carriers, corporations, and individuals). I think your University needs to provide wifi that stretches across campus.


RE: File this one under, "S**t I already know"
By v1001 on 10/12/2009 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 3
5 Gigs a month is going to be way more than enough for most anyone who's using 3g. I'm way out in the woods and all I have is a 5 gig plan from Verizon as my sole internet provider. I watch youtube videos all the time, surf all day, download some small flash games, get windows updates, etc. Never got close to the limit. I think you are misleading these other students who don't know better. Sure a higher limit would be nice to just have. But as of yet I have not needed it. It's also invaluable for when I'm on the go looking for properties to buy. Sure 4g will be nice some day and with a higher cap so I can download games I buy or movies I buy online. But everyone knows that's not the point of having a mobile connection right now. You kind of come off as a douche when you laugh at the poor guy when it's pretty much the standard for everyone. These connections are not for EVERYTHING at the moment. But invaluable when they are needed for what they do.


RE: File this one under, "S**t I already know"
By Randomblame on 10/12/2009 1:51:15 PM , Rating: 3
Many people actually need more than 5 gigs a month, I have been getting quite close to my 100gig cap from comcast every month - I have 5 computers at my house eating bandwidth constantly.

The problem is that these companies don't want to invest in their infrastructure when they can just charge us more and add limits to their services. It is sort of like price fixing, except they are not conspiring (that we know of) when one carrier adds a cap the rest follow suit. When one carrier raises their prices - you get the picture. They don't want to fix their infrastructure - there is no money in it.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/12/2009 4:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
Two words. Verizon FIOS.


By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2009 1:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
Two words: Comcast Monopoly.

And if you want it a bit more broad: ISP monopolies

The vast majority of people can't get Verizon FIOS even if they really want it, like myself. It's simply not available. Not only that, how do you use Verizon FIOS on-the-go?


By Alexstarfire on 10/12/2009 3:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
I could easily top that with just the anime I download each month. And that's something I would certainly do on the go. It really is pathetic, but what the guy said is very obvious. The more dense the network is the more people it can support and the faster speeds you'll get. It's pretty basic logic.


By atlmann10 on 10/12/2009 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
This post is both accurate and inaccurate in some aspects. A 5 gig cap is not really ridiculous for a netbook. The reason for this is a netbook is also not really a video machine, but a ultra portable communications device.

The biggest point here as well as what Qualcomm is trying to say i think is the whole information market moves faster than anyone planned for. The cellular companies much like all the other media/communication companies are moving to slow.

This is primarily shown starting with music, then with broadband availability country wide. This is also very apparent in many other markets, Movie or show distribution is also being hit pretty hard by this, as well as print media.

One of the really big failures I think is the government itself specifically on the federal side of things. The solutions that are being explored really seem quite ridiculous to me especially in the US.

Yes the government can and is pouring a lot of money into this as a new initiative. However they are trying to concentrate it in a land based solution (read fiber, telephone, and cable underground wiring). They have come to a conclusion that this is the best thing to use. While it does yield higher bandwidth, the coverage ratio and the cost of it is ridiculous.

They should be concentrating on wireless research and implementation. If it could be studied and developed on a wireless basis not only would, and could it cover everyone much faster than a land based solution, it would also cost far, far less than the land based solution. It would also be an implementation that could take place in at least 1/4 of the time.

So while I think your missing the point of a netbook and its capabilities here. The wireless availability should be the concentration of any industry in any type of media distribution market point blank. This should especially be the area being put in use by the government, or the companies working to increase availability in the US.


Doesn't Qualcomm make Femtocells?
By heulenwolf on 10/12/2009 3:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't Qualcomm make Femtocells? If so, are these statements anything more than marketing? I happen to agree that a denser network would be good but, then, I'm not in the wireless industry.




By heulenwolf on 10/12/2009 3:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Bandwidth needs more channels
By tygrus on 10/14/2009 5:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
Seems we need wider frequency bands for more simultaneous connections and larger overlap of tranmission cells. Multi channel transievers to allow quicker handovers.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki