backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by hakone.. on Feb 2 at 11:29 PM

4G wireless technologies in test period in mainland China

China's mainland has completely bypassed the release of 3G communication devices and has moved right ahead to 4G.  China’s first 4th generation mobile phone was launched Sunday in Shanghai's Changning district.  Thanh Nien Daily reports that the release has come after a field test in October of 2006 and the rollout of the technology totals roughly 150 million yuan ($19.2 million USD). 

The new 4G system provides wireless transmission speeds of up to 100Mbps, which is much faster than current generation technologies, running at speeds that match optical fiber.  "It testifies that the technology we've developed is feasible and brings us one step closer to put it into commercial use," said You Xiaohu, a leading expert involved in the program.

The 4G research program was first initiated in 2001, dubbed the FuTURE Project (Future Technology for Universal Radio Environment), as part of China's high-tech development plan.  It is composed of 10 leading domestic institutions.  

According to Tech News World, the project has obtained more than 200 patents, positioning China as the frontrunner in 4G technologies research.  It has the goal to be put into trial commercial use between 2006 and 2010.  In that time, the project will also conduct field tests before its trial commercial launch. 

With this technology said to be the standard by 2010, the first licenses have not been issued yet, and China still has yet to sign agreements with any providers until the field tests are complete.

Samsung has already released 4G technologies in South Korea with the same capabilities and it seems that China is taking a big step to become a major player in communication technologies.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is 4G necessary?
By BeastieBoy on 1/30/2007 9:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
Is this another one of those "here's some new tech, now try and find a use for it" product launches? I mean, is 100Mbps really necessary on a mobile phone?

Maybe it is and I'm just not putting mine to good use.

Cheers, Beastie.




RE: Is 4G necessary?
By bunnyfubbles on 1/30/2007 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
mobile video conference phones?


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By BeastieBoy on 1/30/2007 10:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
But 100Mbs.......?
How many people can you speak to at once. With modern compression codecs, and the tiny resolution that would be used for the video (due to screen size), you could conference in excess of 100 people. How could you fit that many on the screen?


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2007 12:29:37 PM , Rating: 4
You need to be able to video conference on your cell phone? Hell even in Star Trek they just had audio. I don't know what people's fascination with being able to see who you're talking to on the phone is. What then you don't even have to go visit people to see them making humans even more antisocial?

I use my cell phone for phone calls. Yes I understand people who want a planner or basic email access (my uncle is a VP at Motorola and has the latest phones) but how much do you need to be able to do? And there's only so much you can do with a 2-3" screen.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By BladeVenom on 1/30/2007 12:33:54 PM , Rating: 5
Wait till you can feel them through your cell phone. Phone sex will really be big then.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By Axbattler on 1/30/2007 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if some people already found use of the vibrate mode ;)

More seriously, at FITCamaro comment: while I am not a video conferencing person, but I do not have a problem with it either. I am not convinced that video technology renders people less sociable. I reckon that truely unsociable people wouldn't make calls often in the first place, let alone bother with such tech. People who are highly sociable, and who enjoy face to face contacts (*) on the other hand probably wouldn't use voice calls or even video conferencing as substitute to face to face meetings. However, I can see some appreciating video calls over plain calls, over plain text.

* It's worth noting that I do not consider people who prefers to socialise online/via chat as unsociable either. It may suggest that they are shy and/or lack certain social skills, but the fact that they do seek friendly interactions, if via an alternative route to face to face contact, suggests to me that they are still sociable creatures. Whether it is better to strip those technology and force them to meet people is something I find debatable.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By fbxcore on 1/31/2007 6:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
hahahaha


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By cocoman on 1/31/2007 7:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
There is lots of use for this technology. A few I can imagine and that would be posible with todays technology would be:
1. Forget about your ISP. With this bandwith you would use your phone connected to the pc to surf the internet.
2. Forget about cable TV. You can watch TV, on the phone, on the laptop and on your TV set, at the same time. You just need about 4mbs for each channel. This is already posible with 3G but only on the phones screen because of the low bandwith.
3. File sharing and messaging at the speeds of your regular ISP.
Of course all this will depend on the price. But just give it a few years and prices will compete with wired communications and cable TV.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By jak3676 on 1/30/2007 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 5
I can't say I'd do much with my cell phone, but I'd love to get download speeds like that on my laptop and not have to worry about wi-fi ranges. If you can roll out an infastructure that supports lots of users like that you can effectivly deliver broadband everywhere without the wireing.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By BeastieBoy on 1/30/2007 10:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
I have to admit, that would be good :)


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By deeznuts on 1/30/2007 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah he beat me to it, when I was reading this I was thinking "f the phone, I want my laptop to be able to reach this"

Currently cingular edge and the sprint service are somewhat lacking in download speeds.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By bkiserx7 on 1/30/2007 10:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
Broadband?!? Heck, Verizon's FiOS only gives you like 30/5.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By BadKarma on 1/30/2007 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon FIOS isn't available every where.
I would love it to be available in my area. Right now, Comcast just blows.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By jmunjr on 1/30/2007 8:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
His point was that even FIOS sucks


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By Teezer on 1/30/2007 10:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
If you have billion$ of free money why not? But Only Shanghai could use all advantages presented by 4g tech. IMO

I am very interested there are any differences between phones for 3G and 4G?


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/30/2007 11:02:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but Only Shanghai could use all advantages presented by 4g tech.


Or Shenzhen. Or Beijing. Or Hong Kong, Macau, Tianjin, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Xian, Nanjing.... and those are just the ones with free economic zones.



RE: Is 4G necessary?
By TimberJon on 1/30/2007 12:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of playing Front Mission 3..


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By desdemonia on 1/30/2007 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Lets say a phone conversation requires a data rate of 2kbps, on todays wireless networks you could fit maybe 8 or so phone conversations per channel depending on the technology. With this new data rate of 100kbps you can fit many more.

So with the increase in data rate the capacity per channel of phone calls increases as well.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 1/30/2007 11:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
The way it was explained to me by an engineer at Motorola is that the base stations can only handle so many calls period. They don't work like a hub, each call has it's own computer handling the call. The base stations that I worked on were modular, but could only handle a maximum of 32 calls per station. These were also stations designed for use in Asian markets only (transmission frequency and size was different from base stations in US markets).


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By oTAL on 1/30/2007 12:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
A station can be limited by bandwidth limited or processing power. Still, the article has nothing to do with phone calls anymore. Those are soooooo 20th century ;)
With this kind of bandwidth you could have over 500 CD-quality conversations at the same time, on the same phone.
This tech is about conversion. Imagine using your laptop anywhere constantly connected! Imagine seeing 10 different camera feeds from security cameras in your home or office, while you're on the other side of the planet. And you could even control their movements if they were enabled for that! Those are all possible with this kind of bandwidth.
Remote software becomes a possibility... remote gaming, remote everything....
Remote music learning (with VERY good audio equipment on both ends) is possible at these data rates. Several DVD quality video conferences... You name it... the applications are endless....


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By oTAL on 1/30/2007 12:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dude... you are soooooooooooo of target that I don't even know where to start...
You've written so many nonsense it's really hard to finger them all, but I'll try.
1. Have you ever heard an mp3 with 2kbps? A lot more is necessary... For good audio quality (music grade) at least 64kbps, but for voice communications 12kbps can suffice. Not sure on the boundaries of current audio compression technology but 2kbps is too low...
2. Today's wireless technologies are WAY better than 16kbps. With 3.5G you can get over 1mbps. That is widespread technology. EDGE
3. This new data rate is NOT 100kbps. It's 100mbps. Do you get the difference? 1000 times what you perceived...

Don't take this the wrong way as I don't want to offend you in any way... but if you are as clueless as you seem, you should read more and write less ;)
After some time investment in that, you'll be ready to provide a valuable opinion. When it is a worthless one, you might as well keep it for yourself.

Cheers,
Nuno



RE: Is 4G necessary?
By desdemonia on 1/30/2007 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. A few misplaced b's insted of B's and K's instead of M's. I didnt mean to confuse anyone :p...Trust me I do know what I am talking about. A vocoder in cell phones typically uses between 2-3 KBps to code phone quality conversations. I believe that includes forward error correction but I'm not sure. I also realise that phone converstations are "so in the past" but to simply illustrate the point of someone asking "why the need for 100Mbps" I choose to explain what I did.

Its simple math, if you have a network based on TDMA that is capable of communication at a higher data rate you can service more users by fitting more data onto the channel, whether it is a voice packet, data packet, pizza pocket, video conferencing packet etc etc.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By jtesoro on 1/30/2007 8:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just a slight correction on your #2. EDGE is 2.5G. HSDPA is the one that is 3.5G. Wikipedia says EDGE is almost 500Kbps and HSDPA more than 1Mbps.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By goku on 1/31/2007 9:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Correction for you.

GSM is 2G, TDMA is 1G, GPRS is 2.5G, EDGE is 2.75G and UMTS is 3G.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By jtesoro on 2/1/2007 9:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, I knew GPRS is 2.5G and that EDGE one-ups that. I haven't heard of it referred to as 2.75G before, but you may be right.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By MobileZone on 2/1/2007 10:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
Goku is right. GPRS = 2.5G EDGE = 2.75G.

Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but EDGE is just a software layer above plain GRPS.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By OpticalFloptical on 1/30/2007 12:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to imagine 100Mb/s mobile phone access, because we use our land based infrastructure for internet access. In china, the telecomm infrastructure isn't as developed and reliable as we have here, same for the most part in Europe.

with censorship rampant in China, how long would it take at 100Mb/s to view all available content...


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By heffeque on 1/30/2007 6:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
By "developed" you mean "years being competitive"? Because right now even Spain has faster connections than the USA.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By MobileZone on 1/31/2007 12:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
Rampant only in China?


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By kamel5547 on 1/30/2007 12:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you use your phine as a modem for your laptop its quite nice ;)


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By Oregonian2 on 1/30/2007 1:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Beware the phrase "up to".



RE: Is 4G necessary?
By Slaimus on 1/30/2007 3:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
The 100Mbps is probably under ideal (vacuum) conditions between two points. When you factor in multiple handsets in the cell and environmental factors, the real usable speed is much less.

It is sort of like your 802.11g never gets even close to 54Mbps in real life conditions.


RE: Is 4G necessary?
By HammerZ on 1/30/2007 8:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
You need to look beyond the mobile phone market. This technology can easily replace the "normal" broadband services that we have today, all w/o wires. In addition, it could also provide media services (TV, radio, etc.) as well. These are just examples; it can be use for so much more (mobile routing for police cars, realtime traffic GPS, etc.). Think beyond cel phones.

You are probably not involved in a job that requires you to be mobile but connected. For me, I regularly connect my laptop to Cingular's 3G service or EDGE (when 3G is not available) via my celphone. Even 3G is still slow; typical connection speed is around 700-900kbps. My cel phone data connection is connected 24/7. Today, you might be saying that 100Mbps (which I high doubt is the sustained rate, btw) is too fast, but the same argument was said of 384kbps (then 1Mbps, then 1.5Mbps, etc.) DSL. Now, 6Mbps is the min home broadband connection that I would sign up for.



RE: Is 4G necessary?
By ira176 on 1/31/2007 3:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
It's like the old days, you'll never need more than 1 MB of ram, or it could take 100 years to fill a 10 MB hard drive.

Someone will find a use for 100Mbps on their cell phone.


Why only phones
By FNG on 1/30/2007 4:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why must 4G be limited to mobile phones? Why couldn't I buy a 4G to wifi bridge/router/NAT thingy and make my 4G connection my home connection? Better yet, if I am the mobile company, I will sell you a "family" plan where all of your phones and your house can "share" 10GB of download for $79.95 a month. Then I charge you an additional XX monetary units per additional 1GB you want to download, much like they currently do in Belgium on landline Internet as well. Screw DSL, FIOS, Cable, WiMAX and yo momma... Give me 4G and the family plan, some rocking speeds (i.e. FIOS like or better) and I will fork over the loot.




RE: Why only phones
By AndyKH on 1/31/2007 7:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Those of you who think this can e used to replace wired technologies need to consider that there is a limited amount of frequency spectrum available. If every citizen in a large metropolitan area used 4G to connect to the internet, the frequency spectrum simply isn't large enough, and the bandwidth would suffer. So, wired technologies are needed for some time to come.

To the guy who speculated that the 100 Mb/s was a theoretical figure only obtainable in vacuum: The 100 Mb/s figure was obtained by putting 32 phones in a car and driving at 20 km/h. When the car stopped, the bandwidth peaked at 1 Gb/s. However, as always in these cases, what is achievable in a field test seldom reflects what the customers will eventually experience when a commercial 4G service is up and running. When 3G was introduced a bandwidth of 2 Mb/s was touted (this was the original 3G, not 3.5G HSDPA). But… the typical speed achieved is rarely more than 384 Kb/s.


RE: Why only phones
By Daigain on 1/31/2007 10:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
The 3G speed of 2Mbit was touted at that speed becase that was what it could handle. But if one phone could eat up all total BW there would be non left for anybody else. It will be the same with 4G the speed they will be advertising is the total speed of a 4G basestation.


Tiananmen whu..?
By Enoch2001 on 1/30/2007 9:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
They've got 4G!




RE: Tiananmen whu..?
By docmilo on 1/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Tiananmen whu..?
By cochy on 1/30/2007 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Do you read the articles or just post replies?


It's for data
By rcc on 1/30/2007 2:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
This applies to data, for instance, a plugin card for your notebook that gives you a 100 Mbps connection, wireless.

Or for web access through your phone, but I don't know that it's really necessary for that.




4G in China
By hakone on 2/2/2007 11:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
So much chatter about a measly $19M field test - this is a classic "failure distraction" tactic. We've been hearing the same (and more) hype about "3G" in China for going on 4 years, yet still no commercial launch. Get a grip folks!

Meanwhile, with little fanfare - and over 2 years ago - NTT DoCoMo demostrated 1Gbps trials and mentioned casually at the time they'd already achieved 4G capability in July 2003. @_@

DoCoMo Tests 4G Speed
WWJ Editors, 17 December, 2004
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

DoCoMo said today that this past summer they successfully achieved a 1-Gbps high-speed packet transmission (downlink) in a laboratory experiment using fourth-generation (4G) mobile communication radio access equipment, and are considering field experiments early in 2005. DoCoMo achieved 100- and 20-Mbps data rates in the downlink and uplink, respectively, in outdoor environments at a moving speed of about 30 km/h in July 2003.


2003/07/25/china-developing-its-own-3g
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2003/11/04/chinas-first-3g-mobile-phone
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2003/11/17/3g-production-for-td-scdma-scheduled
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2003/11/24/chinas-3g-wireless-alliance-growing
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2004/01/14/china-unicom-signs-3g-network-contract-w ith-motorola
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2004/01/14/lucent-lands-3g-contracts-in-china
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...

2004/09/06/china-telecoms-3g-plan
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&...




!
By ss284 on 1/30/2007 10:59:46 AM , Rating: 1
They could violate copyright laws even faster than they do now.




The G
By TimberJon on 1/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: The G
By Pandamonium on 1/30/2007 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Crawl out of your bubble and think next time you read a study. Studies will go back and forth on the same topic all the time because data can be interpreted in various ways.

Consider the possibility that the people polled who responded that they used cell phones 5+ hrs in a day also hold high-power careers. The stress from these careers can more than account for your laundry list of symptoms.

If you read the actual study, you might pick up on these discrepancies. I probably haven't read the study you're thinking about, but I've read enough to know the kinds of things that can happen with improper sampling. By the by, reporters aren't good at summarizing papers- just read the original.


RE: The G
By TimberJon on 1/30/2007 4:41:15 PM , Rating: 1
Im not in a bubble you stupid frak. I consider that there is enough talk about it from several studies and scientific circles to give it some thought and credability. Not the theories or what someone says on some TV show.

You cant in some cases even TRACK those studies as they may be silenced from the public eyes or ears.

Dont PMS at me because you dont like what im saying.


RE: The G
By cochy on 1/30/2007 1:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Studies? lol...Just like that "study" that said it's dangerous to use a cell phone at a gas station because it might cause the pumps to explode. I don't think there's one shred of evidence to scientifically support the idea that cell phones have adverse health effects on human besides the obvious indirect ones they might have. If I'm wrong please point the way to the article.


RE: The G
By SmokeRngs on 1/30/2007 3:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But studies have already shown what constant cell phone use or extended time in proximity to these devices can do to the human psyche, immune system, reproductive system and on and on. Who knows that other tests are being conducted.
(Havn't found or read any others)

My question is this, if cell phones can reduce the amount of male sperm produced, cause headaches, irritability, stress, depression, and who knows how many other symptoms...


This is hilarious. I'm surprised I didn't bust out laughing causing all my coworkers to stare at me (more than usual).

Do you realize that women cause all of these problems and more in men? I don't see anyone calling for a ban on women or laws limiting their use (thankfully since not having them around would be even worse). Hell, the human race has been continuing despite having women around the whole time.

Get married or be in a long term serious relationship for more than a couple of years and you'll see a cell phone poses absolutely no risk in comparison.

Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. :)


RE: The G
By TimberJon on 1/30/2007 4:33:55 PM , Rating: 1
Gee heres a good link. OF course the government, the fake pope and every other individual who CAN will discount any such studies. They dont want panic. They dont want riots, no manufacturer wants lawsuits. And nobody wants to give up their cell phone! But the evidence is mounting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiatio...

Did the article say anything about women? Did I mention women?

Women are a different subject altogether. Im talking about the frequencies at which cell phones operate, and how their signals are boosted in an attempt to retain the signal strength when they travel farther from the last node it was switched to.

Yea your pretty hilarious. Aside from women, cell phones DO have an affect. some is measureable, some is not. might affect these and not those. But it DOES do something. And higher power transmissions, or different radio waves or signals or freqencies or whatever, can have a different affect. Maybe less of one as technologies get better and such things are addressed. But what if they arent and greedy minds are more concerned about profit and not the consequences.

The "I'll fix it when it breaks" idea isnt a good idea sometimes. Like maybe.. your car! or levies, or... your life.

Okok so right now, are cell phones life-threatening? not at all. Are they unhealthy to be around? Yes to a point. Is it that big a deal? no.

But one cell phone in your hand is not a big deal.

If one person in your office has the Flu. that person is infectious and can get you sick. But if everyone in your entire building (lets say 12,000 people) had the Flu at full strength, wouldnt you get it?

I'm saying that we are saturated by these signals, all overlapping each other from multiple devices. Sometimes a good concentration when you are all in a business meeting or social gathering.

Your wife may stress you out. But she wont cause DNA breakups, tumor stimulation, cysts, cancer or whatever else MIGHT happen.

I note that no major or conclusive evidence has been found regarding the statement above, but only that studies are under way.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki