How much will the process switch on the transceiver help (or is it just TSMC wanting to shut down the old line)? I thought that part was mostly analog components; and that unlike digital, analog parts don't shrink well with new processes.
Analog is more difficult to implement as components get smaller; that's what is meant by "didn't shrink well". If you are able to achieve the same levels of gain, noise and linearity required at a smaller process, you'll still get significant power reductions.
When do we get Gbit/s speeds wirelessly? Preferably with 1 tower reaching 100km with 10 Million connections. Cause that's what we're gonna need to blanket the US in quality internet.
It is all about power consumption. Just like faster processors allow race to sleep speeding up the data transmission helps keep the power consumption lower and battery life's better.
When the laws of physics are repealed. LTE is already approaching the Shannon information density limits. To get higher capacity you need to either increase the amount of RF spectrum used (which is what this update does); or space the towers closer together (this is called expanding urban capacity).
While LTE does support cell sizes as large as 100km line of sight issues mean it's only viable in areas that are as flat as a pancake; while the larger cell sizes actually have a smaller total capacity than the smaller ones both because the data takes longer to travel back and forth and because less dense encoding and more ECC are needed to keep the data from being lost in noise. For phone applications as opposed to wireless residential internet the increased transmit power needed on the phone/hotspot will reduce battery life.
If you want wireless internet with the same speed and per user capacity as wired internet it's going to take going from having a cell tower every few miles in suburban areas to base stations every block or so (although they probably won't need to be as tall since long distance line of sight will be less of an issue. Probably they would end up piggybacked on the big boxes your wired internet providers are already scattering all over the place.
A tower with 100km range runs counter to the goal of "high speed connections for everyone" for at least two reasons: 1: there's a fixed amount of spectrum. Shorter range, means the same channels can be used by many physically distant connections. 2: transmit power for the phones. Long distance + low power = very problematic SnR situation (if you want reasonable throughput).
The huge maximum range that LTE can be configured for was added because while not suitable for general usage it's beneficial in a limited number of circumstances. With Verizon having largely blanketed the midwest in LTE already, I suspect the main area it will be deployed is along the edges of flatter parts of the Australian outback where it can push relatively low latency internet out into areas that were previously only serviced by satellite connections.
In theory something similar could be done to provide connectivity to ships traveling along coast lines but beyond the range of standard cells; but since it would be competing with land based services with much larger numbers of customers for spectrum I doubt it will happen.
That's interesting that the standard is that flexible. Do you know if the radios in a typical LTE device can take advantage of that type of usage scenario? Or would you need special purpose high power modems on the consumer side?
I don't. The key differences are, AIUI, limited to timing and transmit power. The former should be entirely controllable in software; what I don't know is if the needed level of the latter exceeds levels used to maintain a connection inside a building that is heavily absorptive.
So what is the point of MDM9x25. No wonder why Apple didn't choose it for 5S. The only difference between MDM9x25 and 9x15 were Carrier Aggregation, a important feature of LTE-A. And if 9x25 requires both WTR1625L and WFR1620 to get Carrier Aggregation that pretty much means it will never be used in Phones were space is an serious issues. I cant wait to see the improvement from MDM9x35 and WTR3925. LTE is power hungry and extremely processing intensive. I am pretty sure some other clever engineering tricks and process shrinks will make this a more energy affordable solution. While they are sampling early 2014, when would this be available in shipping products?
I find it annoying how carriers and OEM's have already started branding I believe 150 Mbps as "LTE-A" from LTE Advanced. What are they going to call it at 300 Mbps? LTE-A+? And at 600? Ultra LTE-A+?
I imagine they are just going to call 1 Gbps+ 5G - although I really hope they won't do it earlier than that, like they did with 4 G, and started calling it that at like 6+ Mbps for Wimax/LTE and 21 Mbps HSDPA+ (which was actually slower than sub-10 Mbps LTE).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
DanNeely - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
How much will the process switch on the transceiver help (or is it just TSMC wanting to shut down the old line)? I thought that part was mostly analog components; and that unlike digital, analog parts don't shrink well with new processes.metafor - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Analog is more difficult to implement as components get smaller; that's what is meant by "didn't shrink well". If you are able to achieve the same levels of gain, noise and linearity required at a smaller process, you'll still get significant power reductions.Hrel - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
When do we get Gbit/s speeds wirelessly? Preferably with 1 tower reaching 100km with 10 Million connections. Cause that's what we're gonna need to blanket the US in quality internet.jchambers2586 - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
why do u want that fast speed for? The data caps make it useless.Doh! - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
there is a whole new world outside of your world where data cap is not an issue or does not exist.errorr - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
It is all about power consumption. Just like faster processors allow race to sleep speeding up the data transmission helps keep the power consumption lower and battery life's better.Margalus - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
what data caps?DanNeely - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
When the laws of physics are repealed. LTE is already approaching the Shannon information density limits. To get higher capacity you need to either increase the amount of RF spectrum used (which is what this update does); or space the towers closer together (this is called expanding urban capacity).While LTE does support cell sizes as large as 100km line of sight issues mean it's only viable in areas that are as flat as a pancake; while the larger cell sizes actually have a smaller total capacity than the smaller ones both because the data takes longer to travel back and forth and because less dense encoding and more ECC are needed to keep the data from being lost in noise. For phone applications as opposed to wireless residential internet the increased transmit power needed on the phone/hotspot will reduce battery life.
If you want wireless internet with the same speed and per user capacity as wired internet it's going to take going from having a cell tower every few miles in suburban areas to base stations every block or so (although they probably won't need to be as tall since long distance line of sight will be less of an issue. Probably they would end up piggybacked on the big boxes your wired internet providers are already scattering all over the place.
nafhan - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
A tower with 100km range runs counter to the goal of "high speed connections for everyone" for at least two reasons: 1: there's a fixed amount of spectrum. Shorter range, means the same channels can be used by many physically distant connections. 2: transmit power for the phones. Long distance + low power = very problematic SnR situation (if you want reasonable throughput).DanNeely - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
The huge maximum range that LTE can be configured for was added because while not suitable for general usage it's beneficial in a limited number of circumstances. With Verizon having largely blanketed the midwest in LTE already, I suspect the main area it will be deployed is along the edges of flatter parts of the Australian outback where it can push relatively low latency internet out into areas that were previously only serviced by satellite connections.In theory something similar could be done to provide connectivity to ships traveling along coast lines but beyond the range of standard cells; but since it would be competing with land based services with much larger numbers of customers for spectrum I doubt it will happen.
nafhan - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
That's interesting that the standard is that flexible. Do you know if the radios in a typical LTE device can take advantage of that type of usage scenario? Or would you need special purpose high power modems on the consumer side?DanNeely - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
I don't. The key differences are, AIUI, limited to timing and transmit power. The former should be entirely controllable in software; what I don't know is if the needed level of the latter exceeds levels used to maintain a connection inside a building that is heavily absorptive.Henk Poley - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
Hmm, for the 100km (horizon) range you'd have to put your transmitter 800m up high. That's quite a pole.http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=curvature+of+...
iwod - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
So what is the point of MDM9x25. No wonder why Apple didn't choose it for 5S. The only difference between MDM9x25 and 9x15 were Carrier Aggregation, a important feature of LTE-A.And if 9x25 requires both WTR1625L and WFR1620 to get Carrier Aggregation that pretty much means it will never be used in Phones were space is an serious issues.
I cant wait to see the improvement from MDM9x35 and WTR3925. LTE is power hungry and extremely processing intensive. I am pretty sure some other clever engineering tricks and process shrinks will make this a more energy affordable solution.
While they are sampling early 2014, when would this be available in shipping products?
Krysto - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link
I find it annoying how carriers and OEM's have already started branding I believe 150 Mbps as "LTE-A" from LTE Advanced. What are they going to call it at 300 Mbps? LTE-A+? And at 600? Ultra LTE-A+?I imagine they are just going to call 1 Gbps+ 5G - although I really hope they won't do it earlier than that, like they did with 4 G, and started calling it that at like 6+ Mbps for Wimax/LTE and 21 Mbps HSDPA+ (which was actually slower than sub-10 Mbps LTE).