WiMAX Cell Phones Edge Closer to RealityPower-saving chips are paving the way for super-broadband handheld devices.
WiMAX, the souped-up successor to the WiFi wireless standard, could greatly increase the amount of information that cell phones and other mobile devices can pull from the air. Until recently, however, the elaborate antenna technology needed for sending and receiving WiMAX signals has been a big drain on a mobile device's batteries. Now that the telecommunications industry has settled on final specifications for WiMAX, though, including provisions for power efficiency, manufacturers are exploring ways to build the energy-efficient chips needed to make consumer WiMAX devices viable. WiMAX-enabled handhelds would be able to access greater bandwidth than traditional cellular networks, allowing faster streaming media and Internet downloads. Moreover, WiMAX phones using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) might drop fewer calls and keep working up to 50 kilometers away from base stations, compared with 16 kilometers for cellular networks and WiFi's mere 100 meters. Some phones already come equipped with a WiFi chip and can access local WiFi hotspots in addition to cellular networks. But WiFi coverage is spotty -- while WiMAX signals beamed from central towers could blanket entire metropolitan areas. In addition, WiMAX signals can carry 70 megabits of data per second -- more than three times the roughly 20 megabits from WiFi, and far outperforming the 300 kilobits on cellular networks. So far, only a handful of businesses in large U.S. cities are taking advantage of WiMAX technology, using equipment installed before the recent standards were finalized. In December 2005, the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (which created the WiFi (802.11) standard) agreed on technical specifications for mobile WiMAX. Now large companies, including Intel, Alcatel, and Qualcomm, are pushing to develop WiMAX-compliant base station and chipset technologies. Also, in the next few months, the WiMAX Forum, a consortium of companies making and deploying WiMAX equipment, will begin testing and approving mobile products, says Jeff Orr, the forum's director of marketing. Like most chips for cell phones, WiMAX chipsets have two halves: one sends and receives radio signals, the other processes those signals. Sierra Monolithics of Redondo Beach, CA, specializes in making the radio-frequency portion of WiMAX chipset, which sends signals from the phone and receives them from a base station. By early 2007, the company expects to ship communications chipsets that extend the battery life of WiMAX handhelds into the same range as cellular devices, including the traditionally power-hungry dual-band phones used by international travelers. Unlike cellular chipsets, which can access only a narrow band of the radio spectrum, often making downloads slower, WiMAX chipsets are designed to tune into and process broader swaths of the radio spectrum. Collecting and processing more of the radio spectrum requires more power, though, because more frequencies must be sorted through. In addition, most WiMAX equipment uses antenna technology called MIMO (Multiple Input, Multiple Output), which uses more than one antenna to simultaneously collect and send more information greater distances, and power-hungry signal processing algorithms are needed to sort through the information collected via MIMO connections. The power problem is even more formidable for manufacturers who want to build chips for multi-band WiMAX phone for use in different parts of the world. Each region, such as the United States and Asia, is setting aside a different portion of the spectrum for WiMAX, and accessing multiple bands usually requires a separate chip for each band.
|









Comments
06/26/2006
Posts:1
06/26/2006
Posts:1
06/26/2006
Posts:1
06/26/2006
Posts:1
06/26/2006
Posts:1
06/27/2006
Posts:1
06/26/2006
Posts:1
rasp57
01/29/2007
Posts:1
07/03/2006
Posts:1
07/11/2006
Posts:1
JDBailey
12/29/2006
Posts:13
I think most of the nay-sayers are unaware of the stark differences between FHSS systems like CDMA and OFDM systems like WiMAX. OFDM handles error correction and multipath at the air-interface by encoding parity into RF subcarriers. This is what really enables the technology to work, not just the beam-forming antenna technology.
To be honest, comparing non-OFDM 3G technologies to WiMAX's air interface (specifically 802.16e) is just unfair to 3G.
Although Qualcom purchased Flarion and it's Intellectual Property there's no OFDM-like 3G technology commercially in use toay. Flarion had a compelling proprietary OFDMA implementation and successful field trials (Nextel - Raliegh-Durham NC for instance).
The other piece of the puzzle thats not even mentioned here is the business case offered by WiMAX. It's a STANDARD. There's going to be a bazillion different devices with the standard integrated thanks largely to Intel and Motorola. Remember what Intel's Centrino did for WiFi? They're doing the same thing with WiMAX. You never going to see wide-implementation of UMTS or EVDO in laptops or other devices bacause every vendor that wants to implement these technologies has to pay a royalty to Qualcomm or some other IP licensing giant. That's not even mentioning the lack of economies of scale a non-standard technology poses.
Ok - back to whether or not it works: Having worked directly with pre-certified WiMAX (802.16d) equipment and other unlicensed fixed OFDM systems operating in 5.8Ghz, I have been astonished at the capability of such systems even at 1/25th of the power of licensed-spectrum WiMAX.
Real World Example: My company has fixed-multipoint links operating at distances of four miles (no MIMO involved - just single-diversity sector panels and directional antennas) over hilly terain, through coniferous and deciduous trees, maintaing actual throughput of 15-20 MBps (We use Alvarion BreezeACCESS VL, if you're curious).
Don't buy believe what you read, fine. But I think everyone will be singing a different tune in about 24 months.
JDW
soundtivity
01/22/2007
Posts:1
JDBailey
05/02/2008
Posts:13
1) signal strength?
2) sound quality (error rate?)
3) standby/call capability (hours)?
And, on a broader issue -- does 3g enabled phone
has any advantage (strictly for voice calls!)
over, say, EDGE only phone?
realpro
10/07/2009
Posts:1