Engineers unveil two-way wireless breakthrough

Jun 14, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Groundbreaking two-way wireless technology resulting in vastly superior voice and data services has been developed by a University of Waterloo engineering research team led by Amir K. Khandani, the Canada Research Chair in Wireless Systems.

The enables signals to be sent and received at the same time on a single frequency. "This means wireless companies can increase the of voice and data services by at least a factor of two by sending and receiving at the same time, and potentially by a much higher factor through better adaptive transmission and user management in existing networks," said Khandani, a Waterloo electrical and professor.

Current wireless systems suffer from shortcomings similar to old walkie-talkies that don’t allow users to talk and listen on the same frequency at the same time. That's because the strength of the transmission overwhelms any incoming signal on the same frequency.

“Wireless is in desperate need of a breakthrough, and two-way comes at the right time," Khandani added. "The cost in hardware and signal processing complexities and antenna size is very low and virtually the same as current one-way systems. Two-way wireless systems will also have a profound impact on wireless networks in terms of quality of service and efficiency.”

The wireless advancement also opens the possibility to have ultra-secure transmission. “This can be done in ways that are much superior to current encryption techniques that are not truly secret, just hard to guess," said Khandani.

His research group is well known for introducing breakthrough ideas in wireless industry. In 2006, it came up with the idea of Interference Alignment, which radically changed the mindset about interference management, and it is now a mainstream in academic and industry research. Khandani predicts two-way wireless will reshape the future of the wireless industry, which is under overwhelming pressure for higher data rates.

The Waterloo Engineering research breakthrough is based on technology patented by Khandani in 2006 and issued in 2010, with many more innovations since then.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Real-time Performance

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Summary of Presentation

The video clip introduces many new applications for two-way technology such as methods for interference management, security enhancement, and a unique approach to wireless connectivity called media-based, which is created by embedding data in transmission media rather than in the transmitted RF signal. Media-based approach offers significant benefits compared to traditional MIMO systems even with a smaller number of antennas.

Next steps requires industry involvement by including two-way in forthcoming standards to enable wide spread implementation.

Explore further: Creating the fastest outdoor wireless Internet connection in the world

More information: www.cst.uwaterloo.ca/2way/

Related Stories

Wireless broadband coming to the bush

Nov 03, 2010

A major CSIRO breakthrough in wireless technology designed to bring broadband to people living beyond the optical fibre network, will be unveiled in Sydney tomorrow.

Recommended for you

Off-world manufacturing is a go with space printer

1 hour ago

On Friday, the BBC reported on a NASA email exchange with a space station which involved astronauts on the International Space Station using their 3-D printer to make a wrench from instructions sent up in ...

Cadillac CT6 will get streaming video mirror

2 hours ago

Cadillac said Thursday it will add high resolution streaming video to the function of a rearview mirror, so that the driver's vision and safety can be enhanced. The technology will debut on the 2016 Cadillac ...

Sony faces 4th ex-employee lawsuit over hack

2 hours ago

A former director of technology for Sony Pictures Entertainment has sued the company over the data breach that resulted in the online posting of his private financial and personal information.

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CapitalismPrevails
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
Here's another breakthrough in wireless innovation. Looks like there's plenty more bandwidth to look forward to in the future.
http://www.techno...pectrum/
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2012
t is a shame for Americans that wireless prices are so fantastically high compared to more modern nations.
Burnerjack
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
VD, You've finally wrote something I can agree with! Why do wireless providers charge more in America? "Because they can".
CapitalismPrevails
2.3 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2012
t is a shame for Americans that wireless prices are so fantastically high compared to more modern nations.

But what you guys don't understand is demand for innovation is stimulated by higher prices.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2012
t is a shame for Americans that wireless prices are so fantastically high compared to more modern nations.

But what you guys don't understand is demand for innovation is stimulated by higher prices.


I think that is kind of the "necessity is the mother of invention" mentality. The issue most people have is when that necessity, or in this case high cost, is artificially created for insane profit margins. This mentality would imply jacking up prices on all goods would expedite the nations journey to a utopia since it would stimulate a rapid development in all fields. In reality, it would hurt many people. Let's not create necessity where non exists, life hands out plenty of needs already.
CapitalismPrevails
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2012
This mentality would imply jacking up prices on all goods would expedite the nations journey to a utopia since it would stimulate a rapid development in all fields.

So what's the alternative? Tax Verizon and AT&T when they raise cell phone plan rates? They will just pass the extra cost from the higher taxes on to their customers just as in history.

I would advocate lowering costs(lowering taxes, mimume wages, regulations) for the industry to make it more practical for more ambitious competition to spring up and ultimately lead to lower costs.
metsubo
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
Tax Verizon and AT&T when they raise cell phone plan rates? They will just pass the extra cost from the higher taxes on to their customers just as in history.

I would advocate lowering costs(lowering taxes, mimume wages, regulations) for the industry to make it more practical for more ambitious competition to spring up and ultimately lead to lower costs.


Except according to history lowering taxes has no effect on lowering costs or raising employment. Science also shows that innovation is significantly stifled by profiteering and all competition does is prevent innovation because nobody wants to bet on the unknown except the government.
trekgeek1
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
This mentality would imply jacking up prices on all goods would expedite the nations journey to a utopia since it would stimulate a rapid development in all fields.

So what's the alternative? Tax Verizon and AT&T when they raise cell phone plan rates? They will just pass the extra cost from the higher taxes on to their customers just as in history.

I would advocate lowering costs(lowering taxes, mimume wages, regulations) for the industry to make it more practical for more ambitious competition to spring up and ultimately lead to lower costs.


Nobody implied increasing taxes. I think the obvious answer is charge a reasonable price for services and allow the growing number of users and the human need for faster technologies drive progress rather than crippling costs caused by ridiculous mark-ups.
PS3
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2012
compared to what nations? America has more to look after in equipment and people for most places.I imagine UK has very similar plans and is the size of Michigan!
CSYGUY
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2012
t is a shame for Americans that wireless prices are so fantastically high compared to more modern nations.


The United States has a different charging system than most of the rest of the world. Outside the US most systems are 'Calling Party Pays'. In this system the caller actually pays the airtime of the called party through an interconnect rate paid to the mobile operator. This is typically 15 - 20 cents a minute. The good side of this system is you can get cheap cellphone plans. The downside of this system is the per minute rate to other cellphones is very high (calling to landline phones is reasonable). The mobile operator sets the rate for calling into their network and thus you as a subscriber can not negotiate the rate.

The net effect of this is that the US overall rates are much lower than the rest of the world.
CSYGUY
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2012
Except according to history lowering taxes has no effect on lowering costs or raising employment.

I have a 13 year old that has mowed my lawn for the past year. The other day I told him I was implementing a 10% tax on him. I determined it was not fair that he got all of that money while another 13 year old that lives on the street did not get anything. Although the 2nd 13 year old sat at home and played video games all day he could really use the 10% for school supplies and school lunches (he had spent his allowance on video games so he really NEEDED the money to support his education).

Do you know what the 13 year old who was mowing my lawn did - he quit. On a more serious note - please quote when in history that a significant and real decrease in taxes did not boost the overall economy and innovation.

BTW - I hold over 50 patents. I look for high profit areas for innovation. I guess you look for low profit areas to innovate. What world do you live in?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2012
The mobile operator sets the rate for calling into their network and thus you as a subscriber can not negotiate the rate.


It tends to monopolistic operators, because if you have one big cellular provider and some smaller ones, the customers are more likely to call into the big network and therefore pay higher rates, so they're all better off simply switching to the big operator.

When both ends pay for their airtime, the rate is fixed regardless of who you call, and it's mutually benefical for the operators to relay calls because a call automatically means money for both.

The whole caller-pays-all system stems from government owned telephone companies that owned the entire national network at some point in time, so they didn't have to deal with interconnect fees, and the customers grew to expect not having to pay to recieve a call.
CapitalismPrevails
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2012

Nobody implied increasing taxes. I think the obvious answer is charge a reasonable price for services and allow the growing number of users and the human need for faster technologies drive progress rather than crippling costs caused by ridiculous mark-ups.

And how are you going to arrive at "reasonable" prices? What's reasonable or fair? Those terms are subjective. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate at 39.2%. If you cut them in half for mobile network corporations, you will incintivize more production in the industry and lower prices.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2012

I have a 13 year old that has mowed my lawn for the past year. The other day I told him I was implementing a 10% tax on him. I determined it was not fair that he got all of that money while another 13 year old that lives on the street did not get anything. Although the 2nd 13 year old sat at home and played video games all day he could really use the 10% for school supplies and school lunches (he had spent his allowance on video games so he really NEEDED the money to support his education).

Do you know what the 13 year old who was mowing my lawn did - he quit. On a more serious note - please quote when in history that a significant and real decrease in taxes did not boost the overall economy and innovation.



Cute story. So the point of your anecdote was that no tax should be imposed on workers. Let's take a minute to see how that would work in society. No roads, no government, no military, etc. Or is it the eradication of social programs?
CSYGUY
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
Cute story. So the point of your anecdote was that no tax should be imposed on workers. Let's take a minute to see how that would work in society. No roads, no government, no military, etc. Or is it the eradication of social programs?


It was directed more at the concept that the tax code exists for 'social engineering' purposes. The tax code should be fair or everyone will work hard at getting around it or perhaps not work hard at all so they can be on the receiving end of the social engineering.
alfie_null
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
But what you guys don't understand is demand for innovation is stimulated by higher prices.

It would be nice if the prospect of losing revenue was an inducement to innovate. Unlikely to happen (in telecom).
Cornelius2008
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
I know this has little to do with the article but I am interested in what Phys.org readers think about this concept: Social programs don't exsist for the benefit of the actual recipiants, at least not ideally, they exsist for the rest of the population. For example when the government gives food to the poor, without regard to how they became poor its not for the poor that the food is given, its for the restaurant owner and farmer that the poor would otherwise steal from to eat that they are fed. Or more generally the government provides some with something that if they went without their neighbors would suffer for the actual recipients poor choices.

let me know
trekgeek1
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
I know this has little to do with the article but I am interested in what Phys.org readers think about this concept: ....
let me know


Interesting. If the poor condition of others would not disrupt those who are better off, would we still help them? I hate to say it, but I don't think the government would help them. It seems the government has become a business, or at least run by people who work for big business. Of course, there are probably many in the government who would want to help, but those in charge probably wouldn't allow it because it wouldn't be profitable.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
The only innovation in American Wireless, is in the technical aspect of how to remove ever more money from the pockets of Americans without doing any hardware or software upgrades.

"But what you guys don't understand is demand for innovation is stimulated by higher prices." - CapitalismHasFailed.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
@Cornelius2008

If the poor are not fed then the poor will find means to feed themselves, even if it means breaking into your home and beating you while you try and defend your refrigerator.

The trick is to get to people to be productive for what they receive.

And yes. Honest economists factor the economic stimulus of feeding the poor into the equation.

Libertarian Economists generally don't since they are interested in pushing a political agenda rather than honesty.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2012
"I have a 13 year old that has mowed my lawn for the past year. The other day I told him I was implementing a 10% tax on him." - CsyGuy

Were you providing him with the equipment to do the job, the road he drove on to get to your house, the police force who protect him and the hospital that would care for him should he be injured in an accident?

If you are, then your 10% tax would be reasonable.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
Reality doesn't appear to agree with you CSYTard...

"The net effect of this is that the US overall rates are much lower than the rest of the world." - CSYGUY

http://lowendmac....ates.gif

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
So what's the alternative?" = CapitalismHasFailed
"

You are right. Americans aren't smart enough to be anything about it.
wealthychef
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
This is a breakthrough that keeps repeating, and my 2-way wireless phone technology still hasn't arrived. Must not be that awesome to still be in this state 6 years later.
Birger
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
Going off on a tangent, this Khandani chap in Canada is a good example how people (engineers, in this case) from islamic countries can contibute if they get a chance.
Here in Sweden we unfortunately have a lot of very qualified immigrants who have to drive taxis or flip burgers because employers do not dare to take the chance of emploing someone from outside Europe. I don't think it is racism per se, it's rather an exaggerated fear of culture clash snafus.
Kudos to the Canadians for making integration work well.
bhiestand
not rated yet Jun 19, 2012
...I am interested in what Phys.org readers think about this concept: Social programs don't exsist for the benefit of the actual recipiants, at least not ideally, they exsist for the rest of the population...

It's certainly one of the historical rationales (see the Elizabethan Poor Laws), and still valid today, but I'd say the reasons are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I feel a social safety net is critical to encourage risk taking, set a floor for demand, reduce unrest, and is morally required by our legal structure.

What do I mean by the latter? People have no guarantee of employment and no right to sufficient land for hunting/farming/sustenance. Our ownership-based system necessarily produces inequality and great profits. Overall, this is a powerful force for change and progress, but as beneficiaries of the system we have a moral obligation to help those disadvantaged by the system.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.