Huawei launches Nearlink, a better than Bluetooth competitor. The us won't benefit from this tech due to the Huawei ban.
Compared to Bluetooth:
* 60% lower power consumption
* Six times higher data transmission speed
* 1/30th the latency
* 7 dB improvement anti-interference for a more stable connection
* Twice the coverage distance, and
* 10 times more network connections
https://consumer.huawei.com/za/community/details/Huawei-Nearlink-launched- new-wireless-technology-far-ahead-of-Bluetooth/topicId_276306/
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at webp
or apng.
--
candycanearter07:
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
webp or apng.
Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at>> webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won'tlicense it to anyone else (well, tothe US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for bandwidth that is already for more
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
candycanearter07:
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
webp or apng.
Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
capable of doing Nearlink.
While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't need
more speed for bandwidth that is already for more proficient than needed
for calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,
now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car for
navigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:rlicense it to anyone else (well, tothe US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for bandwidth that is already for more
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at>> webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't
And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
candycanearter07:
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
webp or apng.
Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
capable of doing Nearlink.
On 2023-09-26 20:58, Moribundo wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:r
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >>
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at>>
webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create
standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone
else (well, tothe US). Of course, it'll only work when used with
another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at home,
and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for bandwidth
that is already for more proficient than neededfor calling. I don't
play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,now that I think of
it, only used from my phone to my car fornavigation, and it's fast
enough, so faster won't give me anything.
And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe
Which is not the world.
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
not good for us.
On 9/26/23 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
candycanearter07:
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
webp or apng.
Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
capable of doing Nearlink.
Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
what I remember.
On 9/26/23 14:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-09-26 20:58, Moribundo wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:r
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >>
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look
create standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't license it towebp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and
anyone else (well, tothe US). Of course, it'll only work when used
with another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at
home, and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for
bandwidth that is already for more proficient than neededfor
calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is,
well,now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car
fornavigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.
And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe
Which is not the world.
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
right?
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
candycanearter07 wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is >>>> not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
Not much they can do about it.
They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
candycanearter07 wrote:
Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
what I remember.
Is BT really Open Source? Because if it is, there is no way that the
USA can block Huawei from implementing it and they wouldn't be
enticed to create their own.
On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
candycanearter07 wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is >>>>> not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
Not much they can do about it.
They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
Not much advantage in that.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
candycanearter07 wrote:
Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from >>> what I remember.
Is BT really Open Source? Because if it is, there is no way that the
USA can block Huawei from implementing it and they wouldn't be
enticed to create their own.
To me, Nearlink is Huawei's attempt to introduce a "killer" feature that
will lead to widespread adoption in non-USA countries forcing the USA to reconsider their old ban.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
<snipped>
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
What's with the doubled signature delimiter line? First one is valid
(has the trailing space). Second one is invalid (no trailing space).
Perhaps you have Tbird configured to add your signature (so it adds the
sig delimiter), but your signature content starts with the invalid
sigblock delimiter line.
candycanearter07 wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
Not much they can do about it.
<snipped>
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
candycanearter07 wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is >>>>>> not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
Not much they can do about it.
They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
Not much advantage in that.
Considering the touted advantages of Nearlink, I can see advantage in emulating the protocol. BT didn't exist on early smartphone. Then it
did. BTbeyond, or whatever it gets called, would be another feature to
add or supplant BT. After all, NFC showed up before there was high
demand for it.
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
On 2023-09-26 23:45, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
candycanearter07 wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is >>>>>>> not good for us.
No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
Not much they can do about it.
They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own >>>> new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
Not much advantage in that.
Considering the touted advantages of Nearlink, I can see advantage in
emulating the protocol. BT didn't exist on early smartphone. Then it
did. BTbeyond, or whatever it gets called, would be another feature to
add or supplant BT. After all, NFC showed up before there was high
demand for it.
No, it would be easier or make more sense to add to BT the missing
features, using BT technology, whatever they are.
In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
Range cuts both ways.
On 2023-09-27 23:01, David Higton wrote:
In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
Range cuts both ways.
Yes.
I suppose there could be BT modes in which more power could be negotiated.
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-09-27 23:01, David Higton wrote:
In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink. >>>> Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for >>>> some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
Range cuts both ways.
Yes.
I suppose there could be BT modes in which more power could be negotiated.
BT works at 2.4 GHz. Slower clock, slower transfer speed. WiFi can
work at 2.4 GHz (longer range, slower transfer) or 5 GHz (shorter range,
but further than BT, faster transfer).
I suppose they could amend the BT specs to allow for operating at higher frequency, more radiant power, and so on, but I would think the effort
would better expended with wifi amendments.
If BT gets expanded, it really should be given a different name. Users
don't memorize versions of a protocol to know what is different between
the versions. Look at wifi: do users know all the versionings, and what makes them different? Generally, no. Even calling it BT2 or SuperBT
would help differentiate what features you'd look for in a new phone.
With all the changes to BT to make it Nearlink-like, would it (and
should it) really still be called Bluetooth, especially if it got
modified to support Nearlink devices to make the new BT ubiquitous
across all devices whether in the USA or in China?
There are currently several versions of BT, and certain features require certain versions. Nothing new in that. If some feature of Nearlink is interesting, it will be put in a newer version, and be done.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:30:43 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink. Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous, but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
Another problem with BT is it's power requirements, which are too high to make it suitable for many applications where a power source is needed.
That was what Zigbee was supposed to overcome, but it never seemed to take off. The idea was that it could be used in places with low data
requirements where a small sensor could run off a small battery for long periods of time, such as a door or window sensor.
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few years ago now.
David
On 9/28/23 14:05, David Higton wrote:
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few years ago now.
BT LE would have less range right?
On 9/28/23 14:05, David Higton wrote:
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few
years ago now.
David
BT LE would have less range right?
In message <2naahipidukjts6radc7rgng2cu25de0l9@4ax.com>
Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:30:43 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink. Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous, but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
Another problem with BT is it's power requirements, which are too high to make it suitable for many applications where a power source is needed.
That was what Zigbee was supposed to overcome, but it never seemed to take off. The idea was that it could be used in places with low data requirements where a small sensor could run off a small battery for long periods of time, such as a door or window sensor.
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few years ago now.
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few
years ago now.
Exactly. For example an Apple AirTag works for (more than?) a year on
a CR2032 button cell. Quite a "long period of time", I would say.
On 9/29/23 10:42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a few >> years ago now.
Exactly. For example an Apple AirTag works for (more than?) a year on
a CR2032 button cell. Quite a "long period of time", I would say.
Wait, is AirTag a Low Energy device? How does it get range?
On 9/29/23 10:42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
But that's what Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) was developed for, quite a
few years ago now.
Exactly. For example an Apple AirTag works for (more than?) a year on
a CR2032 button cell. Quite a "long period of time", I would say.
Wait, is AirTag a Low Energy device? How does it get range?
Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
candycanearter07:
Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
webp or apng.
Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
capable of doing Nearlink.
While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't need
more speed for bandwidth that is already for more proficient than needed
for calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,
now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car for
navigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.
It gets its low energy by reducing the proportion of time in which it transmits, among other techniques.
David
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:19:49 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,447 |