Intel Demos Software Defined WiFi/WiMAX/DVB-H Chip

Doc Ruby writes "Electronics Weekly is reporting that Intel has developed a new prototype chip for software defined radio. The new chip will be able to handle WiFi, WiMAX and DVB-H digital TV all on the same chip. 'This kind of chip would allow equipment to access the WiFi network in the home, automatically handover to a WiMAX network when you leave the house and also access digital TV on the move, all through one chip.' It's also a proof that the entire class of SW radios that could possibly converge CDMA, GSM and various other radio networks for opportunistic handoffs by a single device, a 'universal radio' that could use content formerly locked into a single radio type."

Closed drivers

[CRCulver (715279)]

And presumably the drivers for this will be closed source because of that dumb FCC rule that end-users shouldn't be able to tinker with wi-fi chips because they are a dangerous radio device.

Re:Closed drivers

[JK_the_Slacker (1175625)]

No worries, mate. I'm a ham radio op... and a programmer... I'll have an open source control program along shortly.

Alternatively, I could write support into GNU Radio. [gnu.org]

Re:

[Zymergy (803632)]

Software controlled radios are becoming the new big thing for HAMs also. Any plans to write more 'flexible' software for the FLEX-5000A radio?
http://www.flex-radio.com/ [flex-radio.com]
Icom also has a neat receiver-only radio: http://icomamerica.com/en/products/receivers/pc/pcr2500/default.aspx [icomamerica.com]

Re:

[hitmark (640295)]

i thought that was the job of the operator, not the equipment...

Re:Closed drivers

[MBCook (132727)]

I should point out that I'm almost positive that there is no rule that says this. The companies take that position then try to back it up that way ("well the FCC might pull the device's license if..."). There are valid reasons for this (it would be easy to cause interference for only the purpose of being annoying) and good reasons against (my device means my responsibility, it's an unlicensed part of the spectrum).

However that only applies to transmitting. The is no valid reason why there would be a problem letting you configure the thing however you wanted to receive things. There are a few little bands that you aren't supposed to listen to, but if the analog part was designed correctly that would be impossible (I don't know if any of those bands are that high up). It would be simple to make it so that it's impossible (without modification of the physical circuits) to get RF though the amplifier unless it is within a little frequency set that the device is allowed in.

It IS illegal to make a device in such a way that it can be easily modified to transmit on other frequencies (seen with CBs) and I think it may be illegal for receiving too (like to listen into cell frequencies). Note that there is no solid definition on this as far as I know. You can't make it so it's "cut jumper B3 and you're set", but you don't have to go all the way to "install 12 wires, a chip, flash the firmware, hold the radio upside-down and...". Someone who is more familiar with this rules will surely point out the specifics.

To help clarify your statement....

[Khyber (864651)]

I refer everyone else to section B of FCC regulations. If you can't Google it, then you don't belong here. :) In short, a device may not cause interference, but it must accept any interference it may receive due to natural or other issues that interfere with/tie into the operation of an EM-based device.

To put it short, you can receive and listen in to anything you choose to, but to transmit may be a different story. End of simple statement.

Re:

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

A plane is not getting it's "GPS location" from Air Traffic control, it will work it out from GPS satellites. Perhaps there are other navigation aids you might be able to interfere with.

Re:

[fbjon (692006)]

Not to mention that air pressure is the standard way of measuring altitude. You'll need a fairly powerful radio transmitter to interfere with that system.

Excellent!

[JK_the_Slacker (1175625)]

But the real question is, can I change software modes and nuke a burrito with my wireless card?

Or, even better, my roommate?

Re:Excellent!

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Why would you want to nuke a burrito with your roommate?

Re:Excellent!

[Chabil Ha' (875116)]

So that's what they're calling it these days...

Re:

[MBCook (132727)]

Default? No. Not enough power.

However, we could add a (highly illegal and dangerous) external amplifier on the output and do it that way.

I wonder what the resonant frequency of a burrito is....

Re:

[snowraver1 (1052510)]

I wonder what the resonant frequency of a burrito is....

Well, a burrito is mostly water, so the resonant frequency would be the standard 2.45 Ghz that you find in your microwave.

Re:

[toadlife (301863)]

And shortly after being eaten, the burrito causes the resonant sound of the body to fluctuate with ever increasing frequency.

Cool

[rrohbeck (944847)]

Will it be documented so we can get a FOSS driver?

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

Short Answer No.
To get FCC approval these devices will have to be not "modifiable" by the end user.

Re:

[rlwhite (219604)]

I'm curious to see how long that policy lasts if the Google-backed "any device, any app" proposal wins. The market seems to be headed in that direction with the recent announcements from Verizon and AT&T.

Re:

[darthflo (1095225)]

The Google proposal is limited to the 700 MHz spectrum being auctioned off. There's not going to be any "any device, any app" going on in GSM/CDMA/FM/Ham/CB or any other licensed bands policy more than there is today.
Just like today, nobody is going to stop you from building your own or tinkering with pre-built tools as long as you're not selling them and aren't causing any interference. If you are, the FCC is just as probable to come around and "talk" as they are now.

Winmodem?

[solafide (845228)]

Will these chips end up like Winmodems? no intelligence in the chip and impossible to get drivers for?

They sound much more interesting than Winmodems

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

So there's a much better chance that some of the clever people capable of reverse engineering this sort of stuff will make the effort to do so.

the craziness does not have to continue!

[Erpo (237853)]

It has nothing to do with "win"modems or reverse engineering ability. The difference between a good old hardware modem and a "win"modem is that one follows a standard and the other doesn't.

An external hardware modem is a serial device (standard) that obeys the AT command set (standard). An internal hardware modem behaves like a serial port card (standard) with an attached device that obeys the AT command set (standard).

The only problem with "win"modems is that there's no baseline standard for talking to an

Re:

[jamesh (87723)]

Instead of making 100s of different NICs that all behaved differently and required their own software drivers, NIC makers all constructed their hardware so that it would behave like a NE2000 ethernet card.

That's almost how it happened. Novell used National Semiconductors sample design for how a bare minimum card based on it's 8390 ethernet controller could be constructed. Then everyone else copied it too. I don't think it was done for compatibility reasons, it just saved you doing design work. It was also p

Re:

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

Finally, WTF?? No Bluetooth??

It probably just isn't mentioned. Bluetooth and WiFi are already commonly done on one chip.

Re:

[vux984 (928602)]

And you can use both at the same time? I just want to be clear on that point. Because a cellphone that can switch from GSM to CDMA etc would be useful... and it doesn't need to do both at once... but I'd sort of expect to do wifi and use my mouse at the same time...

Re:

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

Yes, if you buy a laptop (or mobile phone) with WiFi and Bluetooth they'll almost certainly be run off one chip these days.

Re:

[postbigbang (761081)]

Did you see 2.4ghz? Bluetooth works within roughly the same channel grouping as 802.11b/g. It uses frequency hopping, and in many implementations is good for about 10m so it's somewhat impractical for what they're trying to do. There are other Bluetooth classes that both have a larger range, and also a slightly better data rate. But you don't want them, so I wouldn't worry about the lack of an implementation. Worse: Bluetooth is low-power (hence the short range, incl standby modes, etc) and must be bonded w

Re:

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

Actually, Winmodems aren't a bad idea per se. They are cheaper to make than full modems, and you don't need to update the hardware much when new modulation standards appear since they are basically a soundcard. Microsoft basically worked out they could make something that hardware manufacturers would like because it was cheap. And rival OS vendors would hate it since the specification wasn't published.

Uh, not quite

[Ancient_Hacker (751168)]

Uh, not quite.

There are still a few stages in the receiving chain that have to be analog.

In particular the first few stages of input filtering, RF amplification, and mixing all HAVE to be analog, and delicate, tricky analog at that.

Someday we may have 5Gig sample/second 32-bit floating-point A/D converters with microvolt sensitivity, but until then radio receivers can't be quite as flexible as the term "software defined radio" implies.

Re:

[jabuzz (182671)]

I thought we already did, just not a price point, size or power consumption that is anywhere remotely practical for everyday electronic items.

Sure if you have a couple million dollars to blow on your next particle detector that you are going to stick in front of your billion dollar accelerator, and can take a couple of U's up in a rack that is not going to be a problem. Back in the everyday world it is still a pipe dream.

Cell Companies

[Adambomb (118938)]

With a resounding cry of "Ahhhhh crap." from carriers relying on clients using only their devices.

"You need to replace your phone? well then you can sign a new contract for a discount on our new..."

"I already have a device to use for it right here....picked it up online, and its not part of your expected sell/refurb/resell cycles. I believe you know what you can do with your contract..."

Course there will still be the "But don't you want 6 months of unlimited local talking and a discounted rate plan?!", still cuts out a lock in technique though.

awesome!

[spiffmastercow (1001386)]

Now I'll be able to open and close people's garage doors while accessing their wifi, all with one device!

Potential in many markets for this integration

[teebob21 (947095)]

An integrated 3-protocol chip, if produced for a reasonable price, could be just the thing to spark a new age of computing. Let's compare most "movie-future" computers to this: Easy wireless access almost anywhere you go, plus reception of live digital TV broadcasts. Sounds like the movies to me!! Granted -- the chip doesn't appear to be a ATSC decoder (I could be wrong) so current US broadcasters won't have their digital signals accessible by this chip. Additionally, wireless access in most municipalities is not existent, and most of those implementations just plain suck. At any rate, we need the hardware base to exist before the demand for "quality" municipal WiFi will grow.

Continue this development, and you may reach the point of having essentially a HTPC on a card, with TV tuning and wireless internet built in. With the new FCC mandates to open up the cable box market, Intel may open the door for competition that isn't a TiVO. And...even if no new companies step up, TiVO would probably be interested in providing Internet and TV via the same box -- something most cable boxes cannot do.

I also LONG for the day where WiFi chips/cards begin coming standard on motherboards; I prefer a desktop to a laptop any day. That, and I am tired of running CAT5 throughout my house to my multiple boxes.

Re:

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

Except it is an absolute pain to run Linux or any other non-MS OS on them, save freeBSD and *buntu, but other then that, its a total pain to work with wi-fi and with the devices being non F/OSS, most distros won't include them. The curse of the winmodem in the modern age.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

LinuxMCE [slashdot.org] already does what TiVo does, and a lot more, by integrating MythTV with home automation, telephony, and all kinds of other stuff.

Re:

[teebob21 (947095)]

I agree with you there, but the FCC's intent was not to push LinuxMCE. Rather, the separable security directive was intended to open the market for third-party customer premises equipment (cable boxes). After 6 months, no other company has even started marketing a similar device for cable subscribers on the mass market. If this chip and a SDK were released to the public, I can see it finding a home in such a device. The integrated WiFi and WiMax capability adds a feature not available in today's CPE, namely

This is a great idea!

[rsilvergun (571051)]

because we all know how well software modems work, right?

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

This device doesn't do the DSP or any other transcoding in software. It decomposes the 3 bands' different transcoder HW into components, factors out the redundant ones, then uses SW to just glue together the required signal paths. The work is done by HW. Should work quite well.

Sounds great but...

[phatvw (996438)]

You still have a fundamental problem with radio communications - how to tune the antenna for multiple frequency bands [wirelessne...gnline.com] in a small package. Not an easy task.

Re:Sounds great but...

[MBCook (132727)]

You don't. You put 3 antennas in the device and switch between them. This would be problematic for other things, but in high frequencies the antennas aren't that big. If all three things use nearby pieces of spectrum (say different parts of 2.4 GHz) then you can tune the antenna for the center and put up with the losses for frequencies near the edges.

Re:

[phatvw (996438)]

Indeed. See the article I linked too. Perhaps Intel will make an announcement about a new antenna switch module to go along with the DSP :)

Mid-tex cellular uses software defined radios

[by Anonymous Coward]

I don't know a lot about them, but I've read that Mid-Tex Cellular uses software defined radios from Vanu, Inc. From what I've read they updated from TDMA (using conventional hardware) to GSM (using quite unconventional hardware) in early 2005. Instead of installing GSM hardware at each site, they installed this software defined radio hardware. So, now they've decided to add in CDMA also for roamers; instead of having to add expensive and specialized CDMA base station hardware to each site, they just add software to the control computers (and, possibly add an extra computer to a site if it needs more processing power.)

          This sounds like something Alltel could use, given in the west they run AMPS, TDMA, GSM, CDMA, and EVDO. (Western Wireless, which Alltel bought, provides the only coverage in a lot of the rural desert, and so they found the more standards they supported, the more roaming money they made... since it's desert, they didn't have problems with network congestion or whatever, so they just decided to run all standards 8-) They run CDMA + EVDO for themselves, and the rest for roamers.)

Multi-tasking ?

[matt_martin (159394)]

Turn off the TV, I wanna check my email ! (?)

Re:

[RalphBNumbers (655475)]

DVH-H, like most mobile targeted digital video systems afaik, is not an always-on signal. It's divided into time slices, and only uses something like one in ten slices for any particular channel. This is primarily to allow power savings by leaving the receiver powered off 90% of the time, but it might also allow you to use the same radio for TV and WiFI/WIMAX effectively at the same time.

q.v. onechiptorulethemall

[Inf0phreak (627499)]

Why would you want a chip to rule a mall?

There. It's been a while since I made a stupid joke here. Quota fulfilled for the next couple of months I guess :)

Not Really Software-Defined

[LowSNR (1138511)]

FTFA:

This provides all the digital signal processing and forward error correction for these three protocols and the area is still comparable to three fixed function Asics

This isn't really software-defined radio. Software-defined implies that the protocol level processing (i.e. DSP, FEC, etc.) are performed in software or firmware rather than in silicon (and hence changeable on the fly). While it is a pretty neat chip that has the potential to ease the convergence of these wireless standards, software radio it's not.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

"Software Defined Radio" isn't a precise term. It means "the least HW processing, the most SW processing" designed for flexibility in tuning multiple frequency bands and other (mostly protocol) features. This device is defined by SW running on it which band and protocol it's working in. It's a few steps beyond the trivial case of just switching among a few dedicated all-HW radios with a config signal. It decomposes the 3 band/protocol radios into components, factors out the redundant ones, and glues them to

Re:

[mako1138 (837520)]

The SDR Forum defines tiers [sdrforum.org] of software-ness. I've seen the terms used in the literature, so it's somewhat accepted.

Stupid Marketing

[VincenzoRomano (881055)]

WiFi+WiMax+Bluetooth+3G.
This is the real need.

Re:

[ak_hepcat (468765)]

It's about bloody time. Good grief, I mean, I wrote about this in '94 in my digital communications class.

Re:ettus USRP

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

OK, but does the USRP (or even v2) fit on a 24mm^2 chip drawing 80mW for 52Mbps?