- Otras noticias
La Universidad de Zaragoza ya cuenta con wi-fi gratuito
NextWave Wireless y Alcatel-Lucent colaboran en el desarrollo de solución de retransmisión WiMAX de próxima generación.jpg)
Los accesos inalámbricos no son seguros, según un profesor de la UCAM
Los autobuses de Segovia también contarán con Wi-Fi gratuito
T-Mobile, IPass suscriben acuerdo para conexiones Wi-Fi
U.S. Robotics lanza una red inalámbrica de 125Mbps para empresas
Última moda en China: tarjetas para averiguar la clave de la Wi-Fi del vecino
La tecnología Wi-Fi cumple 25 años
La cantidad de puntos wi-fi en españa se multiplicará por cuatro de aquí a pocos años
O2 y Nortel ponen en marcha la nueva generación de servicios inalámbricos de banda ancha
- En el foro
-
4g
Verizon proporciona conexión inalámbrica a coches, cajeros automáticos o máquinas de discos
12 Abr 2012 | TECHNOLOGYREVIEW.COM
El centro ha sido creado por Verizon, que junto a otras grandes compañías está promocionando de forma significativa alianzas empresariales basadas en su servicio inalámbrico de banda ancha, a pesar de que la congestión actual de la red hace que los consumidores puedan tener a veces dificultades simplemente para ver algunos episodios de Los Simpsons en sus teléfonos inteligentes.
El Centro de Innovación LTE incluye toda clase de dispositivos con la nueva y rápida red 4G LTE de Verizon, que proporciona velocidades hasta 10 veces superiores a la red 3G, que es la responsable principal de la mayoría de los problemas de congestión actuales. (Verizon ralentiza la transferencia de datos 3G entre sus clientes cuando las redes están congestionadas. AT&T ralentiza la transferencia de datos cuando los usuarios superan un límite de tres gigabytes al mes).
Por ahora, la red LTE de Verizon tiene menos de seis millones de suscriptores y no está siendo plenamente utilizada. Tampoco se está poniendo límites a su utilización, tal y como afirma Chetan Sharma, analista independiente sobre tecnología inalámbrica con sede en Seattle. Sin embargo, a medida que los suscriptores de 3G vayan migrando a LTE y más personas compren teléfonos inteligentes, la congestión en esta red se convertirá en un riesgo mayor, añade Sharma.
Verizon no es la única empresa que está dedicándose a actualizar su negocio. Todas las grandes compañías están interesadas en aumentar los ingresos diseñando y promocionando nuevos usos de este tipo de banda ancha inalámbrica de mayor velocidad, especialmente orientados a los clientes de negocios. "Quieren encontrar la forma de obtener ingresos no solo de los consumidores que utilizan las redes, sino de los negocios", afirma Janne Lindqvist, profesora de investigación en Winlab, perteneciente a la Universidad de Rutgers (EE.UU.). "No me sorprende que a pesar de que tengan problemas de congestión en la actualidad, estén tratando de encontrar formas de conseguir más suscriptores".
Lindqvist señala que no se sabe con certeza hasta qué punto llega la congestión, pero afirma que no es necesariamente paradójico desacelerar la descarga de datos por un lado, mientras que por otro se promociona un uso mayor. "Se ajusta al esquema: limitan a los consumidores ahora para poder soportar más clientes y aplicaciones en el futuro", indica.
Verizon abrió el centro de pruebas y demostraciones el año pasado. En él trabajan más de 300 empleados junto a otros socios para desarrollar nuevos modelos de negocio. En unos laboratorios adyacentes, los ingenieros prueban nuevos conceptos de productos de radio en habitaciones protegidas contra otras señales inalámbricas que podrían causar interferencias.
Una de las empresas que ya ha empezado a colaborar es TouchTunes, fabricante de máquinas de discos interactivas. Una de dichas máquinas está instalada en el Centro Verizon, compañía que envía canciones y vídeos a 52.000 máquinas de discos en bares y restaurantes en todo EE.UU.. Una portavoz de la empresa, Liz Anklow, señala que un porcentaje no revelado de ellas ya utiliza banda ancha por cable e inalámbrica, incluyendo 3G y LTE, lo que facilita la venta y mantenimiento del sistema en más lugares.
Sin embargo, gran parte de lo expuesto en Waltham, excepto el coche, se podría conectar a fibra óptica o a redes wifi. No obstante, "la mayor parte de todo esto se basa en la idea de 'poseer tu propia banda ancha', y todo es plug-and-play", señala Praveen Atreya, director del centro. En otras palabras, los dispositivos simplemente necesitan energía para funcionar y no requieren que el usuario posea un servicio preexistente de banda ancha por cable. "Creemos que la red LTE proporcionará una combinación de información y entretenimiento, servicios de seguridad, vigilancia y control del hogar, y podremos acceder a todo ello desde cualquier lugar", asegura el directivo.
Como ejemplo, señala la matrícula trasera del Buick. Una cámara de vídeo colocada justo encima de la matrícula puede ser programada para proyectar vídeo cuando el coche recibe un golpe. Recibirías un mensaje en el teléfono y una imagen del que te haya golpeado, afirma Atreya. Del mismo modo, las cámaras instaladas dentro del coche podrían revelarte cuántos adolescentes se montan en él cuando tu hijo te pide prestadas las llaves, añade.
Según Atreya, en un principio, un medidor de electricidad conectado a un chip de radio LTE realizaría tareas de bajo ancho de banda, como por ejemplo enviar informes sobre los kilovatios usados por hora. Pero también podría ser la base de servicios más complejos, ofrecidos por las compañías eléctricas, como por ejemplo la vigilancia del hogar. Mientras que las cámaras de seguridad con cables pueden ser desactivadas simplemente con cortar dichos cables, las cámaras inalámbricas resisten mejor ese tipo de ataques.
"Posibilitamos agregar contadores de agua y de gas, así como múltiples cámaras para vigilar a la persona que cuida a los niños, y cosas así", afirma Atreya. "Incluso podrían llegar a ofrecer servicio de banda ancha para el hogar si tienen datos de sobra".
El centro de Verizon acogió con anterioridad una implementación prototipo de una red LTE antes de que fuera instalada para su uso comercial en diciembre de 2010. La compañía ha hecho demostraciones de más de 30 productos en el centro. Entre sus socios están Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Cisco y Samsung Mobile. - Boletín
Si quieres recibir cada semana las noticias más interesantes suscríbete a nuestro boletín.
- Comentarios
- Publicidad
- Ahora en LaFlecha puedes encontrar Cursos y Másters
.I was perfectly plesaed with my iPad 2, a wifi-only model with 32gb. When Apple announced the new iPad, I typed up a long list of reasons why I shouldn't buy it. And then I bought one anyway. (I'll be giving my iPad 2 to my parents.)You've probably already read up on the new iPad and know the list of new facial appearance it has, and how the specs compare to the iPad 2 s specs. But comparing specs on paper is different than comparing the actual experience of using the two products, and the experience matters more than the specs. I can tell you which of those facial appearance, at least to me, really makes the experience of using the new iPad better. And there's only one: the show.I do a lot of reading on the iPad, and this is where the retina show really matters. Text is very sharp, even for very small fonts, and this makes reading on iPad much more comfortable. I've been reading Steve Jobs on my iPad 2 (using the Kindle app); I read the next stage on the retina iPad and then tried to read the following stage on the iPad 2 over again, and going back to the iPad 2 was unpleasant. I had similar results when I compared reading articles on websites using Safari and when reading a few pages of War and Concord in the iBooks app on the retina iPad vs. iPad 2. After reading on the new iPad, you just won't want to go back to reading on iPad 2.If you read a lot on your iPad, this to me is a compelling reason to upgrade, and perhaps the only compelling reason.What about photos? Videos? Games? Here, you can tell the difference, and the retina show is better. But in terms of how much the retina show increases my enjoyment of viewing cinema, video, and games, it is not enough to justify the cost of upgrading.On both iPads, I compared hi-res cinema I took at the Chicago Botanic Gardens using a DSLR with a excellent lens. On iPad 2, your eye can indeed discern individual pixels if you look closely enough, whereas on the retina iPad, it's like looking at a real print of the photo. But after looking at the cinema on the retina iPad, and even noticing the differences, it was subdue reasonably nice to view them over again on the iPad 2. Similarly for video: I watched a scene from the Breaking Terrible season 4 finale on both devices, and while it looked a bit better on the retina iPad, it subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. Streaming hi-res movie trailers looked better on the retina iPad, but subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. For streaming video from Netflix, I could not tell any difference, most likely because the resolution of the source material isn't any higher than the iPad 2 s show.I'm less of a gamer than most iPad users, but I did try Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy (a game supposedly optimized for the retina show) and Plants vs. Zombies HD (an older game). PvZ looks exactly the same on both, Sky Gamblers looks better on the retina iPad but it subdue looks very awesome on the iPad 2.In small, you can see the difference the retina show makes for photos, videos, and games. Yet, the experience of using the iPad 2 is subdue reasonably brilliant. The fact is that, even at a lower resolution, the iPad 2 s IPS show is exceptional.What about the other specs? Is it worth upgrading to get a newer processor, for example?No. I really don't see a difference in performance. The retina iPad is super quick, but so is iPad 2. Some apps load a small quicker, others I can't tell. But the speed difference, if any, isn't enough to make the retina iPad more enjoyable to use than iPad 2.I haven't had the new iPad long enough to tell you about battery life. Here is where I have to rely on specs. The new iPad is more store-hungry, but it has a much larger battery inside. This is why Apple says battery life is about the same.What about the improved camera? Sure, it takes better cinema than the joke of a camera on iPad 2. But do most people use their iPad for photography, anyway? If you have an iPhone 4 or 4S, your camera is just as ex
.I was perfectly plesaed with my iPad 2, a wifi-only model with 32gb. When Apple announced the new iPad, I typed up a long list of reasons why I shouldn't buy it. And then I bought one anyway. (I'll be giving my iPad 2 to my parents.)You've probably already read up on the new iPad and know the list of new facial appearance it has, and how the specs compare to the iPad 2 s specs. But comparing specs on paper is different than comparing the actual experience of using the two products, and the experience matters more than the specs. I can tell you which of those facial appearance, at least to me, really makes the experience of using the new iPad better. And there's only one: the show.I do a lot of reading on the iPad, and this is where the retina show really matters. Text is very sharp, even for very small fonts, and this makes reading on iPad much more comfortable. I've been reading Steve Jobs on my iPad 2 (using the Kindle app); I read the next stage on the retina iPad and then tried to read the following stage on the iPad 2 over again, and going back to the iPad 2 was unpleasant. I had similar results when I compared reading articles on websites using Safari and when reading a few pages of War and Concord in the iBooks app on the retina iPad vs. iPad 2. After reading on the new iPad, you just won't want to go back to reading on iPad 2.If you read a lot on your iPad, this to me is a compelling reason to upgrade, and perhaps the only compelling reason.What about photos? Videos? Games? Here, you can tell the difference, and the retina show is better. But in terms of how much the retina show increases my enjoyment of viewing cinema, video, and games, it is not enough to justify the cost of upgrading.On both iPads, I compared hi-res cinema I took at the Chicago Botanic Gardens using a DSLR with a excellent lens. On iPad 2, your eye can indeed discern individual pixels if you look closely enough, whereas on the retina iPad, it's like looking at a real print of the photo. But after looking at the cinema on the retina iPad, and even noticing the differences, it was subdue reasonably nice to view them over again on the iPad 2. Similarly for video: I watched a scene from the Breaking Terrible season 4 finale on both devices, and while it looked a bit better on the retina iPad, it subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. Streaming hi-res movie trailers looked better on the retina iPad, but subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. For streaming video from Netflix, I could not tell any difference, most likely because the resolution of the source material isn't any higher than the iPad 2 s show.I'm less of a gamer than most iPad users, but I did try Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy (a game supposedly optimized for the retina show) and Plants vs. Zombies HD (an older game). PvZ looks exactly the same on both, Sky Gamblers looks better on the retina iPad but it subdue looks very awesome on the iPad 2.In small, you can see the difference the retina show makes for photos, videos, and games. Yet, the experience of using the iPad 2 is subdue reasonably brilliant. The fact is that, even at a lower resolution, the iPad 2 s IPS show is exceptional.What about the other specs? Is it worth upgrading to get a newer processor, for example?No. I really don't see a difference in performance. The retina iPad is super quick, but so is iPad 2. Some apps load a small quicker, others I can't tell. But the speed difference, if any, isn't enough to make the retina iPad more enjoyable to use than iPad 2.I haven't had the new iPad long enough to tell you about battery life. Here is where I have to rely on specs. The new iPad is more store-hungry, but it has a much larger battery inside. This is why Apple says battery life is about the same.What about the improved camera? Sure, it takes better cinema than the joke of a camera on iPad 2. But do most people use their iPad for photography, anyway? If you have an iPhone 4 or 4S, your camera is just as excellent or better, and it's more convenient for taking cinema than using the iPad. Ditto for most smartphones. And only the rear-facing camera was improved; the front-facing camera is just as crappy as before. And that's a shame, because the front camera is the one I'd really use (for skype and facetime).What about dictation? I find it works about 80%, less in a noisy room. And it is simpler to dictate and then edit the few errors than typing something from scratch on the iPad's on-screen keyboard. But I don't reflect most people will use it enough for it to topic in the upgrade choice. People who write a lot on the iPad will already have an external keyboard (or should get
.I was perfectly pealsed with my iPad 2, a wifi-only model with 32gb. When Apple announced the new iPad, I typed up a long list of reasons why I shouldn't buy it. And then I bought one anyway. (I'll be giving my iPad 2 to my parents.)You've probably already read up on the new iPad and know the list of new facial appearance it has, and how the specs compare to the iPad 2 s specs. But comparing specs on paper is different than comparing the actual experience of using the two products, and the experience matters more than the specs. I can tell you which of those facial appearance, at least to me, really makes the experience of using the new iPad better. And there's only one: the show.I do a lot of reading on the iPad, and this is where the retina show really matters. Text is very sharp, even for very small fonts, and this makes reading on iPad much more comfortable. I've been reading Steve Jobs on my iPad 2 (using the Kindle app); I read the next stage on the retina iPad and then tried to read the following stage on the iPad 2 over again, and going back to the iPad 2 was unpleasant. I had similar results when I compared reading articles on websites using Safari and when reading a few pages of War and Concord in the iBooks app on the retina iPad vs. iPad 2. After reading on the new iPad, you just won't want to go back to reading on iPad 2.If you read a lot on your iPad, this to me is a compelling reason to upgrade, and perhaps the only compelling reason.What about photos? Videos? Games? Here, you can tell the difference, and the retina show is better. But in terms of how much the retina show increases my enjoyment of viewing cinema, video, and games, it is not enough to justify the cost of upgrading.On both iPads, I compared hi-res cinema I took at the Chicago Botanic Gardens using a DSLR with a excellent lens. On iPad 2, your eye can indeed discern individual pixels if you look closely enough, whereas on the retina iPad, it's like looking at a real print of the photo. But after looking at the cinema on the retina iPad, and even noticing the differences, it was subdue reasonably nice to view them over again on the iPad 2. Similarly for video: I watched a scene from the Breaking Terrible season 4 finale on both devices, and while it looked a bit better on the retina iPad, it subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. Streaming hi-res movie trailers looked better on the retina iPad, but subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. For streaming video from Netflix, I could not tell any difference, most likely because the resolution of the source material isn't any higher than the iPad 2 s show.I'm less of a gamer than most iPad users, but I did try Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy (a game supposedly optimized for the retina show) and Plants vs. Zombies HD (an older game). PvZ looks exactly the same on both, Sky Gamblers looks better on the retina iPad but it subdue looks very awesome on the iPad 2.In small, you can see the difference the retina show makes for photos, videos, and games. Yet, the experience of using the iPad 2 is subdue reasonably brilliant. The fact is that, even at a lower resolution, the iPad 2 s IPS show is exceptional.What about the other specs? Is it worth upgrading to get a newer processor, for example?No. I really don't see a difference in performance. The retina iPad is super quick, but so is iPad 2. Some apps load a small quicker, others I can't tell. But the speed difference, if any, isn't enough to make the retina iPad more enjoyable to use than iPad 2.I haven't had the new iPad long enough to tell you about battery life. Here is where I have to rely on specs. The new iPad is more store-hungry, but it has a much larger battery inside. This is why Apple says battery life is about the same.What about the improved camera? Sure, it takes better cinema than the joke of a camera on iPad 2. But do most people use their iPad for photography, anyway? If you have an iPhone 4 or 4S, your camera is just as ex
.I was perfectly pealsed with my iPad 2, a wifi-only model with 32gb. When Apple announced the new iPad, I typed up a long list of reasons why I shouldn't buy it. And then I bought one anyway. (I'll be giving my iPad 2 to my parents.)You've probably already read up on the new iPad and know the list of new facial appearance it has, and how the specs compare to the iPad 2 s specs. But comparing specs on paper is different than comparing the actual experience of using the two products, and the experience matters more than the specs. I can tell you which of those facial appearance, at least to me, really makes the experience of using the new iPad better. And there's only one: the show.I do a lot of reading on the iPad, and this is where the retina show really matters. Text is very sharp, even for very small fonts, and this makes reading on iPad much more comfortable. I've been reading Steve Jobs on my iPad 2 (using the Kindle app); I read the next stage on the retina iPad and then tried to read the following stage on the iPad 2 over again, and going back to the iPad 2 was unpleasant. I had similar results when I compared reading articles on websites using Safari and when reading a few pages of War and Concord in the iBooks app on the retina iPad vs. iPad 2. After reading on the new iPad, you just won't want to go back to reading on iPad 2.If you read a lot on your iPad, this to me is a compelling reason to upgrade, and perhaps the only compelling reason.What about photos? Videos? Games? Here, you can tell the difference, and the retina show is better. But in terms of how much the retina show increases my enjoyment of viewing cinema, video, and games, it is not enough to justify the cost of upgrading.On both iPads, I compared hi-res cinema I took at the Chicago Botanic Gardens using a DSLR with a excellent lens. On iPad 2, your eye can indeed discern individual pixels if you look closely enough, whereas on the retina iPad, it's like looking at a real print of the photo. But after looking at the cinema on the retina iPad, and even noticing the differences, it was subdue reasonably nice to view them over again on the iPad 2. Similarly for video: I watched a scene from the Breaking Terrible season 4 finale on both devices, and while it looked a bit better on the retina iPad, it subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. Streaming hi-res movie trailers looked better on the retina iPad, but subdue looked fantastic on iPad 2. For streaming video from Netflix, I could not tell any difference, most likely because the resolution of the source material isn't any higher than the iPad 2 s show.I'm less of a gamer than most iPad users, but I did try Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy (a game supposedly optimized for the retina show) and Plants vs. Zombies HD (an older game). PvZ looks exactly the same on both, Sky Gamblers looks better on the retina iPad but it subdue looks very awesome on the iPad 2.In small, you can see the difference the retina show makes for photos, videos, and games. Yet, the experience of using the iPad 2 is subdue reasonably brilliant. The fact is that, even at a lower resolution, the iPad 2 s IPS show is exceptional.What about the other specs? Is it worth upgrading to get a newer processor, for example?No. I really don't see a difference in performance. The retina iPad is super quick, but so is iPad 2. Some apps load a small quicker, others I can't tell. But the speed difference, if any, isn't enough to make the retina iPad more enjoyable to use than iPad 2.I haven't had the new iPad long enough to tell you about battery life. Here is where I have to rely on specs. The new iPad is more store-hungry, but it has a much larger battery inside. This is why Apple says battery life is about the same.What about the improved camera? Sure, it takes better cinema than the joke of a camera on iPad 2. But do most people use their iPad for photography, anyway? If you have an iPhone 4 or 4S, your camera is just as excellent or better, and it's more convenient for taking cinema than using the iPad. Ditto for most smartphones. And only the rear-facing camera was improved; the front-facing camera is just as crappy as before. And that's a shame, because the front camera is the one I'd really use (for skype and facetime).What about dictation? I find it works about 80%, less in a noisy room. And it is simpler to dictate and then edit the few errors than typing something from scratch on the iPad's on-screen keyboard. But I don't reflect most people will use it enough for it to topic in the upgrade choice. People who write a lot on the iPad will already have an external keyboard (or should get