How software-defined radio could revolutionize wireless

The Phi hopes to do for radio what Apple I did for computing—spark innovation.

Read the whole story

 

[frankie1969]

Apple is the world's largest company

Nitpick: It isn't, not by any physical metric you could associate with "size".

Corporations are measured by money, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ation#2012

To the rest of you nose-pickers: get over yourselves. Tim mentions Apple in 3 introductory paragraphs of a 3000 word article, as an analogy. It's trivial and ignorable.

ObTopic: This technology has a lot of potential for good, but at least as much for malice. It will inevitably be used to intercept/spoof personal wireless communication. Are we prepared for every script kiddie gaining the ability to spew arbitrary payloads all over the spectrum?

 

[gruntboyx]

So stupid question:

How do these software radios actually work electrically? Are they reprogrammable tuners/mixers or are they literally just parking an oscillator at some frequency and running a really fast A/D to capture everything moving through the air over a very wide band?

Can they simultaneously read in 1 GHz and 2 GHz transmission for instance?

Actually a great question. The article is a little misleading. It gives the impression that with simple code a SDR will turn a FM tuner into a Super Wifi High data rate radio. You still have to consider the spectrum you plan to broadcast on. The advantage of SDR is in the deployment. It allows you to change the modulation schema without necessarily throwing the hardware design away. It saves development cost. You still have to consider the frequency you will talk at as the transceiver/PA still need to be tuned to broadcast range. Not to mention the Antenna. I dont know too many antenna designs that would allow you to broadcast on such a wide band from FM to Wifi and still be mobile. Sure there are some tuned to FM, and 2.4. But I don't know of many that would allow you to pick say 900 Mhz and expect as efficient an output as a native designed antenna.

SDR is a great piece of technology. However its not going to allow some hacker to magically turn a pocket FM radio into some 4G modem. Because lets face it. As SDR gets cheeper bean counters will realize they dont need a high end processor to accomplish simple RF solutions. So they wont load the overhead neccesary to complete the design to allow you to turn it into a ATSC or 4G device.

 

[notakpopstar]

SDR sound like a good thing but they come with a lot of hidden engineering costs. You still require hardware engineers to design the Fpga and the software that drives it on the pc. Its very easy to fall prey to that this a easy thing to do when it isn't. The tech itself is great and when manufacturers start to qualify their software for this board, will we actually gain anything from this. It is akin to arduino modules and Breakout boards. The hardware scales well and is cheap to produce. But it is the software that still needs a lot work. I know companies will buy into this whole, oh its. software defined radio and we can just pick up a grad student to write the driver. No, it still requires an engineering team todevelop these radios. Until companies start to sell qualified software in mass, this will be ( and is) the norm for SDR in the market. That a why SDR will continue to be expensive and difficult to use for the next few years. I apoligize for any typos as I'm writing this from a crappy tablet.

 

[aeolist]

Isn't the Icera baseband that nVidia bought for their ARM SoCs a software defined radio?

 

[maradona]

The article is stretching advantages of SDR too far. There many physical limitations making this far less applicable than it sounds.
In regards to Apple I would not put so much credit to it. It is enough. Arstechnica should be more balanced.

 

[daggar]

What happens when people decide to intentionally be malicious?

It's hard to say for sure, but I think there's a very good chance that will not actually end up being a huge deal, at least once society adjusts. The key factor is that, of the entire range of technology crimes, or even crimes in general, it's hard to think of many where a person or item announces the problem more clearly. "Maliciousness" and "incompetence" appear to be similar here: someone sets up a device that, either by intention or just simple misconfiguration, ends up being a bad EM citizen and pumps out too much power too randomly, thus acting like a jammer and mucking things up for others. However, by definition anything operating with that kind of power is dead easy to find by anyone at all. The exact same physics that cause it to mess with other network equipment also means it's a big fat "Here I Am" sign.

So it'll be easy to see who or what is being bad, and thus I think tools and social norms can be developed to handle it. It seems very similar to noise pollution really, if someone is partying too loudly and bothers the neighbors then the first step is just calling them up or walking over and asking them to turn it down, which often is enough right there. Everyone here could go out and buy a big set of speakers, turn them up to 11 and be a jerk, but that isn't a widespread problem because most people aren't jerks and even for those that are most will bow to social pressure. For what remains, just call the cops. "It's freaking one in the morning and so-and-so's kid is having a rock concert in their back yard" becomes "so-and-so's kid is operating a jammer and messing with everyone's Internet".

No doubt there will be plenty of growing pains though, and people being idiots. Wasn't too long ago where we had a story covering people pointing lasers at aircraft for example.

Well said. Hit the nail on the head.

 

[atom944]

For example, in the 1960s, radio stations floating in international waters blasted pop music into the United Kingdom where state-owned monopoly broadcasters only offered programming the authorities regarded as more wholesome.

Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC isn't and never has been state-owned. Yes it was a monopoly, but they've always made a big point of being politically neutral.

SDR will allow anyone so inclined to mimic existing networks. What happens when someone decides they want broadcast over the entire FM range? Or mimic a cell tower to snoop your communications? Or overpower GPS signals? Indeed, all of those things have already been accomplished. The only thing stopping it from being more common is the cost of hardware.

I don't agree. The only reason it's not more common is that most people just aren't that malicious. Yes, the equipment to snoop on phone signals is expensive, but jammers are dead easy to build using parts you can get from an electronics store for pocket change. If I really wanted to I could literally walk over to my garage and put together a jammer in a few hours. But I don't want to. Yes there will always be people who want to sabotage everyone elses fun, but they're such a small minority that they're not usually that much of a problem.

 

[Fritzr]

For example, in the 1960s, radio stations floating in international waters blasted pop music into the United Kingdom where state-owned monopoly broadcasters only offered programming the authorities regarded as more wholesome.

Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC isn't and never has been state-owned. Yes it was a monopoly, but they've always made a big point of being politically neutral.

.The BBC is an independent government agency. They are licensed as a non-profit private corporation operating using government funding and very restrictive government 'advice' on operations. The political neutrality is one of the restrictions they operate under. A very unusual arrangement that has worked very well for many years now.

They are not a monopoly, many of my favorite shows in the 70's were on Anglia and Thames. These were franchises of the ITV group which today has a website at http://itv.com

 

[Deleted member 192806]

For example, in the 1960s, radio stations floating in international waters blasted pop music into the United Kingdom where state-owned monopoly broadcasters only offered programming the authorities regarded as more wholesome.

Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC isn't and never has been state-owned. Yes it was a monopoly, but they've always made a big point of being politically neutral.

SDR will allow anyone so inclined to mimic existing networks. What happens when someone decides they want broadcast over the entire FM range? Or mimic a cell tower to snoop your communications? Or overpower GPS signals? Indeed, all of those things have already been accomplished. The only thing stopping it from being more common is the cost of hardware.

I don't agree. The only reason it's not more common is that most people just aren't that malicious. Yes, the equipment to snoop on phone signals is expensive, but jammers are dead easy to build using parts you can get from an electronics store for pocket change. If I really wanted to I could literally walk over to my garage and put together a jammer in a few hours. But I don't want to. Yes there will always be people who want to sabotage everyone elses fun, but they're such a small minority that they're not usually that much of a problem.

Look at botnets as an example of were a "few" can cause problems for the "many".

 

[dodexahedron]

Since people are complaining about the claim about Apple being the world's largest company, I've added "by market capitalization" to make it clear.

Why not just change it to "richest" or "most valuable" company, as that's far more accurate? The change just made the sentence make no sense as those are not compatible metrics.
Market capitalization has nothing to do with the size of the company at all, and is simply share price multiplied by number of shares outstanding, which changes from one second to the next during the trading day.

I guess Warren Buffet is also the largest person in the world.

 

[hobgoblin]

What happens when people decide to intentionally be malicious?

It's hard to say for sure, but I think there's a very good chance that will not actually end up being a huge deal, at least once society adjusts. The key factor is that, of the entire range of technology crimes, or even crimes in general, it's hard to think of many where a person or item announces the problem more clearly. "Maliciousness" and "incompetence" appear to be similar here: someone sets up a device that, either by intention or just simple misconfiguration, ends up being a bad EM citizen and pumps out too much power too randomly, thus acting like a jammer and mucking things up for others. However, by definition anything operating with that kind of power is dead easy to find by anyone at all. The exact same physics that cause it to mess with other network equipment also means it's a big fat "Here I Am" sign.

So it'll be easy to see who or what is being bad, and thus I think tools and social norms can be developed to handle it. It seems very similar to noise pollution really, if someone is partying too loudly and bothers the neighbors then the first step is just calling them up or walking over and asking them to turn it down, which often is enough right there. Everyone here could go out and buy a big set of speakers, turn them up to 11 and be a jerk, but that isn't a widespread problem because most people aren't jerks and even for those that are most will bow to social pressure. For what remains, just call the cops. "It's freaking one in the morning and so-and-so's kid is having a rock concert in their back yard" becomes "so-and-so's kid is operating a jammer and messing with everyone's Internet".

No doubt there will be plenty of growing pains though, and people being idiots. Wasn't too long ago where we had a story covering people pointing lasers at aircraft for example.

Well said. Hit the nail on the head.

If all else fails, one can always go with the HARM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

On par with showing up at a loud party with a chainsaw and taking on the speakers

 

[frankie1969]

I don't agree. The only reason it's not more common is that most people just aren't that malicious. Yes, the equipment to snoop on phone signals is expensive, but jammers are dead easy to build using parts you can get from an electronics store for pocket change. If I really wanted to I could literally walk over to my garage and put together a jammer in a few hours. But I don't want to. Yes there will always be people who want to sabotage everyone elses fun, but they're such a small minority that they're not usually that much of a problem.

I think you're overly optimistic. The reason why you have the skill to build a transmitter in your garage (years spent on technical training in college &/or work) is the very reason why you don't find it worthwhile to do so. When this same capability is available to high school kids with a couple hundred bucks and a GUI toolkit they found on 4chan, the likelihood of abuse goes WAY up.

Also, the analogy to annoying loudspeakers or laser pointers is faulty. Almost everyone has the necessary sensors (ears & eyes) to quickly & accurately identify the source of those emissions. Vanishingly few people have directional radio detectors that operate across the frequency range these new devices can produce.

 

[Invictus227]

Reads about Phi.

Decides it's amazingly awesome.

Heads over to Pervices.com

Notices kit costs $850

Opens wallet.

Dust and Tumbleweed fly out.

;_;

 

[AxMi-24]

I don't agree. The only reason it's not more common is that most people just aren't that malicious. Yes, the equipment to snoop on phone signals is expensive, but jammers are dead easy to build using parts you can get from an electronics store for pocket change. If I really wanted to I could literally walk over to my garage and put together a jammer in a few hours. But I don't want to. Yes there will always be people who want to sabotage everyone elses fun, but they're such a small minority that they're not usually that much of a problem.

I think you're overly optimistic. The reason why you have the skill to build a transmitter in your garage (years spent on technical training in college &/or work) is the very reason why you don't find it worthwhile to do so. When this same capability is available to high school kids with a couple hundred bucks and a GUI toolkit they found on 4chan, the likelihood of abuse goes WAY up.

Also, the analogy to annoying loudspeakers or laser pointers is faulty. Almost everyone has the necessary sensors (ears & eyes) to quickly & accurately identify the source of those emissions. Vanishingly few people have directional radio detectors that operate across the frequency range these new devices can produce.

Do you seriously think that there is no schematic online that will allow anyone not brain dead to make a jammer? It's a matter of wanting to. A lot of us here could do a lot of really bad things but we don't. Most people just don't want to be an ass.

This reminds me of LOFAR setup for radio astronomy. Just that in LOFAR case they just listen and then get out signals in software (super computers help with that part).

 

[hobgoblin]

Interesting that the antennas in the Phi bundle (i am so going to confuse it with the Raspberry Pi), claims to have a operation range from 850MHz all the way to 6200MHZ.

 

[paulhampson]

The Apple 1 and Apple computing in general have never had a major influence in the pc business(only music players and mobile phones, and perhaps industrial design), and they certainly weren 't the primary pioneers in bringing computers into the home.

Except for your showing your total ignorance and bias in the area of personal computing, intresting article.

 

[xoa]

It will inevitably be used to intercept/spoof personal wireless communication.

What on Earth are you talking about!? Why are we in 2012, talking with someone who has been a registered Arsian since 2003, and still have to mention "HELLO ENCRYPTION" every single freaking discussion on something like this? Modern secure communications does not necessarily require a completely secure, closed physical network (nor could the Internet function as it does if such a requirement existed).

Stop writing rubbish.

When this same capability is available to high school kids with a couple hundred bucks and a GUI toolkit they found on 4chan, the likelihood of abuse goes WAY up.

What credible abuse is there except jamming? And as has already been pointed out, jamming doesn't require any special equipment and can be done for way less then a few hundred bucks right now, with no "GUI" at all. All the special equipment and software is necessary to actually do useful work, but if one just wants to pump out a bunch of broad spectrum white noise it's not exactly high level electronic engineering.

Also, the analogy to annoying loudspeakers or laser pointers is faulty. Almost everyone has the necessary sensors (ears & eyes) to quickly & accurately identify the source of those emissions. Vanishingly few people have directional radio detectors that operate across the frequency range these new devices can produce.

And here you can't even keep consistent within the very same post. Your first paragraph references the entire point of the article and discussion: a future world where everyone does have software-definied radio. That's what this is all about! You're simultaneously saying "when these are dirt cheap and dead easy it'll be a problem" and "it'll be hard to find the problem because they aren't dirt cheap and dead easy." Those are mutually exclusive frankie1969, if it's widespread and straightforward for anyone, then that goes both ways. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if an early open source application for SDRs was "identify direction, power, and spectrum for all detectable radio sources", as it's a cool and useful little project by itself.

 

[Donkey Hotay]

This article's thrust is a bit muddled. It seems to want to bring attention to the current state of software-defined radio but instead mucks around pretending that USRP and Phi are possibly the Apple of the future. This seems absurd; if the technology is more efficient than frequency-defined devices then the smartphone manufacturers will be using this shortly in order to shrink form factors. Thus far, this is not the case.

 

[JustAdComics]

The Apple 1 and Apple computing in general have never had a major influence in the pc business(only music players and mobile phones, and perhaps industrial design), and they certainly weren 't the primary pioneers in bringing computers into the home.

Except for your showing your total ignorance and bias in the area of personal computing, intresting article.

Wow. Way to be incredibly rude. Claiming that Apple hasn't had a major influence on computing is to show your own total ignorance and bias. The company that popularized (note: not invented, so stop your knee-jerk reaction before it starts) the WIMP paradigm for computing most certainly did have an influence on all other computing platforms. To claim otherwise is just silly.

 

[bb-15]

The Apple 1 and Apple computing in general have never had a major influence in the pc business(only music players and mobile phones, and perhaps industrial design), and they certainly weren 't the primary pioneers in bringing computers into the home.

Except for your showing your total ignorance and bias in the area of personal computing, intresting article.

Absurd.

Anyone with any knowledge of the history of personal computing would realize that the Apple 1 and the Apple II were part of pioneering efforts in bringing personal computers into the home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II

 

[Owl Saver]

I have been following SDR for several years now. Combined with Spread Spectrum, it really does seem to be the future of radio communications. I wonder about two things:

-What will the protocols be like? There will need to be protocols to request and give up the use of frequencies. It seems like Ethernets CSMA/CD approach would fit.

-Will there continue to be central high powered broadcasters? I could see lots of small units that relay the signal. But, that seems to not provide the level of reliability needed. So, if there are lots of smaller towers, how will they be paid for?

My vision would be for a completely dynamic use of the airwaves. For things like radio and TV, there would be a channel that provides the current location for each broadcaster (if they still exist). For internet access, the least used frequencies would be used.

It will be a true Ethernet.

 

[secretmanofagent]

Everybody should shut up about Apple. It has nothing to do about the article, and it's distracting from the actual conversation.

Owl, what you're asking for is idealistic, and I think it would require a complete restructuring of the bands to the equivalent of ISM. The biggest problem is while spread spectrum is designed to help mitigate interference, it can't eliminate them and there would still need to be assigned frequencies for exclusive use.

 

[Owl Saver]

I agree that it is idealistic. But someone far smarter than me will come up with a practical approach that does something useful. It will be fun to watch how this evolves.

 

[notakpopstar]

I have been following SDR for several years now. Combined with Spread Spectrum, it really does seem to be the future of radio communications. I wonder about two things:

-What will the protocols be like? There will need to be protocols to request and give up the use of frequencies. It seems like Ethernets CSMA/CD approach would fit.

-Will there continue to be central high powered broadcasters? I could see lots of small units that relay the signal. But, that seems to not provide the level of reliability needed. So, if there are lots of smaller towers, how will they be paid for?

My vision would be for a completely dynamic use of the airwaves. For things like radio and TV, there would be a channel that provides the current location for each broadcaster (if they still exist). For internet access, the least used frequencies would be used.

It will be a true Ethernet.

The point of SDR is to be able to switch to another method of physical communication. We will still need our current set of standards and methods. Read up on the 802.11 wireless text book by joy. What you are talking about is implemented the 802.11 standard for extended service set, where you have multiple access points with the same ssid. The station uses beacons to decide how to switch to another access point, and I believe, on different frequencies (abg standards. FH already does this somewhat depending on manufacturer) . SDR will allow manufacturers to support future wifi standards easily and cheaply, as long as the antennae is of the right length.

 

[raxx7]

This is a very poor article.

The sentence "Traditional radio chips are hard-wired to communicate using one specific protocol." is grossly misleading.
"Software Defined Radio" actually describes the majority of current radio interfaces for anything more sophisticated than an AM/FM receiver.
The difference is that your WiFi card doesn't give you access to the "SDR" part. And the analog part and DSP part has very limited capabilities.
But the architecture is the same.

What we have here is not an engineering revolution, it's merely a nice kit which puts a flexible SDR interface at a nice price point, available for hobbyists.

The need for regulation and frequency division is also brutally mis-understood.
Hell, not so long ago Ars was running nice articles regarding how LightSquared's plans would f**k up GPS.

Spread spectrum (CDMA, frequency hoping, whatever) is not a magical solution.

There are two key aspects.
First, any sharing system (frequency division, spread spectrum, etc) has a finite capability to discriminate between one user's signal and noise/other user's signal.
So, without regulation we can easily run into situations where one user's signal is drowning other users' signals.

Second, frequency division is important because it plays with practical limitations of RF interfaces..
For example, it's far from simple to simply capture the entire spectrum and them use DSP to get your CDMA signal out of it. Such a wide band amplifier is hard. And then you incur the risk of the amplifier saturating due to the huge input signal.
By assigning pieces of spectrum to specific applications, we can have much more feasible RF interface: simpler antenna, add an analog filter to remove unwanted frequencies, much simpler amplifier design.

 

[kawfey]

Careful who you call "careless hobbyists." We radio amateur's have fought for a good reputation with the FCC...

Oh, you were talking about CB radio and pirates. Haha lol. But you're very right -- the proliferation of consumer SDRs could very well spell disaster for public service and private radio services, just like the lack of regulation gave way to radio pirates on the shortwave bands.

I really loved this article. I'm involved with research that involves using several FPGAs and DACs in place of radios to research MIMO channel sounding, and I'm all about SDR! I own a few ham radio SDRs who's capability is limited by firmware (as far as using it for evil), but are still bloody awesome, having reciever specifications that exceed even the best solid-state radios. I have some European/Asian DVB-T USB dongles (designed to receive OTA TV broadcasts in other countries) with the Realtek 2832 chip/ E4000 tuner, which gives me a waterfall of radio signals from 64 to 1700 MHz using the Windows program HDSDR. It's basically a really small spectrum analyzer -- you see a signal, you can click on it and then the software decodes it for you. Work is being done to enable the software to automatically demodulate any mode -- FM, AM, PSK, QA/FM, AFSK, CPM, FHSS, SSB and even morse code.

But knowing that, it rustles my jimmies to know that someone could possibly intercept my wifi or cell phone simply by clicking on it's signal in a computer program.

 

[Grieviant]

The analogy that the article attempts to support is extremely dubious in my opinion.

Communications at present is a much more mature field than was computing at the time the Apple I was being developed. It is and will always be a more narrow field than computing in terms of what a hobbyist can accomplish - you're moving data from point A to point B rather than writing a software program that could be geared towards just about anything. I'm not going to say that there's nothing left to discover - that would be way too strong - but there's been enough R&D done to the point that many good techniques and applications are already on the market (Wifi, Cellular, GPS). I just can't see a hobbyist coming in with some sweeping new idea that's going to turn heads, even ignoring the limitations on what and where you're allowed to broadcast without a license.

Spread spectrum and pulse compression have been around for decades. CDMA cellular is the obvious commercial example. Yes you can pretty much bury your signal in noise so that it won't disrupt other services operating on the same band, but the consequence is a proportional reduction in data rate by the spreading factor. In other words, have fun with your 10 kbps home brew wireless modem.

Whitespace and cognitive radio are incredibly annoying and poorly defined buzz words that so far have produced nothing aside from securing grant money for research. They envision a loosely controlled free for all that is guaranteed to produce a ton of headaches with the possibility of a more efficient spectrum usage. It's not very pessimistic to assume they'll promise everything and produce very little, just as MIMO has done, before researchers move on the next interesting idea.

Not to be overly disrespectful, but if you think that Ettus and Rondeau are going to be looked back on as some sort of great pioneers in popularizing communications as a hobby, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Putrid Polecat]

This is clearly the future. It reminds me a bit of the virtualization of networking currently transforming the field.

 

[Hinton]

The Apple 1 and Apple computing in general have never had a major influence in the pc business(only music players and mobile phones, and perhaps industrial design), and they certainly weren 't the primary pioneers in bringing computers into the home.

Except for your showing your total ignorance and bias in the area of personal computing, intresting article.

Well, but it was brave of Apple to launch the Apple-1 to compete against minicomputers and mainframes. That's an interesting and very valid point the article made, especially in the context.

 

[Aimhere]

I haven't read all of this article yet, but it's already reminded me of a prior one, at the other end of the scale:

http://meincmagazine.com/information-technology/2012/06/how-to-blow-6-billion-on-a-tech-project/

Bah! You've beaten me to it. :-(

Me too! xD

The U.S. military tried to create a software radio that was supposed to replace all their existing radios, but completely botched it up. Hopefully private enterprise can do a better job.

This technology does promise to revolutionize the use of the airwaves, but I have to wonder how long it'll be before this kind of thing becomes mainstream, if it ever does. I can't see existing TV and radio operators EVER willingly giving up their spectrum, unless mandated to do so by the government. The software-radio technology would have to be proven to be so vastly superior to the old methodology that no argument could be mounted for keeping the old spectrum allocations.

 

[somari]

Imagination Technologies has some software-defined-radio tech ready, since 2002.

http://www.imgtec.com/news/Release/index.asp?NewsID=218

I think I've seen it in action

 

[armandh2]

DTV is a limited example
4 hi def channels in the same 6 MHZ spectrum as 1 old lo def channel

a type of software defined radio is in wide use by digital armatures
the base band is the transceiver's audio but the laptop plunged in to that audio
squeezes in near 20 agile digital text sub channels

of course a wider base band begets greater opportunity
the front end modules can be synthesized or VCO

building demodulation for agile TRF is likely out of the picture for now

 

[divisionbyzero]

Making an analogy between software-defined radios and PCs is inherently flawed and excessively hyperbolic. Computers at least simulate some forms of human thinking and allow machines to act in a manner that seems intelligent. Bringing that kind of power into the hands of the public is more significant than allowing new forms of communication. A better analogy would be to the internet (not just the web) which is no small thing .

 

[Cattus In Nemus]

I'm extremely excited about this. I recall an MIT project called "Oxygen" from a decade or so ago, describing how RF comms would be all pervasive (like oxygen) if they could master SDR. I've been waiting...

As for the Apple metaphor, since I actually know my geek history I understand it is an apt comparison.

The problem is that too many readers don't know their history. We're not talking Jobs, we're talking Woz here. The author really should have compared SDR to the Homebrew Computer Club.

In 1975 there was this brand new kit called the Altair. It couldn't do anything. Seriously, it had NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION WHATSOEVER. In the beginning, the Altair had no monitor, no keyboard, no audio, and certainly no mouse. It had some switches and some blinking LEDs, and that's it.

But the group of HACKING GODS in the Homebrew Computer Club looked at this useless box and creamed their pants, it was the coolest fucking thing ever.

Within 5 years, the personal computer revolution was in high gear. And the world changed. You can trace that change of the whole world back to a little room in southern California, those manic geeks gathered around their silly box with the blinking lights. They recognized the future when they saw it.

Be a proud geek. Learn your history. (Ars - Please educate them.)

These new SDR products are exactly like the first real computers coming out of the Altair club. It's exciting as hell. Revolutionary even.

Go ahead and ignore SDR, then see how you feel about it in 20 years.

PS: I'm a Linux hacker. I have zero Apple gear.

 

[JustAdComics]

I'm extremely excited about this. I recall an MIT project called "Oxygen" from a decade or so ago, describing how RF comms would be all pervasive (like oxygen) if they could master SDR. I've been waiting...

As for the Apple metaphor, since I actually know my geek history I understand it is an apt comparison.

The problem is that too many readers don't know their history. We're not talking Jobs, we're talking Woz here. The author really should have compared SDR to the Homebrew Computer Club.

In 1975 there was this brand new kit called the Altair. It couldn't do anything. Seriously, it had NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION WHATSOEVER. In the beginning, the Altair had no monitor, no keyboard, no audio, and certainly no mouse. It had some switches and some blinking LEDs, and that's it.

But the group of HACKING GODS in the Homebrew Computer Club looked at this useless box and creamed their pants, it was the coolest fucking thing ever.

Within 5 years, the personal computer revolution was in high gear. And the world changed. You can trace that change of the whole world back to a little room in southern California, those manic geeks gathered around their silly box with the blinking lights. They recognized the future when they saw it.

Be a proud geek. Learn your history. (Ars - Please educate them.)


These new SDR products are exactly like the first real computers coming out of the Altair club. It's exciting as hell. Revolutionary even.

Go ahead and ignore SDR, then see how you feel about it in 20 years.

PS: I'm a Linux hacker. I have zero Apple gear.

Nice summation and great photo - thanks for posting it!

(edited for typo)

 

[Grieviant]

Be a proud geek. Learn your history. (Ars - Please educate them.)

These new SDR products are exactly like the first real computers coming out of the Altair club. It's exciting as hell. Revolutionary even.

Go ahead and ignore SDR, then see how you feel about it in 20 years.

PS: I'm a Linux hacker. I have zero Apple gear.

It's not so much that people ignore SDR, it's that radio implementations that use more DSP are a natural progression in communications. You can pretend it's a huge revolution if you want, but not many people who are actually knowledgeable about the field are going to swept away by that sort of ill-informed hype.

While Ars is a lot better than the myriad sites who do nothing but serve up shiny pictures of the infinite supply of new gadgets, if you're actually a communications geek there's no way in hell you'd be looking here to learn about the history of the field. Then again, as a self-professed "Linux hacker", I suspect your definition of geek is the much less stringent and recent one that anyone with a passing familiarity of mobile phones or computers qualifies for.

 

[Cattus In Nemus]

These new SDR products are exactly like the first real computers coming out of the Altair club. It's exciting as hell. Revolutionary even.

It's not so much that people ignore SDR, it's that radio implementations that use more DSP are a natural progression of the the field. You can pretend it's a huge revolution if you want, but not many people who actually work in communications are going to swept away by that sort of ill-informed hype.

Of course SDR existed before this.
Computers also existed before the Altair and the Apple I.
In fact, the Altair sucked in comparison to 'real' computers of the day.
That's not the point.

For 30 years, computers were locked up in the ivory towers of the specialists, never in the hands of the unwashed masses. Judging by your response, I'd guess that you are yourself in such an ivory tower, and probably resent hackers like me intruding into your domain. I'm terribly sorry, but it's our turn now.

The revolution of the PC was that the power was transferred into the hands of the people, it was suddenly made accessible. Crackpots and dreamers and other miscreants. That changed EVERYTHING.

Look at the computers of 1974 and compare them to the computers of 1984. The difference was Hackers. Freedom to explore.
Not what your boss tells you to work on, but what you actually want to work on.

Now that we hackers have access to (relatively) affordable SDR, we can begin to explore the full ramifications. True invention and creativity can begin, unconstrained by the needs of the corporations that pay the bills.

Remember, Xerox had the Mouse and the GUI. It was a commercial flop. Did Xerox bring you the GUI? NO. Apple did.
There are dozens of great innovations stagnant in SDR right now, on the shelf, for exactly the same reason.

Hackers. Revolution. Why? A solid business plan? NO. Because it was cool.

Nobody really knew in 1976 what would happen with the Apple I, what its children would become. Hindsight is 20/20.
Thanks to hindsight, we now know what happens when hackers can finally get their hands on tech that has been hidden away for decades.

There are transition points in history. Game-changers, if you will. I believe this is just such a time. Not so great as the PC or the Web, perhaps, but truly significant.

You can disagree. That's fine. Time will tell.

 

[Shadowself]

This article tries to make it seem like SDRs are a new thing. They're not.

The often referenced article
http://meincmagazine.com/information-tech ... h-project/
makes it seem like military SDRs have been a complete waste of money. The JTRS program (at least the part described in that article) was a monumental, bureaucratic screw up.

There have been many, many military SDRs that have been cost effective (at least in military terms where a $10,000 radio that is military rugged is "cost effective") over the past decade. Some of these radios support multiple frequency bands (some even supporting a range from VHF up through Ka-band in the same box). And this is all publicly available information! Many of these same systems even support multiple modulation techniques running from analog FM to digital up through things like 32 APSK and 64 QAM.

The really interesting thing about this article is that the SDR implementations are now moving to consumer electronics -- admittedly at the hobbyist stage first, but eventually to the full spectrum (pardon the pun) of consumer electronics.

Things like Open Source Software projects will bring the software cost of things down (e.g., Android OS for cell phones compared with Windows 8). However, GPUs and FPGAs may never match the low power capabilities of ASICs. Yes, GPUs and FPGAs are, and will continue to be, more power efficient every year. However, ASICs will become more power efficient too maintaining that edge for many, many years to come. Want a compact "world" cell phone that covers all the modulation schemes (2G, 2.5G, CMDA, GSM, WiMax, LTE, A-LTE, etc., etc.) and lasts 12+ hours on a single charge? Get one based upon ASICs. SDR based cell phones won't be there for a decade or two at least, if ever.

 

[Cattus In Nemus]

This article tries to make it seem like SDRs are a new thing. They're not.
...
There have been many, many military SDRs that have been cost effective (at least in military terms where a $10,000 radio that is military rugged is "cost effective") over the past decade. Some of these radios support multiple frequency bands (some even supporting a range from VHF up through Ka-band in the same box). And this is all publicly available information! Many of these same systems even support multiple modulation techniques running from analog FM to digital up through things like 32 APSK and 64 QAM.

I worked on military radar and comms in the 90's. This is just the stuff that's declassified, there's a lot more where that came from.

 

[Grieviant]

Of course SDR existed before this.
Computers also existed before the Altair and the Apple I.
In fact, the Altair sucked in comparison to 'real' computers of the day.
That's not the point.

For 30 years, computers were locked up in the ivory towers of the specialists, never in the hands of the unwashed masses. Judging by your response, I'd guess that you are yourself in such an ivory tower, and probably resent hackers like me intruding into your domain. I'm terribly sorry, but it's our turn now.

The revolution of the PC was that the power was transferred into the hands of the people, it was suddenly made accessible. Crackpots and dreamers and other miscreants. That changed EVERYTHING.

Look at the computers of 1974 and compare them to the computers of 1984. The difference was Hackers. Freedom to explore.
Not what your boss tells you to work on, but what you actually want to work on.

Now that we hackers have access to (relatively) affordable SDR, we can begin to explore the full ramifications. True invention and creativity can begin, unconstrained by the needs of the corporations that pay the bills.

Remember, Xerox had the Mouse and the GUI. It was a commercial flop. Did Xerox bring you the GUI? NO. Apple did.
There are dozens of great innovations stagnant in SDR right now, on the shelf, for exactly the same reason.

Hackers. Revolution. Why? A solid business plan? NO. Because it was cool.

Nobody really knew in 1976 what would happen with the Apple I, what its children would become. Hindsight is 20/20.
Thanks to hindsight, we now know what happens when hackers can finally get their hands on tech that has been hidden away for decades.

There are transition points in history. Game-changers, if you will. I believe this is just such a time. Not so great as the PC or the Web, perhaps, but truly significant.

You can disagree. That's fine. Time will tell.

True ingenuity and creativity can now begin? Corporate overlords keeping down the masses from their ivory towers by locking away tech? Game changing transition? Great innovations stagnating on the shelf?

Bahahah, what a bombastic load of shit you talk. By all means though, please inform us about these stagnating, game-changing innovations. The truth is, the vast majority of truly useful communications theory has been laid out in detail in the open literature. Researchers rarely even bother looking at patented work because there's not many serious developments there.

I really hope what you're trying to say is that hobbyists might come up with some as yet unforeseen uses for wireless, some sort of communications equivalent to a twitter or a facebook, rather than accomplishing sweeping changes in communications theory and practice. You need a strong background for the latter whereas you just need a (not so creative) idea that attracts lots of people for the former. These sorts of applications do nothing to advance the field and stand more as triumphs of marketing than anything else. I'm skeptical of anyone that tries to pass off that sort of rubbish as true geekery.