Adding new dimensions to the future phones - Smell

I am going to be involved in two events in the coming months to discuss about Evolution of Devices in the future. The first of them is the LTE World Summit that I have been going to for years and have recommended to lots of clients, colleagues and friends. In there I will be discussing about 'The Future Device' in the Breakfast briefing. In June I am chairing a session on 'Where Next For Devices' in The Future of Wireless International Conference. As a result I would be discussing some ideas on the blog with the intention of getting some valuable feedback and comments.

Smell has been associated with the mobile devices for a long time. There are two concepts floating around. The first is a phone that can smell the environment for certain odour or harmful gases and depending on what it smells, alerts the user or some authority. An example of this are the phones being developed by US Department of Homeland Security to smell poisonous gases. Another example is the e-nose concept developed by Imec, Belgium. There are other concepts being developed around m-health to help people with Asthma.

The second of these concepts are the devices that can emit smell. The simplest form of this would be like the Sony phones that emit fragrance for a few months and then a new sheet can be inserted for them to keep emitting a fragrance. A while back it was reported that Samsung has filed a patent for something similar.

Nokia had shown years back the 'Scentsory Concept' mobile that can transmit smell based on the environment to the other party who can get the feeling of where the other person is. Since then they have shown other concepts but I dont recall seeing much on smell. The 'HumanForm' concept I blogged about last year showed that we would be able to feel the environment but it was surprisingly quiet about smell part.

There is an interesting TEDx video in which Jenny Tillotson, who would be presenting her latest research in the Future Wireless conference mentioned abaove, is explaining some of these concepts on transmitting smell electronically. Video embedded below:



I would be very interested in hearing more on this topic from the readers.

The intelligent pipe and next-generation billing

Presented by Marc Price, VP of Technology, CTO Americas in the LTE North America 2011 conference

See also the earlier posts on Policy and Charging here and here.

More on Policy and Charging in LTE

Continuing on the Policy and Charging in LTE from the previous post here.

Presented by Erik P. Neitzel, DMTS, Technology Development Group, U.S. Cellular in the LTE North America 2011 conference

Testing and Optimising LTE

JDSU: Testing and Optimising LTE

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

An interesting presentation from JDSU

AT&T on Distributed Antenna System (DAS)

From the 4th LTE North America Conference, 8 - 9 November 2011, Dallas, Texas, USA

More about DAS on Wikipedia here.

Gemalto presentation on Soft SIM

Will a Soft SIM Change Everything?

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

A Golden Next-Gen Hetrogeneous Device

From the 4th LTE North America Conference, 8 - 9 November 2011, Dallas, Texas, USA
Presented by Joe Lawrence, Vice President, CDMA Development Group (CDG)

UE Antenna Sizes on different frequencies

The biggest problem with Antennas for mobiles and now the tablets have been how to arrange antennas for MIMO since the wavelength needs to be λ/4. The picture gives an idea how the antenna size changes with different frequencies. Higher frequencies are better for having multiple antennas as their length and the distance between then decreases.

From a presentation by Shirook M. Ali, RIM in the 4th LTE North America Conference, 8 - 9 November
2011, Dallas, Texas, USA.

LTE Capacity Analysis

From the 4th LTE North America Conference, 8 - 9 November 2011, Dallas, Texas, USA
Presented by Bill Ingram, Cricket Communications, November 8, 2011

Patent Wars!

Patent wars has picked up force in the recent few months. Last week the Samsung Galaxy S2 Android phone was banned from the EU due to a suit from Apple but this ban has now been lifted. HTC has sued Apple over patents infringement and is asking for a ban in the US.

Patents are becoming more and more important. In June, Apple and Microsoft (once cut-throat rivals) teamed up with four other companies to pay $4.5 billion for the 6,000 patents held by the bankrupt Nortel Networks. This works out to $750,000 a patent. Google is now in the process of buying Motorola

NY Times report says:

Motorola Mobility in no small part because of its stockpile of 17,000 patents. The patent portfolio, some analysts estimate, could represent more than half of the value of the deal, or more than $400,000 a patent. If so, it was a relative bargain compared to the Apple and Microsoft aquisition of Nortel patents.

In the case of Motorola, Google was under pressure from its big handset partners, including HTC and Samsung, to protect them from patent-infringement suits based on their use of Google’s Android software. And Motorola has an impressive collection of mobile phone patents, a powerful weapon in patent negotiations.

Handset makers and mobile carriers are certainly hoping that Google’s purchase of Motorola will ease tensions in the smartphone market — a patent armistice among rival powers. Verizon on Tuesday welcomed the deal as a move that might well “bring some stability to the ongoing smartphone patent disputes,” John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, said in a statement. Verizon Wireless, owned by the Vodafone Group and Verizon Communications, sells both Android-powered phones and iPhones.

In a recent blog post, David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote that a modern smartphone might be susceptible to as many as 250,000 potential patent claims (see picture below), depending on how broadly those patents and claims were interpreted.

There was some interesting analysis on the Google Motorola deal by one Josh Pritchard in Quora:

Assuming Google would find value in the patent portfolio and not the operating businesses, an acquisition would presumably only make sense if Google had another partner (or partners), like HTC or Samsung, that wanted Motorola Mobility's operating businesses. If they could work out an arrangement with Google getting the patents and a partner (or partners) taking the other assets, then I'll argue that an acquisition could make a lot of sense based on a sum of the parts analysis.

Motorola Mobility has ~$3.2B in cash (~$170M are hiding as "cash deposits" on a separate line in the balance sheet, and are easily overlooked) with another $225M in additional payments from MSI still pending. They have $2.4B in deferred tax assets, though without reasonable expectations for operational profitability, they carry a $2.3B valuation allowance (again, easily overlooked). If the patents portfolio is worth anywhere near what Google [and Intel] bid on the Nortel patents, say $3.5B, then the sum of those parts is well over $11B in potential value. That's before assigning *any* value to the mobile and set-top operating businesses themselves.

But the operating businesses are almost certainly not worthless. They are set to generate ~$14B in revenue this year and the mobile business, with 41% Y/Y growth, is finally set to become profitable in Q4 of this year... if you believe the company's estimates. If a partner of Google's could reasonably expect to consume the operating businesses and then use their scale and/or superior supply chain to quickly bring them to even greater profitability, it's easy to imagine them being willing to pay at least some fraction of this year's revenue for the businesses, separate from the cash and tax assets. A multiple of .25X on this year's sales would be $3.5B. Seems low.

In total, that's in the neighborhood of $15B in value for a company that currently has a market cap under $7B. So, one might conclude that Google and its partner(s) could pay somewhere between those two numbers, providing a significant premium to market while still acquiring the assets below their fair value.

Of course, there are some restrictions on what MMI can do in its first 24 months as an independent entity, per the terms of the Tax Sharing Agreement documented in the 10-12B/A from the separation in January (when MOT became MSI and MMI). Per my understanding of those terms, if MMI takes actions that compromise the tax-free standing of the separation, as an outright acquisition might do, then they would be on the hook for any resulting tax liabilities. However, as the agreement states, "Though valid as between the parties, the Tax Sharing Agreement is not binding on the IRS" -- and, moreover, I believe there is quite a bit of leeway in terms of how an agreement could be structured in order to preserve the tax-free standing of the separation.

Whatever the case, a Twitter joke suggested that is people would want to retain jobs in Motorola, they better dress up as Patents and go to work.

Finally, patent pools is a good idea and can avoid lots of potential lawsuits and counter-suits. One such company very active in promoting a pool is Sisvel. A presentation from them in the LTE World Summit is embedded below.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) vs.Standardization in theTelecommunications Arena: Clash of the Titans?

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Wi-Fi in Public Transport over LTE

Another interesting presentation from the LTE World Summit 2011 on how LTE can be used as a backhaul in the trains to provide passenger WiFi and other services.

Uses for LTE in the Transport Vertical Market

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Outline of GCF Certification Process

Click on Image to enlarge

From a presentation by Colin Hamling, Vice Chair, GCF Steering Group in LTE World Summit, Amsterdam, 18 May 2011

A quick TD-­‐LTE Update - Markets & technology: May 2011

Another presentation from LTE World Summit.May 2011: A quick TD-­‐LTE Update - Markets & technology

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

5 Videos from Mobile and Wireless world

Roaming with the IP eXchange (IPX)

From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, voice traffic interconnection between different operators has utilized the international SS7/TDM networks. However, lately the all-IP paradigm with VoIP is being rapidly introduced by different operators in various forms, such as IMS. In order to minimize the number of conversions between packet-switched voice and circuit-switched voice there is a clear need to deploy an IP based NNI (Network-to-Network Interface) and therefore an IP based interconnection network.

It is also evident that a large number of IP based services (such as Presence or IM) simply cannot be interconnected using a SS7/TDM network, further increasing the need for evolution into an IP based interconnection network.

Since the year 2000 GSM operators have been using GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchange) network for routing the IP based commercial roaming traffic between visited and home operators. Mainly 2.5G and 3G data roaming has been using GRX. GRX is a private IP network (separated from internet) consisting of multiple different GRX carriers that are connected to each other via peering points. However, GRX is limited only to GSM operator community and not all GRX's are capable of meeting the demands of real-time services.

Even though the GRX environment is not entirely suitable as a common IP network for interconnection and roaming, it offers a good starting point for the development of IPX. IPX development has been done in various GSM Association projects and working groups since 2004.

The following presentation is from LTE World Summit:

The IP Interconnect in VoLTE - Market & Technical requirements

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Billing based on QoS and QoE

With Spectrum coming at a price the operators are keen to make as much money as possible out of the data packages being provided to the consumers. The operators want to stop users using over the top (OTT) services like Skype thereby losing potential revenue. They also want the users to stop using services that are offered by the operator thereby maximising their revenue.

A valid argument put forward by the operators is that 90% of the bandwidth is used by just 10% of the users. This gives them the reason to look at the packets and restrict the rogue users.

As a result they are now turning to deep packet inspection (DPI) to make sure that the users are not using the services they are being restricted to use. AllOt is one such company offering this service.

The following presentation is from the LTE World Summit:

They also have some interesting Videos on the net that have been embedded below. They give a good idea on the services being offered to the operators.

Finally, a term QoS and QoE always causes confusion. Here is a simple explanation via Dan Warren on twitter:

QoS = call gets established and I can hear what is being said, everything else is QoE

Carrier Aggregation with a difference

Click on picture to enlarge

Another one from the LTE World Summit. This is from a presentation by Ariela Zeira of Interdigital.

What is being proposed is that Carrier Aggregation can use both the licensed as well as unlicensed bands but the signalling should only happen in the licensed band to keep the operator in control.

Note that this is only proposed for Small Cells / Femtocells.

The only concern that I have with this approach is that this may cause interference with the other devices using the same band (especially ISM band). So the WiFi may not work while the LTE device is aggregating this ISM band and the same goes for bluetooth.

Comments welcome!

Making LTE Greener & Energy-Efficient to Enable Cost-Reduction in the Network

Interesting presentation from the LTE World Summit 2011.

Making LTE Greener & Energy-Efficient to Enable Cost-Reduction in the Network

View more presentations from Zahid Ghadialy

Related blog posts:

ZTE shows off its green credentials

3GPP Green activities / Energy Saving initiatives

Dual Radio Solution for Voice in LTE

I did mention in the Twitter conversations post from LTE World Summit 2011 that there are now certain analysts and players in the market who think that it should be possible to have two radios. Here is a slide from ZTE that shows that they are thinking in this direction as well.

Click on the pic to enlarge.

Tri-SIM phones have been available for quite a while but now there are Quad-Sim Shanzhai phones that are available in China. I am sure there is a market for these kind of phones.

With the battery life and the mobile technology improving, these are no longer the concerns when talking about dual radio possibility in the devices. Another common argument is that there may be additional interference due to multiple radios simultaneously receiving/transmitting. I am sure these can be managed without much problem.

Another problem mentioned is we may need multiple SIM cards but the SIM cards used is actually a UICC. There can be multiple SIM applications and IMSI's on it. The network may need some very minor modifications but they should be able to manage this with no problems. In the good old days, we used to have mobiles with built in Fax. The mobile number used to be different from the Fax number. It was a similar kind of problem but managed without problem.

So there may still be time to keep LTE simple by standardising the dual-radio solution rather than having CSFB, VoLTE, SRVCC, VoLGA, etc.

Any thoughts?

Global survey of the Status of LTE Ecosystem - May 2011

Lte world summit_survey_may2011

View more presentations from ThomasInforma