Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2014

5G Wireless: Reality looks to catch up with hype

Don't feel bad if you don't really know anything about 5G wireless networking – because, by most standards, it doesn't actually exist yet. The cross-pollination of codified specifications, new products, and technological innovation required hasn't yet brought 5G to fruition.


What there has been, however, is a lot of hype. Samsung grabbed attention in May with its announcement of a 1Gbps wireless connection it referred to as “5G,” saying it would bring the capability to its production smartphones by 2020.

5GNetwork World - Don't feel bad if you don't really know anything about 5G wireless networking – because, by most standards, it doesn't actually exist yet. The cross-pollination of codified specifications, new products, and technological innovation required hasn't yet brought 5G to fruition.


What there has been, however, is a lot of hype. Samsung grabbed attention in May with its announcement of a 1Gbps wireless connection it referred to as “5G,” saying it would bring the capability to its production smartphones by 2020.


+ Also on NetworkWorld: A brief history of mobile networks | A first look at gigabit Wi-Fi adapters | Blazing Samsungs, or how not to handle a product return +


The European Commission’s Horizon 2020 plan, announced this month, includes roughly $172 million for 5G research and development, and South Korea’s Yonhap News announced that country’s government would spend $475 million on developing a national 5G network, to be completed by 2020. Both proposals cite the transformative effects and massive economic benefits of 5G technology.


The problem, however, is that no one seems to agree on precisely what the term 5G even means. Sathya Atreyam, a research manager at IDC, says that it’s become a buzzword at this point.


“There are many players right now who are claiming that they are investing a lot of dollars in 5G research, [but] they’re all investing in different areas of 5G … somebody’s focused on increasing data speeds, somebody’s focused on better coverage,” he says.


“It reminds me of a story which is often heard,” Atreyam adds. “There are six blind men feeling and touching an elephant and giving their definition of the elephant. Every one is true, but it’s only part of the puzzle.”


Standards bodies like the International Telecommunication Union, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project are all tracking the various technological developments. The ITU officially recognized the IMT-Advanced standard in January 2012, though it did not use the term 5G in describing the technologies, which include the next generations of the successful LTE and the less-successful WiMAX.


It’s important to remember, of course, that even when a particular “G” term is fairly stable and commonly understood – 3G, for example, is generally agreed to refer to the ITU’s IMT-2000 standard – it isn’t a hard-and-fast official definition. Refinements in WCDMA technology produced HSPA and HSPA+, which are often referred to as “3.5G” or “3.75G,” without fundamentally changing the underlying hardware.


Indeed, those technologies were even more ambitiously titled in the recent past, according to Forrester principal analyst Frank Gillett.
“With 4G, we saw versions of 3G – HSPA+ - called 4G, and then we had to say LTE to mean true 4G,” he says. “I’m expecting to see a lot of silly marketing junk later in the decade, as the 5G stuff ramps up.”


*


So what might 5G technology actually look like? That’s not known for sure, but experts like Craig Mathias, a well-known wireless consultant and Network World blogger, think there are clues out there.


View the original article here

Monday, July 1, 2013

The decline of reality singing shows

NEW YORK — As The Voice ends its third season, tell us if this scenario sounds familiar.

A give-it-your-all reality competition becomes a national fascination. Other shows mimic its formula — and eventually another show becomes the nation’s reality spectacle of choice. It outpaces its predecessor and makes many of us forget just how original the original once seemed.

We aren’t just talking about American Idol, but also Mark Burnett’s Survivor, the show that may be most responsible for launching the reality genre in the US. Just as The Voice has surpassed Idol, Idol once overcame Survivor.

Survivor debuted in 2000, two years later came Idol, which went on to rule US television for eight years, dwarfing its predecessor and everything else in the ratings.

Idol owed its success partly to the brutal honesty of Simon Cowell, who was every bit as shrewd as Survivor’s first-season winner, Richard Hatch.

Viewers also tuned in for the watch-through-your fingers performances of aspiring stars like civil-engineering student William Hung.

In the 2011-12 TV season, Idol got competition from The Voice, which unlike Idol didn’t succeed by playing rough. The singing competition, which closed its third season in the US on Tuesday night, took a more encouraging approach (subbing in “coaches” for “judges”).

In the process, it replaced Idol on the list of Emmy contenders for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program last year, leaving the original singing show out of the category where it had been a staple for nine consecutive years. The Voice has finally bumped Idol as the top singing show — though neither sing-off now scores the outsized ratings Idol once did.

To hear Burnett tell it, The Voice owes its success to being “a kinder show.”

No matter how much of a role they truly play, the judges behind the table — or coaches in the spinning chairs — always get the credit or blame for a show’s success or slide. It’s true that Idol began to lose its bulletproof status when Cowell departed for X Factor. And though his new show earns respectable ratings, they lag those of Idol and The Voice. On the other hand, Cowell may have miscalculated when he decided to turn his X Factor, which debuted in 2011, into a higher-stakes, tougher Idol.

So, do musical competition shows need to get nicer? Or nastier? The much-hyped Idol rivalry this year between Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey didn’t produce as much ratings heat as Fox may have hoped for. And the lower X Factor ratings despite the much-hyped addition of Britney Spears in Season Two suggests that big names can’t guarantee better numbers.

Is it possible that the shows really are, as the judges and producers always insist, really about the contestants? If so, no one’s going to to blame those contestants for singing shows’ slide. More likely, some viewers think they’ve seen it all. Reuters

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

View the original article here