Huawei launches Nearlink, a better than Bluetooth competitor. The us won't
benefit from this tech due to the Huawei ban.

Compared to Bluetooth:

* 60% lower power consumption
* Six times higher data transmission speed
* 1/30th the latency
* 7 dB improvement anti-interference for a more stable connection
* Twice the coverage distance, and
* 10 times more network connections

https://consumer.huawei.com/za/community/details/Huawei-Nearlink-launched-
new-wireless-technology-far-ahead-of-Bluetooth/topicId_276306/

On 9/26/23 08:33, Moribundo wrote:
> Huawei launches Nearlink, a better than Bluetooth competitor. The us won't
> benefit from this tech due to the Huawei ban.

>
> Compared to Bluetooth:
>
> * 60% lower power consumption
> * Six times higher data transmission speed
> * 1/30th the latency
> * 7 dB improvement anti-interference for a more stable connection
> * Twice the coverage distance, and
> * 10 times more network connections
>
> https://consumer.huawei.com/za/community/details/Huawei-Nearlink-launched-
> new-wireless-technology-far-ahead-of-Bluetooth/topicId_276306/

Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at webp
or apng.
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

El Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:53:05 -0500, candycanearter07 escribió:

> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at webp
> or apng.
> --

Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard

Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:

> candycanearter07:
>
>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
>> webp or apng.
>
> Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard

For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
capable of doing Nearlink.

While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't need
more speed for bandwidth that is already for more proficient than needed
for calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,
now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car for
navigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.

On 2023-09-26 20:36, VanguardLH wrote:
> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> candycanearter07:
>>
>>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
>>> webp or apng.
>>
>> Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
>
> For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
> the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
> capable of doing Nearlink.
>
> While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't need
> more speed for bandwidth that is already for more proficient than needed
> for calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,
> now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car for
> navigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.

BT combines with WiFi when bandwidth is needed, for example for
navigation in the car.

Another usage is transmission of files at close distance, for example
from camera to computer or TV set.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-26 20:58, Moribundo wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:r
>> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at>> webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, tothe US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at home, and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for bandwidth that is already for more proficient than neededfor calling. I don't play videos on my phone. And Bluetooth is, well,now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car fornavigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.
>
>
>
> And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe

Which is not the world.

In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
not good for us.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/26/23 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> candycanearter07:
>>
>>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
>>> webp or apng.
>>
>> Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
>
> For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
> the US). Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
> capable of doing Nearlink.
>

Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
what I remember.
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 9/26/23 14:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-09-26 20:58, Moribundo wrote:
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:r
>>> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >>
>>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at>>
>>> webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create
>>> standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone
>>> else (well, tothe US).  Of course, it'll only work when used with
>>> another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at home,
>>> and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for bandwidth
>>> that is already for more proficient than neededfor calling.  I don't
>>> play videos on my phone.  And Bluetooth is, well,now that I think of
>>> it, only used from my phone to my car fornavigation, and it's fast
>>> enough, so faster won't give me anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe
>
> Which is not the world.
>
> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
> not good for us.
>

No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen

right?
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-09-26 21:53, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/26/23 14:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-09-26 20:58, Moribundo wrote:
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:r
>>>> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:> candycanearter07:> >>
>>>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look
>>>> at>> webp or apng.> > Sure, I don't think that it will spread and
>>>> create standardFor sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to
>>>> anyone else (well, tothe US).  Of course, it'll only work when used
>>>> with another devicecapable of doing Nearlink.While I use wi-fi at
>>>> home, and rare times when travelling, I don't needmore speed for
>>>> bandwidth that is already for more proficient than neededfor
>>>> calling.  I don't play videos on my phone.  And Bluetooth is,
>>>> well,now that I think of it, only used from my phone to my car
>>>> fornavigation, and it's fast enough, so faster won't give me anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And let's not forget that Huawei is banned in the US and much of Europe
>>
>> Which is not the world.
>>
>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>> not good for us.
>>
>
> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>
>
> right?

Not much they can do about it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-26 21:52, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/26/23 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Moribundo <lindev.null@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> candycanearter07:
>>>
>>>> Being technically better doesn't mean it will succeed. Just look at
>>>> webp or apng.
>>>
>>> Sure, I don't think that it will spread and create standard
>>
>> For sure, especially if Huawei won't license it to anyone else (well, to
>> the US).  Of course, it'll only work when used with another device
>> capable of doing Nearlink.
>>
>
> Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
> what I remember.

Is BT really Open Source? Because if it is, there is no way that the USA
can block Huawei from implementing it and they wouldn't be enticed to
create their own.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>>> not good for us.
>>
>> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>
> Not much they can do about it.

They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
>> what I remember.
>
> Is BT really Open Source? Because if it is, there is no way that the
> USA can block Huawei from implementing it and they wouldn't be
> enticed to create their own.

To me, Nearlink is Huawei's attempt to introduce a "killer" feature that
will lead to widespread adoption in non-USA countries forcing the USA to
reconsider their old ban.

On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>>>> not good for us.
>>>
>>> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>>
>> Not much they can do about it.
>
> They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
> new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.

Not much advantage in that.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-26 23:24, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Open source standards usually win since they're easier to implement from
>>> what I remember.
>>
>> Is BT really Open Source? Because if it is, there is no way that the
>> USA can block Huawei from implementing it and they wouldn't be
>> enticed to create their own.
>
> To me, Nearlink is Huawei's attempt to introduce a "killer" feature that
> will lead to widespread adoption in non-USA countries forcing the USA to
> reconsider their old ban.

Quite possibly.

If one starts a commercial war, the other parties can retaliate.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>>>>> not good for us.
>>>>
>>>> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>>>
>>> Not much they can do about it.
>>
>> They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
>> new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
>
> Not much advantage in that.

Considering the touted advantages of Nearlink, I can see advantage in
emulating the protocol. BT didn't exist on early smartphone. Then it
did. BTbeyond, or whatever it gets called, would be another feature to
add or supplant BT. After all, NFC showed up before there was high
demand for it.

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:

> <snipped>
> --
> --
> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

What's with the doubled signature delimiter line? First one is valid
(has the trailing space). Second one is invalid (no trailing space).
Perhaps you have Tbird configured to add your signature (so it adds the
sig delimiter), but your signature content starts with the invalid
sigblock delimiter line.

On 9/26/23 16:51, VanguardLH wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>
>> <snipped>
>> --
>> --
>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>
> What's with the doubled signature delimiter line? First one is valid
> (has the trailing space). Second one is invalid (no trailing space).
> Perhaps you have Tbird configured to add your signature (so it adds the
> sig delimiter), but your signature content starts with the invalid
> sigblock delimiter line.

Oh oops, I didn't notice I put a double dash in my signature file ^^"
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-09-26 23:45, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>>>>>> not good for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>>>>
>>>> Not much they can do about it.
>>>
>>> They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
>>> new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
>>
>> Not much advantage in that.
>
> Considering the touted advantages of Nearlink, I can see advantage in
> emulating the protocol. BT didn't exist on early smartphone. Then it
> did. BTbeyond, or whatever it gets called, would be another feature to
> add or supplant BT. After all, NFC showed up before there was high
> demand for it.

No, it would be easier or make more sense to add to BT the missing
features, using BT technology, whatever they are.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2023-09-26 23:45, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-26 23:21, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a few years you might find most of the world not using BT, which is
>>>>>>> not good for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No way the US/EU centric companies will let that happen
>>>>>
>>>>> Not much they can do about it.
>>>>
>>>> They can reverse engineer how Nearlink works, and then build their own
>>>> new protocol from scratch to emulate or surpass Nearlink.
>>>
>>> Not much advantage in that.
>>
>> Considering the touted advantages of Nearlink, I can see advantage in
>> emulating the protocol. BT didn't exist on early smartphone. Then it
>> did. BTbeyond, or whatever it gets called, would be another feature to
>> add or supplant BT. After all, NFC showed up before there was high
>> demand for it.
>
> No, it would be easier or make more sense to add to BT the missing
> features, using BT technology, whatever they are.

The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.

In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
> Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
> some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
> dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
> but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
> apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.

BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.

Range cuts both ways.

David

On 2023-09-27 23:01, David Higton wrote:
> In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>> The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
>> Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
>> some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
>> dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
>> but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
>> apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
>
> BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
> range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
> of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
> planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
>
> Range cuts both ways.

Yes.

I suppose there could be BT modes in which more power could be negotiated.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2023-09-27 23:01, David Higton wrote:
>> In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
>>> Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
>>> some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
>>> dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
>>> but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
>>> apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
>>
>> BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
>> range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
>> of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
>> planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
>>
>> Range cuts both ways.
>
> Yes.
>
> I suppose there could be BT modes in which more power could be negotiated.

BT works at 2.4 GHz. Slower clock, slower transfer speed. WiFi can
work at 2.4 GHz (longer range, slower transfer) or 5 GHz (shorter range,
but further than BT, faster transfer).

I suppose they could amend the BT specs to allow for operating at higher
frequency, more radiant power, and so on, but I would think the effort
would better expended with wifi amendments.

If BT gets expanded, it really should be given a different name. Users
don't memorize versions of a protocol to know what is different between
the versions. Look at wifi: do users know all the versionings, and what
makes them different? Generally, no. Even calling it BT2 or SuperBT
would help differentiate what features you'd look for in a new phone.

With all the changes to BT to make it Nearlink-like, would it (and
should it) really still be called Bluetooth, especially if it got
modified to support Nearlink devices to make the new BT ubiquitous
across all devices whether in the USA or in China?

https://researchsnipers.com/bluetooth-will-be-replaced-with-huawei-nearlink/
As per reports, the company has partnered with over three hundred
enterprises and institutions locally and internationally to work out
this new short-range wireless connection technology.

Looks like they want to spread the technology, so others can use it that
are outside the Trump-Biden ban. The ban stops the import of Huawei to
the USA, and USA-based companies working with Huawei, but that doesn't
stop the spread of technology when freely dispersed. Despite the ban,
the technology will "leak" to the banning countries, and just show up in
some other form. Doesn't look like Huawei is keeping it a secret.

I hope this hoopla isn't just icing to cover up a stale cake. BT+Wifi
has been around for awhile: connect via wifi, continue via BT.

Then there are other BT alternatives showing up, like Apple's UWB
(ultra-wideband BT) which is going from 16 nm to 7 nm to reduce power.
I don't do Apple, so I haven't investigate if and how UWB could be
better than BT. So far, UWB is not a complete end-to-end comm standard,
but just a radio technology to implement in some other standard. BT has
been revised multiple times, so, yes, a new version could incorporate
much of the advantages of Nearlink.

Is there a BT committee where dev plans can be found on the future of
BT? USB has its usb.org. Does BT have a similar dev foundry? Or is
bluetooth.com it? I did some info there about BT catching up to
Nearlink, like higher data throughput (2x, not 6X of Nearlink), low
latency, etc. Nothing about longer range, but I didn't read the
directives for every SIG (Special Interest Group). However, with all
the enhancements, you also have to get new devices to implement the
enhancements. Yeah, it's still labelled Bluetooth, but it's BT this, BT
that, BT something else. We had BT for a long time, and then BT LE
showed up, and we had to wait for phones to show up with that support.
Everyone here should already be aware of the crowded 2.4 GHz spectrum
used by BT that lots of other devices use (some wireless, but not all).

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:30:43 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
>Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
>some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
>dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
>but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
>apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.

Another problem with BT is it's power requirements, which are too high
to make it suitable for many applications where a power source is
needed.

That was what Zigbee was supposed to overcome, but it never seemed to
take off. The idea was that it could be used in places with low data
requirements where a small sensor could run off a small battery for
long periods of time, such as a door or window sensor.

On 2023-09-28 00:28, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-27 23:01, David Higton wrote:
>>> In message <dbm37t23l75x$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with BT is range. Nowhere near as far as WiFi or Nearlink.
>>>> Adhoc networking for devices somewhere around 10 feet away is okay for
>>>> some setups, but it takes little to obstruct or attenuate BT. In a
>>>> dense metropolis, BT access points might be closer and more numerous,
>>>> but elsewhere BT doesn't make sense unless the devices are a few feet
>>>> apart. Range is an issue with BT. Speed isn't great, either.
>>>
>>> BT was only ever intended as a personal area network. As such, its
>>> range is good enough - and remember, that short range permits millions
>>> of BT connections, simultaneously, within a country, without channel
>>> planning, generous channel allocations, or interference.
>>>
>>> Range cuts both ways.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I suppose there could be BT modes in which more power could be negotiated.
>
> BT works at 2.4 GHz. Slower clock, slower transfer speed. WiFi can
> work at 2.4 GHz (longer range, slower transfer) or 5 GHz (shorter range,
> but further than BT, faster transfer).
>
> I suppose they could amend the BT specs to allow for operating at higher
> frequency, more radiant power, and so on, but I would think the effort
> would better expended with wifi amendments.
>
> If BT gets expanded, it really should be given a different name. Users
> don't memorize versions of a protocol to know what is different between
> the versions. Look at wifi: do users know all the versionings, and what
> makes them different? Generally, no. Even calling it BT2 or SuperBT
> would help differentiate what features you'd look for in a new phone.

There are currently several versions of BT, and certain features require
certain versions. Nothing new in that. If some feature of Nearlink is
interesting, it will be put in a newer version, and be done.

>
> With all the changes to BT to make it Nearlink-like, would it (and
> should it) really still be called Bluetooth, especially if it got
> modified to support Nearlink devices to make the new BT ubiquitous
> across all devices whether in the USA or in China?

No, but you may find devices that support both BT and NL. Same as there
are devices supporting GPS and Glonass or whatever.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.