Tuesday, 09 July 2019 08:50

GSA says 25 5G smartphones announced so far, nine already on sale

By
Rate this item
(0 votes)
GSA says 25 5G smartphones announced so far, nine already on sale Pixabay

Twenty-five 5G smartphones have been announced and at least nine are now commercially available, the Global Mobile Suppliers Association says in its report for June.

These include the LG V50 ThinQ 5G Enabled, the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G Enabled and the OPPO Reno 5G.

The organisation said 26 new %G devices had been added to the GSA analyser for mobile broadband devices database in June, which meant there were now 90 announced devices not including regional variants and prototypes which were not going to be sold commercially.

It said the number of devices being announced had grown rapidly in the first half of 2019, starting with a few and then increasing rapidly as 5G networks were launched in different countries.

At present the database includes the following:

  • a total of 13 announced form factors (phones, hotspots, indoor CPE, outdoor CPE, laptops, modules, snap-on dongles/adaptors, enterprise routers, IoT routers, drones, a switch, a USB terminal and robot).
  • a total of 39 vendors who had announced available or forthcoming 5G devices, including sub-brands separately (plus four in partnership with Sunsea).
  • a total of 90 announced devices, up from 33 at the end of March (excluding regional variants, re-badged devices, phones that can be upgraded using a separate adaptor, and prototypes not expected to be commercialised).
  • a total of 25 phones (plus regional variants); at least nine of which are now commercially available.
  • seven hotspots (plus regional variants); at least three of which are now commercially available.
  • twenty-three CPE devices (indoor and outdoor, including two Verizon-spec compliant devices), at least eight of which are now believed to be commercially available.
  • twenty-three modules.
  • two snap-on dongles/adaptors.
  • two routers.
  • two IoT routers.
  • two drones.
  • one laptop.
  • one switch.
  • one USB terminal.
  • one robot.

CHIEF DATA & ANALYTICS OFFICER BRISBANE 2020

26-27 February 2020 | Hilton Brisbane

Connecting the region’s leading data analytics professionals to drive and inspire your future strategy

Leading the data analytics division has never been easy, but now the challenge is on to remain ahead of the competition and reap the massive rewards as a strategic executive.

Do you want to leverage data governance as an enabler?Are you working at driving AI/ML implementation?

Want to stay abreast of data privacy and AI ethics requirements? Are you working hard to push predictive analytics to the limits?

With so much to keep on top of in such a rapidly changing technology space, collaboration is key to success. You don't need to struggle alone, network and share your struggles as well as your tips for success at CDAO Brisbane.

Discover how your peers have tackled the very same issues you face daily. Network with over 140 of your peers and hear from the leading professionals in your industry. Leverage this community of data and analytics enthusiasts to advance your strategy to the next level.

Download the Agenda to find out more

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Sam Varghese

website statistics

Sam Varghese has been writing for iTWire since 2006, a year after the site came into existence. For nearly a decade thereafter, he wrote mostly about free and open source software, based on his own use of this genre of software. Since May 2016, he has been writing across many areas of technology. He has been a journalist for nearly 40 years in India (Indian Express and Deccan Herald), the UAE (Khaleej Times) and Australia (Daily Commercial News (now defunct) and The Age). His personal blog is titled Irregular Expression.

Related items

  • Huawei issue: Australia reverts to playing deputy sheriff role for US

    There was a time during John Howard's 11 years as prime minister when Australia was often contemptuously referred to as the deputy sheriff for the US in the Asia-Pacific region.

    That scenario appears to be playing out again, judging by the way that Australian politicians are presuming they have the heft to push Britain into following an American position – in this case, on the banning of Chinese telecommunications gear maker Huawei from 5G networks.

    A number of Australian politicians have offered what must be considered — on the British side, at least — quite patronising advice, haranguing the country's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab when he paid a visit recently and then leaking the conversation to the media, hopefully to embarrass Britain into toeing the American line.

    The heads of two Australian parliamentary panels — the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Foreign Affairs Committee — were present at the meeting with Raab, and the pair — Andrew Hastie and Senator David Fawcett — have now cancelled a planned UK visit.

    {loadposition sam08}The narrative being spread by the government's backers in the mainstream media is that Hastie and Fawcett called off the trip because they were disgusted with Britain's allowing Huawei to supply up to 35% of gear for non-core parts of its 5G networks.

    But with the cancellation coming after the British High Commissioner to Australia, Vicki Treadell, sent a strong letter to the Australian government protesting about the leaks, it appears more likely that the Australian MPs were reluctant to make the trip because they feared getting an earful in London from British officials higher up in the hierarchy. London has never taken kindly to its colonial outposts telling it what to do and the situation is no different now than when the UK could rightly call itself Great Britain.

    Right from the time Australia put in place a ban on Huawei having a role in the 5G rollout, various pollies and spooks have gone to great lengths to try and convince world+dog that the decision was taken independently of the US. This is a cause for much mirth among people who have followed the history of Australian decisions on anything that concerns the US.

    The Australian decision was announced in a press release full of pollie-speak, without even naming Huawei (or ZTE, the other Chinese firm that was banned). Admittedly, it came at a time of turmoil, when the then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was having his political feet cut from under him. The British announcement was done in a more civilised manner, with Dr Ian Levy, the head of the country's National Cyber Security Centre, providing a detailed and logical explanation of the rationale behind the decision.

    After that, out of the woodwork came one Simeon Gilding — formerly a spook at the Australian Signals Directorate and now on the payroll of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a lobby group for the global military industrial complex, that describes itself as a non-partisan, independent think-tank — offering a patchwork explanation as to why Australia had gone the route it did.

    At no point did Gilding — who has been lionised by the Nine newspapers as "the man who stopped Huawei" (stopped the company from what?) — ever say why he was offering this explanation after Britain had made its announcement. The Australian people were, as usual, treated like mugs and much as those in this big, brown land are inclined to speak with contempt of Poms, in this case, those very Poms were the ones who acted as officials in a democracy are expected to.

    No doubt, Australia will continue to carry water for the US over the Huawei issue. But it is more than a little laughable to even think that any nation, leave alone a small country like Australia, can push the US into making any decision. Remember, when Howard desperately wanted David Hicks deported back to Australia as the man's detention in the US over alleged terrorism activity in Afghanistan was harming his (Howard's) poll prospects, he had to personally appeal to Dick "Kaboom" Cheney, the US vice-president and the power behind the throne.

    Playing a ra-ra cheerleader role from the sidelines will make some people feel good and important. Exactly what these same people will do when they have to pick between trade (China) and a so-called ally (the US) some years down the line will be very interesting to observe.

  • Rights body calls for scaling back of metadata retention laws
    in Data

    A parliamentary panel, that is reviewing the mandatory data retention laws introduced in 2017, has been told that the legislation goes too far and should be scaled back.

    Alice Drury, senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that the laws retain data for too long, in this case two years.

    “What’s at stake here is our ability to go about our lives without feeling like we’re constantly being watched,” Drury said in a statement.

    “Under these laws, details of where every single one of us goes, every phone call we make and every single text message we send are stored by private corporations for more than two years.

    {loadposition sam08}"This data is collected about every single one of us, and 87 different government agencies have made more than 350,000 requests to access it – they could have accessed your private information without you ever being told.

    “It is wrong and totally unnecessary to effectively spy on every single person in the country. These laws go way too far and need to be wound back.”

    When the government was pushing to have the laws passed, it said that only a few agencies would have access to the data. But Drury pointed out that 87 different agencies, ranging from taxi oversight bodies to local councils, had made more than 350, 000 applications to this stash of private information.

    The HRLC made a number of recommendations that it said would fix the laws:

    • access to metadata should be restricted to law enforcement agencies in connection with serious crimes, rather than being given to hordes of government agencies in relation to minor things;
    • a warrant should be required to access metadata to ensure there is independent oversight of the regime; and
    • access to journalist and public interest whistleblower metadata should be prohibited except in limited circumstances.

    Drury also called for the creation of an Australian charter of human rights. "The reality is that powerful corporations and governments don’t always respect the rights of individual people and communities. We need to create an Australian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that ensures everyone is treated fairly and with respect and dignity," she said.

    "These are the types of values that should guide government decisions, policies and law-making."

  • UniSA fire-mapping system helped fight Kangaroo Island fires

    FireFlight, an aerial fire-mapping system developed at the University of South Australia's Innovation and Collaboration Centre, was used in the fight against the massive blazes that enveloped Kangaroo Island recently, to support efforts by other agencies to fight the fires.

    A statement from UniSA said the data collected by the system helped the Australian Army to begin recovery operations as well.

    The system was used from a single-engine Piper aircraft flying at about 10,000 ft and Army personnel collected imagery to plan recovery and relief operations.

    Thermal sensors connected to a GPS and computer, mounted in a light aircraft, are used. Flight management software, which ties the system together, provides pilot navigation, camera control, data communication and real-time image interpretation.

    {loadposition sam08}Software on the FireFlight ground-based servers receives the fire maps from the aircraft, combines them with other useful geographic information, and makes the result available on a secure website.

    FireFlight founder and chief executive Dr Paul Dare, who began developing the image mapping system some 15 years ago, commercialised it after taking part in the Venture Catalyst Space program at Unsays ICC.

    fireflight big

    Images taken by specialist thermal imaging cameras. Supplied

    “During my time as a volunteer firefighter, I could see the impact that climate change was having on the frequency and severity of bush fires in Australia and overseas, which is when I decided to use my skills as an airborne imaging specialist, to develop a fire mapping system,” Dr Dare said.

    “The invaluable mentorship and support I received as part of the Venture Catalyst Space program, has supported the development of a commercialised product that’s already being used to fight Australia’s bushfires.”

    Associate ICC director Jasmine Vreugdenburg was pleased to see FireFlight make such a valuable contribution during the bushfire emergency.

    “Commercialising business ideas that use technology to solve real world problems is a core function of the ICC, and we're really proud to see that FireFlight has, and is making a significant impact on our capacity to fight fires and recover from them,” she said.

    “This is an instance where we have seen an innovation that is so significant in the Australian environmental context quickly become available and useful.

    “The Venture Catalyst Space Program provides invaluable support to get concepts project ready and connections to key industry partners, which is critical to helping companies such as FireFlight to develop products and go to market with their technology.”

  • ASPI sensitive to fact that China study paid for by US State Department

    The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think-tank that claims to be independent and non-partisan but which receives the bulk of its funds from defence firms, has accepted money from the US State Department's Global Engagement Centre to carry out a study on Australian universities that have collaborated on research with institutions in China, leading to questions about the integrity of the study.

    The Global Engagement Centre, according to its own brief, was set up in 2016 to “lead, synchronise, and co-ordinate efforts of the [US] Federal Government to recognise, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests".

    The ASPI appears to be somewhat sensitive to this information being made public by Labor Senator Kim Carr, who spoke about the organisation during a debate on funding for the Australian Research Council in Parliament last Tuesday. Senator Carr mentioned a donation of $448,000 as coming from the Engagement Centre, a figure the ASPI has disputed. No mention of this amount is present in its 2018-19 annual report, with the organisation saying the funds were for the 2019-20 year and would therefore figure in the report for that year - which will be quite some time from now, by which time Carr's remarks are unlikely to be remembered. The additional funds are welcome, given that the ASPI had a deficit of some $70,0000 for 2018-19.

    A link to the study, the so-called China Defence Universities Tracker, has been removed from the ASPI home page — the link was there on Friday — and the acknowledgement of the study being funded by the Global Engagement Centre has disappeared from bottom of the study itself. But on the PDF version, this text remains: "ASPI is grateful to the US State Department for providing funding for this research project." The study can be found by a simple Web search, making the removal of the link just a bit amateurish.

    {loadposition sam08}The author of the tracker, Alex Joske, was a source for a number of stories in the Nine Entertainment papers last year and in January too, about a young Chinese man who was claimed to be an important spy. Another story in the same papers was about a Chinese man who was claimed to have been paid by a third individual to gain a Liberal seat in Parliament. But all these claims were rubbished by veteran reporter Brian Toohey a few weeks later.

    After Senator Carr's utterances, the ASPI appears to have thought that it needed to have its image massaged a bit – and what better publication to do so than the Australian Financial Review which has a history of doing this for many beleaguered companies and institutions?

    The AFR effort, published on 15 February, did not mention that Senator Carr had pointed to the Engagement Centre's co-ordinator, Lea Gabrielle, as being probably the only spy associated in any way with the Universities report, as the report itself had not tracked down any spooks. Gabrielle, a former US Navy intelligence officer and aviator, has also put in some time with Fox News.

    Carr questioned what additional information the ASPI report could provide that the Australian Defence Department and the universities themselves could not provide.

    The AFR article made no mention of the ASPI's habit of issuing of reports full of errors. iTWire has reported on several mistake-ridden efforts by the ASPI, among them a bid to tar the Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei and a report titled Hacking Democracies, sponsored by the Australian Computer Society, in which it claimed Russia and China were the only two countries that tried to interfere in elections in other countries.

    The latter report, written by Fergus Hanson, Sarah O'Connor, Mali Walker and Luke Courtois of the organisation's International Cyber Policy Centre, failed to mention the one country that has a very long history of poking its nose into polls in foreign lands – the US of A.

    To her credit, the writer of the AFR piece, Myriam Robin, named many of ASPI's supporters who provided 57% of the organisation's funds for the year 2018-19, a year when it had a total budget of about $9.3 million, with $4 million of that coming from the Federal Government. Mainstream publications generally do not go beyond characterising the ASPI as it does itself: an independent and non-partisan think-tank.

    The head of ASPI, Peter Jennings, has been caught out at least once issuing incorrect statements in order to propagate his views in the media. After the hack at the Australian Parliament last year came to light, Jennings claimed that the fact users had been asked to change their passwords indicated that the breach was a serious one. In reality, changing passwords after a breach is an indication that the investigators are fairly sure that there has been no deep intrusion into the system; it is the first bit of network hygiene, as even a junior sysadmin would confirm.

    Among ASPI's sponsors are shipbuilder Austal, US defence contractor Lockheed Martin, US defence supplier Northrop Grumman, Swedish defence company Saab, the Australian arm of American defence contractor Raytheon, MBDA Missile Systems, French defence giant Thales, and Jacobs, a global provider of technical, professional, and scientific services. Its cyber policy centre is backed by Microsoft, Google, au domain namespace administrator auDA, security firm Palo Alto Networks, Thales, Amazon, the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, the National Archives of Australia, the Federal Government, Telstra, Jacobs and encryption company Senetas. And if that is insufficient, General Atomics Aeronautical serves as a corporate supporter.

    It requires a huge amount of chutzpah to take donations from all these firms and then call oneself non-partisan and independent. 

    The ASPI 2018-19 report does not provide a breakdown of the donations made by each of these companies which account for a sizeable proportion of the weapons that are sold each year and used to kill people in wars around the world. An overwhelming number of the ASPI's reports are about China and to say they are hawkish in the extreme would be an understatement.

    To be perfectly clear, the ASPI and its staff are entitled to issue their hawkish reports on any subject they choose. But some context would be good, so that people understand who is paying the piper and thus deciding on the tune.

  • UK protests leak from Australian meeting on Huawei policy

    The British High Commissioner to Australia has lodged a formal complaint with the heads of two Australian parliamentary committees over the leaking of details from a meeting held by UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab with Australian politicians over London's Huawei policy, the ABC reports.

    Details of the meeting, which took place on 6 February, were splashed in Nine Entertainment's newspapers on 7 February, with the headline "Australian MP delivers stunning rebuke to UK's Dominic Raab on Huawei".

    The report, written by London-based reporter Latika Bourke, quoted Labor backbencher Anthony Byrne of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, as telling Raab: "How would you feel if the Russians laid down infrastructure in your own networks? That's how we feel about Huawei."

    His reference was to the UK decision, taken on 28 January, to allow the Chinese telecommunications equipment vendor to supply up to 35% of gear for non-core parts of the country's 5G networks.

    {loadposition sam08}The US had pushed Britain repeatedly not to give Huawei a role. Australia tried to push the UK on this score too. Recently, four pollies — PJCIS head Andrew Hastie, Liberal MPs James Patterson and Tim Wilson, and Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching — also put in a word about keeping Huawei out.

    raab tweet

    Raab met Hastie, Byrne and Liberal Senator David Fawcett, who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee during his visit. The British High Commissioner to Australia, Vicki Treadell, was also present.

    The ABC said it had confirmed that Treadell had sent letters to Hastie and Fawcett, protesting about the leak from a supposedly private meeting.

    Byrne was said to have told Raab, "I'll raise you my ASD [Australian Signals Directorate] against your GCHQ [Government Communications Headquarters]", one source at the meeting told the Nine newspapers.

    This is the second time that the UK's closed-door discussions on Huawei policy have leaked. In April last year, following a meeting of the National Security Council, The Telegraph reported that Huawei would be given the role that was publicly announced last month.

    An inquiry was instituted into how the leak had taken place and in May, then prime minister Theresa May sacked her defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson over the incident.

VENDOR NEWS & EVENTS

REVIEWS

Recent Comments