Failure to define a single standard for Ultrawideband is killing the technology. So say the experts.
This could be the week that tells the tale on that, as the FCC weighs in.
First, Rupert Goodwins of ZDNet reports that one-half of the UWB conflict, the WiMedia Alliance and the Multiband OFDM Alliance (MBOA), agreed to merge. An Intel executive, Stephen Wood, heads WiMedia.
Sounds cool, but there's still a rival out there, Direct Sequance-Ultrawideband, pushed by the UWB Forum. The latter group has demonstrated things like home networks, while the former has pushed a Firewire replacement over a distance of 2 meters. (The illustration to the left is from Intel.)
So this is more than just a technical argument. The WiMedia folks see the technology as a Bluetooth replacement. The UWB Forum is aiming at the heart of local networking.
But let's put it more simply
WiMedia is is Intel (and co.) while UWB is Motorola (actually its Freescale chip spin-off) . That's really what this comes down to. The two companies have always had a difficult time cooperating. Someone has to make a choice between them, always.
Our good friend Richard Bennett offers some analysis:
The issue before the FCC is how to measure emissions on a frequency-hopping system. The current FCC practice makes no sense from the standpoint of physics, so it will be interesting to see if they acknowledge that or keep their heads in the sand.
Both Freescale and WiMedia see UWB fitting into a variety of applications from personal networks to media room networks to WLAN subnetworks. The physics of UWB - in either Freescale's or WiMedia's version - don't allow it to be a direct competitor to WiFi, so this simply isn't an option; not enough distance.
Will the FCC make the right call and tell Freescale to go away?
Stay tuned.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Richard Bennett on March 7, 2005 07:38 PM writes...
I see you've updated the post, very good. I think you're still overstating the significance of the UWB Forum, however. WiMedia features a host of consumer electronics companies, many of then household names while UWB is pretty much just Freescale and a bunch of very small players; the one exception, Samsung, is a member of both groups.
Freescale needs all the help it can get from the FCC and everybody else if it's to launch a credible challenge to WiMedia, but more than that they need help outside the US, where their approach is illegal and will most likely remain so.
Permalink to Comment2. Srinivas Kandala on March 7, 2005 10:21 PM writes...
Unfortunately Richard's analysis is wrong. FCC test equipment is just fine. The reason why the FCC insists on turning off the frequency hopping is because the interference is substantial, even though it happens only once every three times (in the case of MBOA) - that means the primary owner of the band loses at least a third of capacity whenever the system is operational.
As far as the regulations outside the US go, both systems have the same problems and both are pretty much illegal to operate outside the US. There has been a strong lobbying effort from both the parties (and believe it or not, they are actually cooperating in these efforts). However, the groups opposing are equally powerful and perhaps it will all come down to who has most leverage.
Permalink to Comment3. Richard Bennett on March 8, 2005 05:05 AM writes...
Srini says: ... that means the primary owner of the band loses at least a third of capacity whenever the system is operational.
That's not correct. You're talking about a situation where two systems are transmitting at the same time, and from that you're deriving a calculation that assumes 100% channel occupancy. The MBOA system doesn't work that way, and even if it did the power level is so low it's not going to be an issue.
The FCC doesn't simulate multiple simultaneous transmitters for WiFi, and therefore it shouldn't for UWB.
Permalink to Comment4. Mumon (John K) on March 9, 2005 03:51 PM writes...
Wi-Fi manufacturers doesn't actually have any frequency hoppers, so Richard's point is irrelevant and moot. Of the 802.11 standards, there is a single hopper (which almost nobody uses), and it operates in the ISM band, which is unlicensed, unlike UWB, and the rules for frequency hoppers in the ISM band don't really rule out interference from one system to another.
Operation of UWB sytems which used licensed frequencies is another matter entirely.
Permalink to CommentMoreover, turning off the frequency hopping and going 5dB down in power in this case is cheating actually, since the real effect is jamming the channel 5dB higher when it is on.