Bluetooth Competition Brewing

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://rss.com.com/2100-1039-992071.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news' target='_blank'>http://rss.com.com/2100-1039-992071...=feed&subj=news</a><br /><br /></div>"Intel, Sony and others are meeting to decide which of a slew of proposals submitted by wireless-networking companies will become a new standard to rival Bluetooth--and a military technology once known as the "sneaky wave" is making a splash. Philips, Texas Instruments and Samsung are among the other companies flexing their muscles as part of the IEEE 802.15 Working Group for WPAN, which is meeting this week in Dallas to settle on a new standard technology for wireless personal area networks, or WPANs. Such networks create high-speed wireless connections over short distances to allow for synchronization between a personal digital assistant and a computer, say, or to connect a television to a cable TV box, and so on. The winning technology behind the standard, which will bear the name 802.15.3a, is expected to generate $1.39 billion in revenue by 2007, according to projections by Allied Business Intelligence."<br /><br />The most interesting of these is UWB, or Ultra Wideband. It was apparently once called the "sneaky wave". Maybe that's what they need for WPANs to take off - a catchier name.

[Paragon]

Why?

....why do we need another wireless method of connecting devices. Don't we have enough now. I think we should have a meeting.....a survivor type meeting where everyone keeps voting people out of the room til there is only one method left. Then improve on that.

Simple, and effective!

Dave

[Janak Parekh]

....why do we need another wireless method of connecting devices. Don't we have enough now. I think we should have a meeting.....a survivor type meeting where everyone keeps voting people out of the room til there is only one method left. Then improve on that.
But what if there's an entirely different method that works much better? That's the UWB proposition. It's not compatible with Bluetooth by design, but it is much, much faster.

--janak

[Paragon]

....why do we need another wireless method of connecting devices. Don't we have enough now. I think we should have a meeting.....a survivor type meeting where everyone keeps voting people out of the room til there is only one method left. Then improve on that.
But what if there's an entirely different method that works much better? That's the UWB proposition. It's not compatible with Bluetooth by design, but it is much, much faster.

--janak

Yeah I know Janak. My point really is simple....find one method that works and settle on it. If they are just going to throw another alternative into the fray, then don't bother.

Dave

[rubberdemon]

And while they're at it in this survivor room, get them to work on the crazy different number of memory cards (XD, SD, MMC, Memory stick (all flavours), CF, and more to come I'm sure), and DVD standards (RW, +RW, ROM, the two competing blue laser formats to come and god knows what else).

I'm sure this sort of confusion hurts everyone in the long run - manufacturers and consumers alike. That said, as Janak alluded to, great new technologies do come along, and if we were too rigid with standards, might have a hard time getting to market. It's a tough one...

[Janak Parekh]

Yeah I know Janak. My point really is simple....find one method that works and settle on it. If they are just going to throw another alternative into the fray, then don't bother.
I know. But they keep on coming up with new methods. I don't think it's a conspiracy to hold 'em back to keep on fragmenting WPANs... ;)

--janak

[Paragon]

I don't think it's a conspiracy to hold 'em back to keep on fragmenting WPANs... ;)

--janak

CONSPIRACY!!

HA! Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! :)

Dave

[JonnoB]

Yeah I know Janak. My point really is simple....find one method that works and settle on it. If they are just going to throw another alternative into the fray, then don't bother.

Dave

It is progress. We won't see commercial products for a few years yet. This implementation is going to speed things up quite a bit. I am sure that a few years later, or by the time this becomes a major commercial product, there will already be newer and better technology. I personally like to see continued progress.

[Stik]

Gotta love the hype! That headline WILL spark reader interest no doubt.

But, as was earlier discussed on the forum, Intel's position ( on their OWN site ) tells another story. I'll refer back to this earlier thread...

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8694

Not to say that this is the last word on the issue and things will change with time. But, Intel's site says what it says. :wink:


Can UWB replace Bluetooth?
No. Bluetooth is a complete, end-to-end communication standard. UWB can be used as a piece of a communication standard. Bluetooth defines how data is managed, formatted and physically carried over a wireless personal area network (WPA). Ultra Wideband is a specific type of RF signal that can be used to carry data between devices. It's not a complete communication standard. Current FCC regulations enable UWB signals capable of carrying very high data rates over a short range. This makes it attractive as a carrier or PHY layer for a WPAN.

[Janak Parekh]

HA! Just be cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! :)
Wait a second Dave, have you started taking Jonathan1's medication? :lol: (No offense intended, Jonathan...)

Stik: while UWB by itself is not a replacement for Bluetooth, it is an air interface that is fundamentally incompatible with the spectrum hopping interface currently implemented in the low levels of Bluetooth. Could we see a UWB-based Bluetooth? Sure. However, it won't be compatible with what we call Bluetooth today.

--janak

[Paragon]

Yeah I know Janak. My point really is simple....find one method that works and settle on it. If they are just going to throw another alternative into the fray, then don't bother.

Dave

It is progress. We won't see commercial products for a few years yet. This implementation is going to speed things up quite a bit. I am sure that a few years later, or by the time this becomes a major commercial product, there will already be newer and better technology. I personally like to see continued progress.

Yeah, me too, Jonathan. I think I may have made it sound like I'm against progress. I'm not at all. It's just that sometimes we try so hard to improve things by throwing new methods or standards in that it ends up confusing and messing up the situation even more. Hopefully a conference of this type will put more forus on the issue WPAN, and not add more mud to the water.

Dave

[Stik]

Janak,
Understood. Please understand that I'm actually pro UWB due to the ' see thru walls ' aspect for emergency crews and the landmine detection usefullness. :wink:

Aside from those very positive aspects, heres another. More than one aught to know about UWB :lol:

' Kohler Co. is flush with excitement that the FCC finally released its rules governing ultrawideband technology.

The Kohler, Wis.-based plumbing company plans to market a ventilating toilet kit using UWB, a wireless technology that transmits a low power signal over a wide swath of spectrum.'

Kohler, however, apparently is the first company to use UWB technology in a toilet device, according to Steve Kaminer, an attorney for the company. "The advantage is that UWB will see through the toilet tank [to detect a person using the device]. It just takes the smell out of the air by sucking it through a filter," he says.



http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=CA214135