Research Firm Says Wi-Fi Will Go Bye-Bye...and Bluetooth too!

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/print.php/2233951' target='_blank'>http://www.internetnews.com/wireles...int.php/2233951</a><br /><br /></div>"According to West Technology Research Solutions (WTRS), ultrawideband (UWB) will eventually beat out both the current Wi-Fi wireless networking standard and Bluetooth, while the open standard ZigBee protocol will enable every system in the house to talk to each other. <br /><br />If those bold predictions from the Mountain View, Calif.-based research firm come true, then they promise that standards battles for wireless networking will continue into the next decade. The firm said Ultrawideband, or UWB, would eventually eclipse the popular 802.11b, or Wi-Fi, networking protocol that is spreading in use across the country, helped by rollouts of wireless Internet access in Starbucks coffee houses and McDonald's Restaurants."<br /><br />Quite a bold statement! I'm not sure how much I agree with this - I'm sure that eventually something will replace WiFi and Bluetooth, but with adoption rates skyrocketing for 802.11b, once you get that technology entrenched, it's very hard to replace it with something better, unless the advantages of why it's better are very obvious. DVDs gained massive ground on VCRs in a short period of time, because the advantages were clear to consumer: better picture, better sound, smaller physical storage, etc. With WiFi though, 11 Mbps is quite fast for most scenarios, and the average home can be covered by one access point.<br /><br />If anything I predict a slow phase-in of UWB, like we've seen with 802.11g - products will support both, and eventually drop the 802.11b. This process could easily take over a decade though - which is what they're predicting. I found it very interesting that they also predicted that UWB could replace CDMA/GSM technologies. Read the article for more information - I'd like to hear what you think about this.<br /><br />UWB certainly seems to be a technology we should keep our eyes on for the future!

[Duncan]

As I recall there are problems with the way UWB works (interference with mobile phones, military frequencies etc.) that will lead to it being banned or at least severely restricted in some parts of the world...

[Bob Anderson]

My two cents worth: I think that UWB will take it's rightful place, but I agree with Jason... with 802.11b, g and ? taking hold so quickly, I have a hard time believing that it will be wiped out.

I remember 10 years ago when people proclaimed the floppy was soon going to die. It's still a feature on most new computers!

Long live 802.11(insert alpha of your choice) !!!!

[dangerwit]

802.11 has been around for several (6+) years, with 802.11b not too much younger. And 802.11b is just catching on, where I don't see 802.11g catching at all.

Corporate use has a big part of these technologies, and anytime you need range, g doesn't cut the mustard.

Anyway, I'm wondering if 10 years is enough... how many competitive standards will come up in the meantime? Predicting something in this field 10 years out is just plain hogwash, a poor attempt to sell articles.

*Phil

[FredMurphy]

802.11b may not be the best technology there is, but as it's established and adequate for most uses I can't see it going anywhere soon. I can't see it being toppled until something like 802.16 takes hold.

[absolutVenky]

Just a little background on the standards activity: the IEEE 802.15.3a task group is developing the 15.3a PHY using UWB to provide higher data rates (> 100 Mb/s) than the recently approved 802.15.3 WPAN stanadard. The FCC granted 7.5GHz of spectrum for UWB (3.1-10.6 GHz).

The primary application for the 802.15.3 WPAN (now being promoted by the WiMedia alliance) is cable replacement for multimedia devices. WiMedia transceivers will be embedded in next generation HDTVs, DVD players, PVRs, Receivers, etc so you can connect them all together without cables. Given that the PCs are also taking a place in the home entertainment space, we will see PC cards and adapters also. It is not far fetched to predict that the same home WPAN will also be used to distribute Internet access within the home - hence the WLAN replacement prediction.

It will take other technologies like UWB relays, mesh, etc before UWB can replace WLAN in hotspots and perhaps even enterprise networks. May happen.

[cgavula]

First - floppies have been gone on Macintosh computers for a few years now and I NEVER use the floppy on my PC and haven't for at least the past 2-3 years. CD and DVD recordables have replaced them (and Zip to a lesser extent). Bigger-cheaper-faster.

Second - I wish I had a dime for every time one of these "experts" got on a platform and said "I have the next greatest thing and it will replace all your differing technologies and make what you have all work together." Sorry - never comes to pass that way. It always comes down to driver / connectors / gateways / profiles, etc.

The 802.11b/g technologies have taken hold because they are based on ethernet and ethernet drivers which have been around for a long time and are widely available and cheap to license. BT has had a harder time because it's based on pseudo-proprietary profiles and inconsistent standards (that aren't really standards) and is harder to implement, but as it standardizes a bit it's catching on more and more.

Anything that's going to come down the road has to be widely available and easily adoptable and or cheap to adopt or it won't happen. DVD replaced VHS because the technology bacame widely available and very cheap. Floppy use has shrunk (and is disappearing) because of easily available and cheap CD recording.

--Chris

[The Half-Ling]

My prediciton is that WiFi and bluetooth won't be replaced until internet connections hit a major overhaul (i.e. DSL will become slow compared to something new) and this will cause a need for better and more efficent networking...Also, a greater range improvement (i.e. instead of 300 feet you get 300 yards) or something...

Just shooting in the wind,
Jake-

[David Prahl]

UWB will use the "garage door" spectrum. :wink: Somehow I don't want to run my network on "leftover" bandwidth, something that could be slowed or messed with by my neighbor's UWB toaster, or something that only has a range of a few yards.

What about security?

My wi-fi range is better than my garage door opener range, how about you?

[joechen]

The question is... when will UWB be integrated in PocketPC? Ha ha.

I don't see any major differentiator between UWB and 802.11. An interesting question would be if 802.11a/g came out AFTER UWB, would they say it's the end of UWB? :)

One thing to note is when UWB comes out, the AP/client's won't be $30 like it is for 802.11. I mean, why pay $300+ for equipment that does almost the same thing??

[Mark Johnson]

I don't see any major differentiator between UWB and 802.11.

From what I've read, the major difference is the power consumption and the cost of the core chips. There really is a substantial difference in battery life for a device using 802.11 vs. Bluetooth. That is, in a nutshell, why no one is even proposing an 802.11 keyboard or mouse - the chips would be fairly expensive to add to a $15 keyboard profitably, and you'd need so much power to run it that you'd be churning through AA batteries like crazy or charging it all the time. Bluetooth, on the other hand, is both economical and low power. Bluetooth is also - most critical to it's current (limited) success - adequate for a low-bandwith connection like a keyboards, mice, even web-browsing (BT can give you a local 768kbps connection to your residential DSL line with is probably giving you way less than 1mbps/1024kbps anyway) and even (in theory) for hihg-quailty headsets and microphones (the mp3 music you probably downloaded like everyone else is usually a 128kbps file, perhaps even 256kbps, but in either case, far less than the 768kpbs pipe BT could provide from your PPC to some (not yet for sale) BT headphones.

All that is to say BT is adequate as a cable replacement for a whole lot of things we are all doing right now, that 802.11 would be too expensive (both in terms of dollar-per-transmitter chip and also battery-life penalty) to do.

UWB "claims" to be the Holy Grail - the cost of BT with performance superior to 802.11. If they deliver on even the majority of the promise, it will be a natural sucessor to BT, which will let it "nibble" it's way into the 802.11 camp over time.

It's a little like how USB is, much like an anaconda, very slowly squeezing the life out of FireWire. You can barely notice it now, it's no hugging that tightly yet, but the handwriting is on the wall. Basically from the moment Apple chose to add USB 1.0 to the iMac, USB became the undisputed "cheap perpipheral standard." No matter how much Apple may have said (or still says) FireWire is "the standard" for high-speed video connections, USB has already (in 2.0) and will continue in the future (in 3.0, etc.) to match or exceed the speed of available FW devices. But USB is cheaper for manufacturers to implement, and (critcally) USB is de-facto mandatory since no one will buy a PC without USB ports.

It leave Apple in the laughable position of not adding USB 2.0 support to their current products because if they do, Apple users will start buying those new USB 2.0 camcorders and their precious child will die. So they keep repeating "USB is for keyboards and mice only, you don't need 2.0 which is why it's not on our systems" which is just like when Palm said users didn't want color.

News reporters who view the wireless fight as BT vs. 802.11 or even UWB vs. 802.11 are really missing the point. BT and/or UWB have the luxury of taking over the empty part of the LOW end of the market (like USB did) and then only later eating up the HIGH end of the market. They DO NOT start out in a head-to-head competition anymore than USB started out directly competing with FW. They simply position themselves (very intelligently) to address a large unmet need, get mindshare and then take over the "performance" market later.

[possmann]

Cool tech but the problem with this stuff is that the infastructure will take YEARS to build out. Look where we are in our cell networks as compared to Asia and Europe... Large Sigh :roll:

Still waiting for a lot of the new tech to hit the US - why are we so slow to adopt? is it the US culture?

[bcre8v2]

While I'm not sure about a replacement for Bluetooth, I can tell you that there are many TelCO's lined up to deliver UWB infrastructure.
Why? Because they can utilize their existing cellular network and deliver controlled content (read: charge for service). This service is rumored to be 80 times faster than broadband!.

If it's not backwards compatible with 802.11a/b/d/g etc.., and users want the service, then what we have purchased today will be obsolete quickly. Consumers will have to buy the next generation of equipment (another "technology" cycle).
-Steve

[absolutVenky]

While I'm not sure about a replacement for Bluetooth, I can tell you that there are many TelCO's lined up to deliver UWB infrastructure.
Why? Because they can utilize their existing cellular network and deliver controlled content (read: charge for service). This service is rumored to be 80 times faster than broadband!.

Where have you heard this? You're almost implying that UWB will be used in outdoor long range networks. Can you provide any references?

So far all the commercial activity on UWB has been on short range wireless PANs.

[dean_shan]

My thoughts: 802.11b with change over to 802.11g and will stay with us for a while. It's cheap and works well.

[Dalantech]

I think Jason hit the nail right on the head: Everyone has bought and paid for 802.11b networks. There would have to be some major advantages to get all the necessary players to shell out for a new technology to take WiFi's place. Not to mention the fact that most of the bugs and configuration hassles have been worked out of WiFi and Bluetooth. Once Bluetooth becomes a "consumer stupid"* form of connectivity it will be tough to replaced it.


*Consumer Stupid: Any technology that can be used by anyone, no matter how stupid they are...

[Duncan]

Once Bluetooth becomes a "consumer stupid"* form of connectivity

Unnecessary - cf. the VCR...

[clinte]

Not again. The UWB hype is going well that's for sure. So-called tech writers (must be the same who overhyped Bluetooth) are doing a great job. In every UWB article that's written we have to believe that it will "beat out the current Wi-Fi and Bluetooth". UWB will be an interesting technology for certain applications. WiFi, Bluetooth and UWB will all have there own use. They can overlap but UWB will never outplay WiFi or Bluetooth imho

"At last month's Intel Developer Forum, Intel described its UWB initiative but said that Bluetooth and UWB were not necessarily competing with each other, pointing out that Bluetooth has a complete software infrastructure. However, the chip manufacturer conceded that the technologies overlap for personal-area networking."
http://www.networknews.co.uk/News/1139114
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1129377

"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."
http://www.intel.com/technology/ultrawideband/faq.htm#8

UWB proponents do not claim the technology will replace existing wireless networking standards. Instead, they said, UWB offers advantages unavailable in the existing technologies. http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20020201S0083

Zigbee and Bluetooth: Two different solutions optimised for different applications...
http://www.zigbee.org/zigbee_new/resources/ZigBeeBluetoothComparison4.pdf