Slashdot Mirror

Passive optical networks (PON) are cool, but I think in the long run IP/Ethernet PONs are going to be more flexible than the Marconi stuff. While the standard for EPONs is still being worked out, Alloptic is shipping some gigabit PON equipment already.

The IEEE Standards Association, home to the 802 family (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, etc.) and legions of others, has a more enlightened IP policy, IMHO, as described in their bylaws and operations manual. From the bylaws:

IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either

a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or
b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.

This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that period.

This seems to provide a good compromise; patented technology may get into a standard, but only after disclosure and subsequent approval of the standard by the organization. In addition, while I can't speak for the IEEE-SA as a whole, 802 voters vote as individuals--there are no "corporate votes." Individual consultants have the same voting power as a corporate VP: While the VP may spend corporate $$ to have a collection of subordinates attend enough meetings to become eligible voters, members of the EFF, or any other collection of people, could also attend and vote. While the 802 process isn't perfect, and abuses have been known to occur, this aspect of the IEEE standards process also works to get the best technical standard produced.

The IEEE Standards Association, home to the 802 family (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, etc.) and legions of others, has a more enlightened IP policy, IMHO, as described in their bylaws and operations manual. From the bylaws:

IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. This assurance shall be provided without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a patent becomes known after initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either

a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity using the patent(s) to comply with the standard or
b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.

This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that period.

This seems to provide a good compromise; patented technology may get into a standard, but only after disclosure and subsequent approval of the standard by the organization. In addition, while I can't speak for the IEEE-SA as a whole, 802 voters vote as individuals--there are no "corporate votes." Individual consultants have the same voting power as a corporate VP: While the VP may spend corporate $$ to have a collection of subordinates attend enough meetings to become eligible voters, members of the EFF, or any other collection of people, could also attend and vote. While the 802 process isn't perfect, and abuses have been known to occur, this aspect of the IEEE standards process also works to get the best technical standard produced.

There are many other research programs, both academic and industrial, on wireless ad hoc networks, going back at least to the 1978 DARPA-sponsored Distributed Sensor Nets Workshop at Carnegie-Mellon University. Most of the work has been funded by DARPA, by the low-power wireless integrated microsensors (LWIM) project of the mid-1990s and now by the SensIT project. (Their projects page lists more than 25 academic research programs on these networks, complete with links.)

The University of California at Los Angeles, often working in collaboration with the Rockwell Science Center, has had a Wireless Integrated Network Sensors (WINS) project since 1993. UCLA also supports the similar-but-different "Smart Dust" program, which also employs ultra-low-power networking, but uses optical communication between network nodes.

Professor Anantha Chandrakasan at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the Principal Investigator of the uAMPS (microAMPS) project.

On the commercial side, these networks are being developed by Ember, graviton, Wherenet, and Motorola, just to name a few.

The ZigBee industry consortium is the marketing and compliance arm of the IEEE 802.15.4 draft standard, in a relationship similar to that between WECA (with the "Wi-Fi" brand) and IEEE 802.11b. This draft standard for ultra-low-power, ultra-low-cost wireless networking, now under development, should be finished this winter.

The author is out of touch with the issues now facing those of us now working on IEEE 802.11, .15, and .16 standards. The primary problem 802 has at the moment is that almost all of its draft wireless standards (e.g., 802.11g, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, etc.) are being planned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, due to its combination of near-worldwide unlicensed availability, suitable (i.e., relatively wide) bandwidth, and technical practicality (small antennas, possibility of cheap CMOS RF implementation, etc.). The major exceptions are in 802.16, the WirelessMAN(tm) Metropolitan Area Network standards, which typically employ such a high data rate that even the 2.4 GHz band is too narrow; however, even there, the 802.16b task group is developing a standard for the unlicensed 5-6 GHz band.

The difficulty is coexistence, or how all these standards will affect each other when networks using them are placed into service. This concern started as a Working Group issue, and was addressed by coexistence task groups (e.g., 802.15.2, 802.16.2a), but has now bubbled up to the 802 LMSC itself, with the recent formation of the 802 COEX coexistence study group. 802.11 has become the 800-lb. gorilla in the 2.4 GHz band, microwave ovens included, and it is far, far from the truth to say that just because every system involved is spread spectrum the band may automatically be shared among many users.

Spread spectrum offers protection only to the extent of its processing gain which, for direct sequence systems, is defined as the ratio of chip rate to data rate. Present FCC regulations for the 2.4 GHz band specify a minimum of 10 dB processing gain; this requires a chip rate that is 10x the data rate. As one can see, to get significant processing gain one either (a) raises the chip rate, and the associated current drain of the product, to a high value, or (b) reduces the data rate to a low value. Neither of these is attractive when one considers that even a ratio of 40 dB (10,000x) is insufficient in many interference scenarios; worse, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the 10 dB requirement completely so that OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) signals, like those proposed for 802.11g, may be used.

CFR 47 15.247 devices, like 802.11 and .15 devices, are sold under the condition that they must accept interference to them caused by other devices. This was essentially a regulatory passing of the buck to the "free market," which has a spotty record in telecom (cf. U.S.' multiple cell phone standards vs. GSM). Since 802.11b has the largest installed base, any standard that follows that produces interference with 11b devices will have a hard time gaining marketplace acceptance; at the same time, brute force technologies to avoid interference, such as the use of processing gain, are insufficient. This leads standard and product designers to design ad hoc coexistence mechanisms to identify and avoid specific, predetermined interferers, an inefficient, piecemeal approach that places later, next-generation devices at a disadvantage over existing ones. The result is that 802.11 derivatives are going to defacto own the 2.4 GHz band in most corporate and (later) home environments; anything new in the band must carry the coexistence burden with it.

So, if 802.11b is the model for "Free airwaves," it's a poor model; it's more MS open spectrum than linux open spectrum.

The author is out of touch with the issues now facing those of us now working on IEEE 802.11, .15, and .16 standards. The primary problem 802 has at the moment is that almost all of its draft wireless standards (e.g., 802.11g, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, etc.) are being planned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, due to its combination of near-worldwide unlicensed availability, suitable (i.e., relatively wide) bandwidth, and technical practicality (small antennas, possibility of cheap CMOS RF implementation, etc.). The major exceptions are in 802.16, the WirelessMAN(tm) Metropolitan Area Network standards, which typically employ such a high data rate that even the 2.4 GHz band is too narrow; however, even there, the 802.16b task group is developing a standard for the unlicensed 5-6 GHz band.

The difficulty is coexistence, or how all these standards will affect each other when networks using them are placed into service. This concern started as a Working Group issue, and was addressed by coexistence task groups (e.g., 802.15.2, 802.16.2a), but has now bubbled up to the 802 LMSC itself, with the recent formation of the 802 COEX coexistence study group. 802.11 has become the 800-lb. gorilla in the 2.4 GHz band, microwave ovens included, and it is far, far from the truth to say that just because every system involved is spread spectrum the band may automatically be shared among many users.

Spread spectrum offers protection only to the extent of its processing gain which, for direct sequence systems, is defined as the ratio of chip rate to data rate. Present FCC regulations for the 2.4 GHz band specify a minimum of 10 dB processing gain; this requires a chip rate that is 10x the data rate. As one can see, to get significant processing gain one either (a) raises the chip rate, and the associated current drain of the product, to a high value, or (b) reduces the data rate to a low value. Neither of these is attractive when one considers that even a ratio of 40 dB (10,000x) is insufficient in many interference scenarios; worse, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the 10 dB requirement completely so that OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) signals, like those proposed for 802.11g, may be used.

CFR 47 15.247 devices, like 802.11 and .15 devices, are sold under the condition that they must accept interference to them caused by other devices. This was essentially a regulatory passing of the buck to the "free market," which has a spotty record in telecom (cf. U.S.' multiple cell phone standards vs. GSM). Since 802.11b has the largest installed base, any standard that follows that produces interference with 11b devices will have a hard time gaining marketplace acceptance; at the same time, brute force technologies to avoid interference, such as the use of processing gain, are insufficient. This leads standard and product designers to design ad hoc coexistence mechanisms to identify and avoid specific, predetermined interferers, an inefficient, piecemeal approach that places later, next-generation devices at a disadvantage over existing ones. The result is that 802.11 derivatives are going to defacto own the 2.4 GHz band in most corporate and (later) home environments; anything new in the band must carry the coexistence burden with it.

So, if 802.11b is the model for "Free airwaves," it's a poor model; it's more MS open spectrum than linux open spectrum.

The author is out of touch with the issues now facing those of us now working on IEEE 802.11, .15, and .16 standards. The primary problem 802 has at the moment is that almost all of its draft wireless standards (e.g., 802.11g, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, etc.) are being planned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, due to its combination of near-worldwide unlicensed availability, suitable (i.e., relatively wide) bandwidth, and technical practicality (small antennas, possibility of cheap CMOS RF implementation, etc.). The major exceptions are in 802.16, the WirelessMAN(tm) Metropolitan Area Network standards, which typically employ such a high data rate that even the 2.4 GHz band is too narrow; however, even there, the 802.16b task group is developing a standard for the unlicensed 5-6 GHz band.

The difficulty is coexistence, or how all these standards will affect each other when networks using them are placed into service. This concern started as a Working Group issue, and was addressed by coexistence task groups (e.g., 802.15.2, 802.16.2a), but has now bubbled up to the 802 LMSC itself, with the recent formation of the 802 COEX coexistence study group. 802.11 has become the 800-lb. gorilla in the 2.4 GHz band, microwave ovens included, and it is far, far from the truth to say that just because every system involved is spread spectrum the band may automatically be shared among many users.

Spread spectrum offers protection only to the extent of its processing gain which, for direct sequence systems, is defined as the ratio of chip rate to data rate. Present FCC regulations for the 2.4 GHz band specify a minimum of 10 dB processing gain; this requires a chip rate that is 10x the data rate. As one can see, to get significant processing gain one either (a) raises the chip rate, and the associated current drain of the product, to a high value, or (b) reduces the data rate to a low value. Neither of these is attractive when one considers that even a ratio of 40 dB (10,000x) is insufficient in many interference scenarios; worse, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the 10 dB requirement completely so that OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) signals, like those proposed for 802.11g, may be used.

CFR 47 15.247 devices, like 802.11 and .15 devices, are sold under the condition that they must accept interference to them caused by other devices. This was essentially a regulatory passing of the buck to the "free market," which has a spotty record in telecom (cf. U.S.' multiple cell phone standards vs. GSM). Since 802.11b has the largest installed base, any standard that follows that produces interference with 11b devices will have a hard time gaining marketplace acceptance; at the same time, brute force technologies to avoid interference, such as the use of processing gain, are insufficient. This leads standard and product designers to design ad hoc coexistence mechanisms to identify and avoid specific, predetermined interferers, an inefficient, piecemeal approach that places later, next-generation devices at a disadvantage over existing ones. The result is that 802.11 derivatives are going to defacto own the 2.4 GHz band in most corporate and (later) home environments; anything new in the band must carry the coexistence burden with it.

So, if 802.11b is the model for "Free airwaves," it's a poor model; it's more MS open spectrum than linux open spectrum.

The author is out of touch with the issues now facing those of us now working on IEEE 802.11, .15, and .16 standards. The primary problem 802 has at the moment is that almost all of its draft wireless standards (e.g., 802.11g, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, etc.) are being planned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, due to its combination of near-worldwide unlicensed availability, suitable (i.e., relatively wide) bandwidth, and technical practicality (small antennas, possibility of cheap CMOS RF implementation, etc.). The major exceptions are in 802.16, the WirelessMAN(tm) Metropolitan Area Network standards, which typically employ such a high data rate that even the 2.4 GHz band is too narrow; however, even there, the 802.16b task group is developing a standard for the unlicensed 5-6 GHz band.

The difficulty is coexistence, or how all these standards will affect each other when networks using them are placed into service. This concern started as a Working Group issue, and was addressed by coexistence task groups (e.g., 802.15.2, 802.16.2a), but has now bubbled up to the 802 LMSC itself, with the recent formation of the 802 COEX coexistence study group. 802.11 has become the 800-lb. gorilla in the 2.4 GHz band, microwave ovens included, and it is far, far from the truth to say that just because every system involved is spread spectrum the band may automatically be shared among many users.

Spread spectrum offers protection only to the extent of its processing gain which, for direct sequence systems, is defined as the ratio of chip rate to data rate. Present FCC regulations for the 2.4 GHz band specify a minimum of 10 dB processing gain; this requires a chip rate that is 10x the data rate. As one can see, to get significant processing gain one either (a) raises the chip rate, and the associated current drain of the product, to a high value, or (b) reduces the data rate to a low value. Neither of these is attractive when one considers that even a ratio of 40 dB (10,000x) is insufficient in many interference scenarios; worse, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the 10 dB requirement completely so that OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) signals, like those proposed for 802.11g, may be used.

CFR 47 15.247 devices, like 802.11 and .15 devices, are sold under the condition that they must accept interference to them caused by other devices. This was essentially a regulatory passing of the buck to the "free market," which has a spotty record in telecom (cf. U.S.' multiple cell phone standards vs. GSM). Since 802.11b has the largest installed base, any standard that follows that produces interference with 11b devices will have a hard time gaining marketplace acceptance; at the same time, brute force technologies to avoid interference, such as the use of processing gain, are insufficient. This leads standard and product designers to design ad hoc coexistence mechanisms to identify and avoid specific, predetermined interferers, an inefficient, piecemeal approach that places later, next-generation devices at a disadvantage over existing ones. The result is that 802.11 derivatives are going to defacto own the 2.4 GHz band in most corporate and (later) home environments; anything new in the band must carry the coexistence burden with it.

So, if 802.11b is the model for "Free airwaves," it's a poor model; it's more MS open spectrum than linux open spectrum.

The author is out of touch with the issues now facing those of us now working on IEEE 802.11, .15, and .16 standards. The primary problem 802 has at the moment is that almost all of its draft wireless standards (e.g., 802.11g, 15.1, 15.3, 15.4, etc.) are being planned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, due to its combination of near-worldwide unlicensed availability, suitable (i.e., relatively wide) bandwidth, and technical practicality (small antennas, possibility of cheap CMOS RF implementation, etc.). The major exceptions are in 802.16, the WirelessMAN(tm) Metropolitan Area Network standards, which typically employ such a high data rate that even the 2.4 GHz band is too narrow; however, even there, the 802.16b task group is developing a standard for the unlicensed 5-6 GHz band.

The difficulty is coexistence, or how all these standards will affect each other when networks using them are placed into service. This concern started as a Working Group issue, and was addressed by coexistence task groups (e.g., 802.15.2, 802.16.2a), but has now bubbled up to the 802 LMSC itself, with the recent formation of the 802 COEX coexistence study group. 802.11 has become the 800-lb. gorilla in the 2.4 GHz band, microwave ovens included, and it is far, far from the truth to say that just because every system involved is spread spectrum the band may automatically be shared among many users.

Spread spectrum offers protection only to the extent of its processing gain which, for direct sequence systems, is defined as the ratio of chip rate to data rate. Present FCC regulations for the 2.4 GHz band specify a minimum of 10 dB processing gain; this requires a chip rate that is 10x the data rate. As one can see, to get significant processing gain one either (a) raises the chip rate, and the associated current drain of the product, to a high value, or (b) reduces the data rate to a low value. Neither of these is attractive when one considers that even a ratio of 40 dB (10,000x) is insufficient in many interference scenarios; worse, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the 10 dB requirement completely so that OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) signals, like those proposed for 802.11g, may be used.

CFR 47 15.247 devices, like 802.11 and .15 devices, are sold under the condition that they must accept interference to them caused by other devices. This was essentially a regulatory passing of the buck to the "free market," which has a spotty record in telecom (cf. U.S.' multiple cell phone standards vs. GSM). Since 802.11b has the largest installed base, any standard that follows that produces interference with 11b devices will have a hard time gaining marketplace acceptance; at the same time, brute force technologies to avoid interference, such as the use of processing gain, are insufficient. This leads standard and product designers to design ad hoc coexistence mechanisms to identify and avoid specific, predetermined interferers, an inefficient, piecemeal approach that places later, next-generation devices at a disadvantage over existing ones. The result is that 802.11 derivatives are going to defacto own the 2.4 GHz band in most corporate and (later) home environments; anything new in the band must carry the coexistence burden with it.

So, if 802.11b is the model for "Free airwaves," it's a poor model; it's more MS open spectrum than linux open spectrum.

Fixing my link to the Symbol proposal (pdf)

Also pretty interesting 802.15 task group 1 for WPANs(TM)

Reality is that a patent takes two or three years to issue. Most of the time, these companies would file a patent application at the same time, or slightly before, joining the standards committee. While the standards were being set, the patent was in the PTO, being kept secret.

In fact, since the DEC case most standards committees have a specific disclosure requirement, for example the IEEE standard requires such disclosure. In order to participate, each company must provide the list of patents they hold in this area, as well as guarantee a "reasonable licensing arragement."

Do note that if you want to find patents, because you're writing a standard or for any other reason, go to the USPTO's database search, and go for it. It's easy, it's cheap, and you can get PDF's for $3.

Thalia

IEEE 802.1 describes standards for maintence and internetworking of IEEE 802 networks, i.e. spanning tree, VLAN tagging, access control, etc.

IEEE 802.11 describes Wireless LAN standards.

IEEE 802.15 defines Wireless Personal Area Networks based on Bluetooth v1.1. There is a coexistence task group (TG2) that is defining Collaborative and Non-collaborative mechanisms for information interchange between the WPANs and WLANs.

So now the questions is "why do we need both?" The answer is that WPANs and WLANs solve different problems. WPANs need to be cheap, easy to configure, and very short range. WLANs, on the other hand, should be comparable in range and complexity to a traditional wired LAN.

There is room for both approachs, just as there is room for both ethernet (802.3) and token-ring (802.5) LAN technologies.

IEEE 802.1 describes standards for maintence and internetworking of IEEE 802 networks, i.e. spanning tree, VLAN tagging, access control, etc.

IEEE 802.11 describes Wireless LAN standards.

IEEE 802.15 defines Wireless Personal Area Networks based on Bluetooth v1.1. There is a coexistence task group (TG2) that is defining Collaborative and Non-collaborative mechanisms for information interchange between the WPANs and WLANs.

So now the questions is "why do we need both?" The answer is that WPANs and WLANs solve different problems. WPANs need to be cheap, easy to configure, and very short range. WLANs, on the other hand, should be comparable in range and complexity to a traditional wired LAN.

There is room for both approachs, just as there is room for both ethernet (802.3) and token-ring (802.5) LAN technologies.