Coming Soon: Ultra Wide Band

JScarpace writes: "Robert X. Cringely has a new article in which he talks about Ultra Wide Band (UWB), a new wireless communications technology which may allow wireless networking speeds up to a gigabit per second. Read the article."

Comments

REally?

[Dick Veiney]

AOL with Gigabit! I can't wait!

Re:REally?

[kingrat]

Me too!

(isnt that what AOL members reply with?) :)

Re:REally?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would use AOL if I could get a gigabit connection to the internet.

Re:REally?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

(isnt that what AOL members reply with?) :)

Nope, more like:

/\/\3 70!

Re:REally?

[Anonymous Coward]

CRINGELY is fucking STUPID

Sounds good

[phat_rat]

Sounds good for my PDA and Laptop...and if it gives a gig..then hell Ill rig it up to my desktop too...

I don't normally say this.. but really.

[mindstrm]

There is a UWB article every couple of months. Nothing has changed in the last few years.

Yes, the technology exists.
No, it's not going to happen any time soon, for what should be obvious reasons.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[scoove]

No, it's not going to happen any time soon, for what should be obvious reasons.

For those who the reason isn't obvious, much of the controversy with UWB comes from its unlimited use of other people's licensed frequencies, allegedly under the "we don't think it'll interfere too much" rationale. UWB, in that respect, represents the largest theft of frequency since the auctions of the late 90s - stealing pretty much any frequency they want.

There has been substantial analysis of UWB and quite critical findings (see the ARRL's opinion submitted to the FCC - hams in many bands are secondary users and are used to coexisting with primary users, so there's a good reason the ARRL is very concerned about UWB), but instead of addressing it, the UWB lobbyists keep on pushing it forward and getting publicity (quite similar to it showing up on slashdot every once and awhile... who's on the lobby here?).

Unfortunately, the RIAA and peers have done a good job showing how easy it is to steal public or other peoples property when you pay off congress.

But hey, most of the public is technologically illiterate or unconcerned...

*scoove*

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[isdnip]

I hardly think the "property" argument jibes with the "public interest, convenience and necessity" traditional mandate of FCC regulation. Older "narrowband" (and CDMA) licensed services are sensitive to interference from each other. UWB promises not to interfere, so what's the beef? That they didn't pass a Morris Code exam? That allowing phone patches (old amateur radio tradition predating even Carterphone) will take away "the phone company's" guaranteed revenue? That my radio waves can't "overfly" your land without paying your for the privilege?

The debate over UWB centers on the difference between intentional and unintentional transmission. UWB advocates want to be allowed to intentionally transmit at levels *below* those autorized in Part 15 for unintentional radiators. Sounds fair, except of course that the sum of lots of them might seriously raise the noise floor in some portions of the spectrum. That's a valid technical debate, but not a property debate, unless it degrades performance of licensed services.

Cringely, of course, did make major mistakes in his article. UWB doesn't use "ALL" frequencies (the proverbial "DC to daylight"), just a lot more than "traditional" spread spectrum. And its power/range tradeoff is about the same as other spread spectrum. And PCS goes a LOT farther than 1 km, outside of the densest urban enviroments, if its towers are high enough.

(BTW, I have an Extra Class ham ticket, and know the Morse quite well.)

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[scoove]

>I hardly think the "property" argument jibes with the "public interest, convenience and necessity" traditional mandate of FCC regulation.

Fortunately, we're beginning to have Supreme Court rulings changing that annoying trend of stealing people's property under the guise of "public interest." Look at this year's ruling on partial confiscation as an indication of a overdue correction on property rights.

Like it or not, the rules of frequency management are that transmissions in other people's bands is illegal (except in particular permitted circumstances, e.g. emergencies). UWB represents a slippery slope of property theft - allowing tresspass into anyones frequency "as long as they had good intentions."

What's next? Letting me borrow CPU cycles without your authorization because I had a nice intention and wouldn't /really/ slow your web surfing down much? (Oops... I never figured you were going to play Quake... sorry about crashing your game. Look, it's not my fault that you play annoying games that I never tested for. Maybe we ought to ban the games so we don't interfere with my borrowing cycles!).

Actually, this whole "it's not theft if you weren't going to use it" argument you raise is rather interesting - I think it probably represents a significant rationalization used by various thieves in the tech world, though not new nor exclusive to it ("honest officer, we were just borrowing the car while it wasn't used!")

> UWB promises not to interfere, so what's the beef?

Besides the fact that it's not theirs to use? That it steals other people's frequencies? Why hell, go ahead and borrow my wife and car while you're at it, since I wasn't going to use them while I was asleep.

Seriously tho, what if the licensed owners (who paid for their right to use the frequency and received title from the government) wanted to operate similar spread spectrum apps in their allocations? Very similar to the recent partial confiscation case where the farmer could do anything he liked to his property - oh, except for build, farm, drain the wetland, etc. You're stealing this use from the frequency holders.

Also, there has been considerable debate about the "no interference" tests submitted by the applicant by their paid consultants. These tests were limited to examples that were guaranteed to pass, while other critical assessments showing interference were ignored. Which is better: a promise by a commercial interest that wants to steal the entire frequency spectrum and has a definite financial gain, or objective scientists and analysts who've demonstrated no problem in the past coexisting with other services? Can anyone say RIAA?

> That they didn't pass a Morris Code exam?

Were you making a point here, or just confused? Morris the cat? Morris what? Pathetic.

> That my radio waves can't "overfly" your land without paying your for the privilege?

Absurd points that have no bearing on the real issues, as you hopefully already knew when you posted.

> Sounds fair, except of course that the sum of lots of them might seriously raise the noise floor in some portions of the spectrum. That's a valid technical debate, but not a property debate, unless it degrades performance of licensed services.

Aha... "unless" - which is exactly the point brought up by numerous parties. Sort of like saying my theft of your vehicle "isn't a valid debate unless you actually intended on using it at a later date."

Your definition of theft - requiring intent of the entity who was robbed of later using their property - us an odd and disfunctional one. My property taken, regardless of when and how I planned on using it, is theft.

*scoove*

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[Iguanaphobic]

Seriously tho, what if the licensed owners (who paid for their right to use the frequency and received title from the government)



I would argue that the government had no right to sell the frequencies in the first place. Or if we're going to let this go to it's logical conclusion, I would like to purchase the entire visual spectrum and then I'll licence you to see using "my" frequencies.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[ruggerboy]

Man....a law student...I know cause I am one myself and you bring shame to law students/computergeeks! It is this whole notion of labeling things like frequncies as property that started the whole mess and is considerably hampering technological advances. This same rational led to DNS entries being considered intellectual property. How the hell do you own a set of directions? Lawyers who don't understand the technology and try to apply common law concepts to new advances are screwing things up in a majopr way....
carpe nuts,
Tico
ps anyone want to start a new DNS standard?? seriously!

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[ssyreeni]

Who says the government sold something in the first place? Originally property rights in parts of the radio spectrum were obtained by the electronic equivalent of homesteading. Later that newly formed private property was socialized. It would only be reasonable that it's privatized once more.

The reason you cannot purchase the visual spectrum is because it's not a scarce, shared resource in the way radio frequencies are. (You can purchase it in the sense you do when you put up signs on your property, though.)

We have the institution of private property for a reason. That reason is efficient allocation of scarce resources. There is no essential reason why such allocation would not be best provided by the property rights in the case of radio frequencies -- it works just fine for physical property. (Granted, I don't think it's a good idea for information. But that's different.)

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[ssyreeni]

Now you're confusing a whole lot of completely separate things. I don't think you mean to say DNS entries shouldn't be owned -- in the absence of ownership (more likely a lease from the resolution service owner who then effectively owns the domain names), how could you guarantee that yoursite.com would still point to your site, next week? If the name is not owned, there's nothing to stop anybody from reusing it at will.

What you probably meant to oppose was things like the UDRP, with their connotation that domain names have something to do with registered trademarks, considered "intellectual property". That I have a problem with, too. I think homesteading is the way to go in cyberspace as well, not ownership by fiat of specific bit patterns. No matter the context.

Still another problem with your gut reaction is the idea that only physical things should have property rights attached to them. But even if intellectual property didn't exist, there would still be such things as ownership in usage rights, financial instruments and, you guessed it, scarce immaterial resources like the electromagnetic spectrum. We need such rights in order to put those resources into the best possible use.

AFAICT, what is slowing innovation, here, is not lawyers confused over the proper application of property rights, but bureaucrats regulating innovation out of existence. After all, a market in privately owned radio spectrum would admit UWB and other newer modulation technologies as soon as the price was right. If UWB is so useful, the price would be just that. Interference would simply elevate that price, and give a financial incentive to further develop the technology. That's progress.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[drinkypoo]

What's next? Letting me borrow CPU cycles without your authorization because I had a nice intention and wouldn't /really/ slow your web surfing down much?

There is a sizable difference between me spending money which I earned through my own work, and buying a computer which I personally own, and the available radio frequency bandwidth. What gives the FCC the right to sell that off? I'd like to be able to use some of it to play around, and why should I have to pay (ultimately, because of licensing fees and whatnot we all pay) to use the airwaves? It sounds like UWB may make most frequencies useless for traditional radio, especially the higher ones, but perhaps it's the right thing to do.

Then again, I know bugger all about it, maybe it won't work anyway, and it all sucks. But if it does work, and does all that is promised, I think it's immoral not to go with UWB.

Now go ahead, call me a commie.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[autopr0n]

I don't think you mean to say DNS entries shouldn't be owned -- in the absence of ownership (more likely a lease from the resolution service owner who then effectively owns the domain names), how could you guarantee that yoursite.com would still point to your site, next week? If the name is not owned, there's nothing to stop anybody from reusing it at will.

Um, a service contract? I mean, I could add an entry to my DNS server saying that 'yoursite.com' pointed to autopr0n.com, and anyone using that for lookups would go there. You don't a domain name, you own a domain name on ICANN's system. Anyone can setup their own systems and do whatever they want to with it. That's what makes your CPU argument a couple posts back lame too. If you want more CPU just go buy some more, you don't need to use other peoples. There is an unlimited supply. There is an unlimited supply of DNS systems people can use to. (and for all practical purposes there is an unlimited number of domain names people can use on ICANN's system)

With radio frequency, there is only a limited space. And while the same is true with land on the earth (the most basic form of property) there is a lot more land then RF.

And if cringinly is right, UWB could transform radio frequency from a limited, to an unlimited and free resource for anyone to use. without practically interfering with regular broadcasts. Not allowing people to use it because of the current investments in technology is criminal.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[scoove]

autopr0n writes:
How can you own a frequency?

Perhaps my use of "licensed owners" wasn't clear enough. The process of licensing conveys ownership and its rights as specified in the license for the duration of the license.

You may want to argue semantics about something licensed not being ownership, but think about what things you usually "own": your land? your house? your car?

All three are technically licensed to you as well. Should you not pay property tax to the government, you lose your land, house and car. Really, you don't have clear and absolute ownership with these items - you just have a license to use them given the terms provided. Terms? On your property? Try building a 1000 foot tower on your land - you own it, right? You'll quickly discover an organization called the FCC explaining how you don't have the right to do that without following their rules. Same with building a landfill, pr0n shop in some areas, etc. All sorts of people have rules that apply to your use of "your property."

I mean, if UWB really can deliver on it's potential, then why the hell should we stime it just so people who have invested in outdated technology can profit?

First of all, UWB may not deliver on its potential. Secondly, who said the rest of the spectrum is outdated technology? Cell companies, microwave operators, hams, military, ISM users, etc. would have a slight disagreement with you. I assume you don't use a cell phone, 802.11b device, pager, etc. since they're outdated?

That's moronic. Look, I mean if you own land and the government wants to put down a highway or a railroad, then they will. They just have to pay you for it.

But what you're arguing for is a highway on my property (spectrum license) without paying me for it, telling me I won't notice the highway and it won't cause me any inconvenience.

Simply put, for one prospective licensee using what some have alleged to be junk commercial science to risk the entire RF spectrum management system is questionable, at a minimum.

The idea that we should hold back a huge technological advance which some have noted interesting parallels to the CueCat and the perpetual motion machines on account of some moronic idea that people can 'own' mathimatical descriptions of b-feild flux is incredibly stupid.

Licensing scarce natural resources (frequency) that are irrespective of manmade political boundries is quite different than owning mathimatical (sic) descriptions.

and per Iguanophobic's note:
I would argue that the government had no right to sell the frequencies in the first place.

Some people aren't comfortable with private ownership, as it deprives them from mooching off of others and limits the ease a parasite can access the product of others hard work.

If you follow the FCC's enforcement actions (detailed on their website), you'll quickly learn the importance of assigning frequencies via license and enforcing that. They routinely deal with mentally unbalanced idiots who find pleasure in jamming other services, cheaters damaging other peoples services by operating on top of their frequency (usually at higher power, destroying the legit user's service), etc.

Think about your cell phone for a second - operating in a licensed band. What if I followed you around and jammed your service every time you went to use your phone, simply because I didn't like you? With no licensing of frequencies, you'd have no recourse - I have as much right to jam you as you do to try to use your service. Or that crummy radio station I don't like... they're going down, baby! (I'd guess that nearly every station has at least one party that doesn't like their broadcast and nothing would be free from interference).

Remember, licenses not only establishes boundries and ownership, but they mandate behavior and provide enforcement should that behavior not be followed within the frequencies as well.

*scoove*

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[scoove]

drinkypoo writes:
There is a sizable difference between me spending money which I earned through my own work, and buying a computer which I personally own, and the available radio frequency bandwidth.

How so? I've bought frequency out of money I earned through my own work as well - licensed microwave paths, for instance, which require a few thousand bucks in path analysis, engineering and application fees.

In fact, it's cheaper to buy a PC than a simple point to point 6 GHz microwave shot.

What gives the FCC the right to sell that off?

I find it funny that as a hard core objectivist, I'm arguing on behalf of the government to regulate (perhaps that's the realist in me coming out). The best answer to your question is probably an Ayn Rand one: a Gun

If you decide you don't have to recognize their right and encroach upon it, you'll eventually discover the extent of their enforcement. Look at all the income tax opponents (Ruby Ridge, anyone?).

I'd like to be able to use some of it to play around

So would I. I can't tell you how disgusted I am that numerous auctions have sold off wonderful frequency, only to have the frequency purchased and sat on by loser incumbants who see it as a cheap way to avoid competition. But I have an option: pay more than they do, or shut up.

and why should I have to pay (ultimately, because of licensing fees and whatnot we all pay) to use the airwaves?

How else would you assign finite property we all share? Give it to friends of the political party in charge? Keep it owned by the government? People like to argue how the current system is unfair, but don't fully explain an alternate.

It sounds like UWB may make most frequencies useless for traditional radio, especially the higher ones, but perhaps it's the right thing to do.

Again, thanks to wonderful PR by the UWB patent holder corporation(s). Many people on /. have provided good links to a sufficient base of analysis debunking both the amazing uniqueness of UWB and its alleged noninterference with other services.

As much as I enjoy Cringley's writing, it's clear that he's a journalist, not a technologist. If you read him for more than entertainment and perspective, you're going to be disappointed.

*scoove*

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[Anonymous Coward]

go ahead and borrow my wife and car while you're at it

Does your wife know that she's your "property"?

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[isdnip]

>The process of licensing conveys ownership and its rights as specified in the license for the duration of the license.

Wrong! Licensing conveys RIGHT TO USE, not "ownership". BIG difference. Only some hardcore extreme right wing groups, and perhaps some doctrinaire Libertarians, think otherwise.

Said right to use is not necessarily exclusive. Every gasoline car creates sparks that interfere with radios, but usually below certain limits. Do we ban cars? Do we ban computers, which spew lots of RF? Part 15 defines what we can do without a license. UWB simply modifies that rule to allow intentional radiation at levels below those allowed for unintentional.

Think of it as an easement, if you insist n property analogies. But it's only an analogy, because it's not property.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, your analysis was complex, but was it thorough? Until you've really studied this in depth, I'm holding off judgement.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[mindstrm]

You are missing the point.
Frequency space is not like cpu cycles. They do not BELONG to anyone. They belong to EVERYONE.
It is a globally limited resource that we all have to share.

If I use a frequency for, say, 2 way radio communication for my security team. Do I care if the noise floor is raised a couple dB? Well.. if I think of it as MY frequency, yes, I do.
But as long as I can do what I licenced that frequency for, I SHOULDN'T.
Remember, a license to a frequency is a license to use it for certain things, not ownership of it.
The airwaves stil belong to the people.

UWB is an alternative to narrowband. Rather than limiting the exact frequencies each person can use, we can all use them all, and we can regulate who can use how much, for instance.. allowing others to take advantage of different wavelengths for different properties.

I mean, comeon... look what we have otherwise.. 2.4 Ghz ISM? Give me a break.. there is a REASON that nobody wants that band, it's dirty as hell compared to others. Microwave ovens, etc, etc.

Re:I don't normally say this.. but really.

[drinkypoo]

It sounds like UWB may make most frequencies useless for traditional radio, especially the higher ones, but perhaps it's the right thing to do.

Again, thanks to wonderful PR by the UWB patent holder corporation(s). Many people on /. have provided good links to a sufficient base of analysis debunking both the amazing uniqueness of UWB and its alleged noninterference with other services.

I don't care if it's unique, I don't care if it interferes with other frequencies - That's what I was getting at. I think it's worth it. An added side bonus, but not one you could use to sell UWB to the nation very easily, is that there should be a lot more radio noise around for the scavenging, theoretically allowing more devices to be powered by the simple expedient of using an antenna and a diode. Only very very low power devices can be run this way (unless you rig up a tesla coil nearby) but if you had a lot of radio noise (across all frequencies, no less) and a good enough antenna, you could derive a nice little snippet of power from it.

Positioning

[Cato the Elder]

The idea of UWB making GPS "obsolete" is pretty laughable. The article gives no details on how it works, but since the range is limited, I'm imagining is uses triangulation from a bunch of ground stations. So, OK, all those little GPS receivers to find your way around a city will become obsolete.

But for wilderness and nautical applications, what good is a limited range signal going to do you?

Re:Positioning

[Heironymus Coward]

The idea of UWB making GPS "obsolete" is pretty laughable.

I think that was the point. according to cringely's article, people were writing to him claiming that UBW would make GPS obsolete. he doesn't go into the details because (he says) he doesn't believe it.

Re:Positioning

[chill]

More likely UWB will compliment GPS nicely. GPS will be used for wilderness, nautical and aviation. UWB will be used to supplement GPS by giving much more accurate measurements in the urban and sub-urban areas -- where 80% of the population lives.

+/- 6 meters isn't good enough for things like parking cars; locating stores/kids in malls; densely populated areas and it really sucks for vertical distances. Yes, differential GPS with ground stations really helps, but UWB could make location-based information and services pervasive.

UWB has a lot of potential.

Re:Positioning

[ralfp]

UWB will not make GPS "obsolete," it will "break" GPS by raising the noise floor in the GPS frequency range. GPS signals are very low power (at the receiver), so adding noise by having millions of UWB devices contaminating the GPS frequencies will, in effect, jam any GPS device.

Re:Positioning

[topham]

Except the only locations where it would likely add enough noise to be a problem would be very high population density areas... like a city. Where GPS doesn't work worth shit. (Tall buildings block the signals, and reflect them, etc.). On the other hand, it would be possible to use cheap UWB transmitters do add the same functionality within such an environment...

Re:Positioning

[ralfp]

So airplanes using GPS to land near cities (BOS, LGA, DCA, etc.) would not be able to use GPS? The FAA is investing huge amounts of money for the wide and local area augmentation systems (WAAS and LAAS) the enhance GPS (http://www.gps.tc.faa.gov/gps_sys.html).

One of the ideas behind UWB is that it is easy to add to a device, so everyone will have many UWB devices. This means no more radio astronomy, no more GPS (people in airplanes will end up carrying active UWB devices), etc.

Also, UWB will add noise to frequencies that the FCC auctioned off for exclusive use (cellular, PCS, etc.) Will the companies that hold these licenses sue because they are being denied use of these frequencies?

Re:Positioning

[scoove]

I'm aware of the analysis indicating GPS could be interfered with or potentially broken (hey, what's a 30 second GPS outage to a landing 747 anyways?), and have seen evidence of other impairments, but haven't seen what potential interference might be applied to 2.4 GHz ISM DSSS and FHSS services.

Has anyone come across references to UWB interference or coexistance with 2.4 spread spectrum systems (e.g. 802.11b)?

Curious that we'd throw out 100 years of frequency management for a commercial licensee/patent holder.

*scoove*

Re:Positioning

[topham]

Please calculate the number of devices required within a 50 meter radius required to create sufficient interference on a specific band to cause a problem EXCLUDING anything -on- said aircraft. (No one has any reason to believe they would be more allowed on planes than cellphones are). Within a few feet there are interference issues. But then, some people find GPS handheld block out their car stereos too.

Re:Positioning

[Anonymous Coward]

so is that big metal tube we call an airplane not going to be a waveguide? How many assholes have you seen using their cell phones on the airplane. I've seen to many to be comfortable. It will be a problem for GPS, and the more there are, the more problems there will be. I hope I'm not the one who dies to demonstrate that.

Re:Positioning

[Anonymous Coward]

"But then, some people find GPS handheld block out their car stereos too."

A "GPS handheld" is a reciever. It will not cause any interference with a car stereo.

If your understanding of radio is really that basic, why do you feel any need to attempt to contribute to this discussion? There is enough noise here without uninformed people posting their drivel.

Re:Positioning

[Skyfire]

+/- 6 meters isn't enough for locating a store in a mall? What mall are you in?

Anyways, differential GPS over IP is plenty enough accuracy for just about any application. You do not need much bandwidth at all to send a correction signal.

Re:Positioning

[chill]

Anything in a crowded area like Akihara (sp?) in Japan; (hell, lots of areas in Japan) and some shopping districts in Hong Kong, NYC or anywhere else where space is a premium.

Mega-sized flea markets also comes to mind.

+/- 6m leaves a lot of room for overlap.

However, I believe the U.S. is shipping new sats up that are supposed to cut that in half by about 2005. +/- 3m will be real nice.

Of course, if I could slap little tags on everything in my closet/storage shed/garage I could finally find something! +/- 3m isn't gonna help in my 10x10 storage shed. However, to within 10 cm -- that would be fantastic.

Re:Positioning

[maverick_and_goose]

Do you know what you just said you want to use GPS to find things in your tool shed. You sir are a tool. You must be the laziest and dumbest person on earth.

Re:Positioning

[topham]

Actually you are very mistaken. Please read the Satelite Navigation news group, several people have described the phenomenon. And there isn't anything unique or special about it. All electronics give off some radio interference to some degree. Typically not enough to cause you to actually lose a radio station on an FM radio. But specific GPS units can, and do if placed close to the antena or stereo. (For some people this shows up when putting the GPS on their dashboard. A common place to put a GPS in a car for it to get a clear signal.). GPS units have also caused interference with each other.
I don't expect the level of interference given off by a GPS is significant enough to worry about, but I was trying to make a point that when arguing that some form of transmitter (intentional) might interfer with GPS that Un-intentional interference is caused by most electronics in close proximity and from everything I have browsed through on UWB seems to indicate the amount of noise is on par with unintentional transmitions. (This includes browsing through an FCC document outlining speed to lock-on with interference & without, distance of transmitters etc.)

Re: Positioning

[chill]

It was a quick example for people too lazy to think of one on their own.

Obviously extrapolating from this was too much for you.

Okay -- warehousing systems for companies that have hundreds or thousands of parts.

Automatic detection of proper parts that are installed in manufacturing systems to double-check.

I can think of dozens of others. Use your imagination.

Much better than 802.11x...

[Daniel Wood]

The downside of UWB for users is range, which is generally limited to around one kilometer with high gain antennas, and for the fastest data rates, can be measured in tens of feet. UWB trades bandwidth for distance, so longer links are slower.

Certainly better than 802.11a. Now 100mbits at 802.11b range is a reality!

Re:Much better than 802.11x...

[fyonn]

is there any reason that something like UWB could not be applied to a wired technology? I mean they are promising 1G soonish over the air, I'd guess that if there was an electric mediumthen they would get lots of range and not need to be nearly so judicious about being nice to other frequencies as there is nothing to compete with.

comments anyone?

of course....

[fluxrad]

if you have a 48" waist...this technology has been out for years.

Re:of course....

[John Harrison]

f you have a 48" waist...this technology has been out for years.

Don't you mean that it has been around for years?

Re:of course....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the ones your mom like to suck on, junior!

*That* was interesting

[Glorat]

That's one of the more interesting articles I've read about at Slashdot. Unlike our perpetual motion machine, this sounds genuine and not *too* good to be true. High bandwidth, low interference and perfect for that last mile problem! If the technology becomes mainstream, it will be revolutionary

I have questions though:
- Can an enthusiast make one of these "impossibly cheap" devices?
- Are as the article suggests these devices really going to take off within the next year or will they be suppressed as the article suggests other technologies will be.
- Is it really that resistant to interference? We're using so many frequencies at one time, can they really not clash?
- Will it interfere with traditional radio signals? I.e, it seems to clobber other reserved EM frequencies to make use of high bandwidth. Would this mess up our telly or radio?
- Does anyone have experience to say whether this stuff is really as good as it proclaims to be?
- Finally, there must be more downsides than just messing up radio astronomers

Re:*That* was interesting

[3prong]

- Can an enthusiast make one of these "impossibly cheap" devices?

The chips are already being made, and I suppose it won't be too long before someone with a soldering iron could put together a transmitter.

- Is it really that resistant to interference? We're using so many frequencies at one time, can they really not clash?
- Will it interfere with traditional radio signals? I.e, it seems to clobber other reserved EM frequencies to make use of high bandwidth. Would this mess up our telly or radio?

It's a totally different technology than radio. Radio is transmitted via long sine waves of energy. UWB is very short pulses of noise, like an extremely short burst of morse code. Won't have any effect on radio or TV.

Re:*That* was interesting

[Mike Monett]

>I have questions though:

>- Can an enthusiast make one of these "impossibly cheap" devices?

Yes. Schematics and parts are readily available.

>- Are as the article suggests these devices really going to take off within the next year or will they be suppressed as the article suggests other technologies will be.

There is a patent conflict. Thoma McEwan of Lawrence Livermore Labs copied Time Domain's ideas and patented them. Manufacturer's will face litigation expense and could end up paying royalties on both.

>- Is it really that resistant to interference? We're using so many frequencies at one time, can they really not clash?

Yes. Spread Spectrum works now by switching frequencies in a pseudorandom sequence. Receivers that are not on the same sequence cannot hear the transmission.

UWB works on the same principle except it uses time slots instead of frequency slots. Receivers that are not on the same time sequence cannot hear the transmission. As mentioned, UWB is highly secure and difficult to detect for this reason.

>- Will it interfere with traditional radio signals? I.e, it seems to clobber other reserved EM frequencies to make use of high bandwidth. Would this mess up our telly or radio?

Probably, but only if the transmitter is very close (several feet) and you are trying to listen to a very weak signal.

If many transmitters are in use nearby, it may affect GPS by raising the general noise level. GPS works on very weak signals.

- Does anyone have experience to say whether this stuff is really as good as it proclaims to be?

A lot of people have worked on it with good results. Yes, it works.

The antennas have to be specially designed for broadband. They may be larger than practical for handheld phones, but fractal antennas may reduce the size.

- Finally, there must be more downsides than just messing up radio astronomers

It can raise the general background noise level and affect reception of weak signals. However, in an urban environment, there are plenty of signals that already raise the noise level. Radiation from Local oscillators in superhet receivers (probably hundreds of thousands used at different frequencies), cellular phones and other mobile transmitters (this really is bad for radio astronomy), industrial process like arc welding and power conversion, motor starting transients, automobile ignition noise, temperature controllers using bimetallic sensors, light switches, ad infinitum.

Electrical noise pollution is a part of modern society. The noise added by UWB may well be lost in the background noise that already exists.

Mike Monett
mrmonett@yahoo.com

Re:*That* was interesting

[cgoellner]

This is the first time I've seen UWB described as impossibly cheap. The timing required to pick out the signals requires some sort of fancy chip capable of nano or pico second resolution. Maybe they solved that recently but I've never seen it described as capable of being done with "commercial grade" chips.

We've been reading about UWB for years and the FCC won't approve it. So my guess is we won't see it soon.

I slept through E&M so I can't speak from knowledge but the 100 MPG Carburetor is a good analogy. The supporters say it does everything including make julienne french fries and that other engineers just don't understand it. The other engineers say it's just a pipe dream and I've never really seen anything I would consider unbiased analysis for either side.

I think the biggest problem is politics.

Re:*That* was interesting

[John Miles]

>- Can an enthusiast make one of these "impossibly cheap" devices?

Yes. Schematics and parts are readily available.

Where?

There is a patent conflict. Thoma McEwan of Lawrence Livermore Labs copied Time Domain's ideas and patented them. Manufacturer's will face litigation expense and could end up paying royalties on both.

My understanding is that the court told McEwan to go pound sand last year. Do you have more up-to-date info?

Re:*That* was interesting

[Mike Monett]

>>Yes. Schematics and parts are readily available.

>Where?

Too many places to list. Check the patents - here's a fairly recent list (caution large pdf files):

http://www.aetherwire.com/CDROM/General/numbers. ht ml

Or search Google "uwb receiver".

>My understanding is that the court told McEwan to go pound sand last year. Do you have more up-to-date info?

McEwan claims the patent was reinstated. Fullerton claims it is worthless. I tried to follow both arguments but gave up. It is too confusing and you really have to invest a lot of time. This is the situation that makes investors nervous, or should.

It's probably best to check both sites for the latest info, but it's clear the argument will go on forever.

Mike Monett
mrmonett@yahoo.com

Re:*That* was interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a totally different technology than radio. Radio is transmitted via long sine waves of energy. UWB is very short pulses of noise, like an extremely short burst of morse code. Won't have any effect on radio or TV."

Claude Shannon figured all this stuff out 20 or 30 years before 90% of slashdotters were born. How about you go read his paper before making silly statements.

Re:*That* was interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop spreading UWB startup's marketing information (read: misinformation).

"Spread Spectrum works now by switching frequencies in a pseudorandom sequence. Receivers that are not on the same sequence cannot hear the transmission."

Unrelated recievers don't hear the transmission as information, but they certainly see their noise floor go up. Claude Shannon must be spinning in his grave at all the bullshit being thrown around on this one.

"The noise added by UWB may well be lost in the background noise that already exists."

That's what the marketing departments keep saying, but no one has proved this, or even shown any evidence beyond: "we really hope this is true."

Re:*That* was interesting

[tftp]

Is it really that resistant to interference? We're using so many frequencies at one time, can they really not clash?

Yes. Spread Spectrum works now by switching frequencies in a pseudorandom sequence. Receivers that are not on the same sequence cannot hear the transmission.

But since UWB transmission exists on all frequencies during the time slot, the SS system loses all its advantages. I am sure many users (like military) would not want that.

Re:*That* was interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, there must be more downsides than just messing up radio astronomers

What more do you need in the way of downsides? National and international laws require that certain bands be free of radio transmissions because they are dedicated to astronomy. UWB will put detectable emissions in some of those bands. Therefore, UWB is illegal.

Re:*That* was interesting

[icarumba]

My understanding is that the court told McEwan to go pound sand last year. Do you have more up-to-date info?

While one examiner from the USPTO initially suggested that key claims may have been anticipated by Fullerton, their final ruling was in favor of The Regents of the University of California, assignee of the MIR patent (5,361,070) in dispute. (This work was performed by the inventor, Thomas McEwan, while an employee of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The final USPTO decision (a copy of which can be found at Rexexam, stated that "[a]s a result of reexamination, it has been determined that: The patentability of claims 1-20 is confirmed. New claims 21-49 are added and determined to be patentable."

Thus, all of the original claims made in the "MIR" patent were upheld by the USPTO; and the patent was furthered strengthened by the addition of 29 new claims.

Why didn't he mention...

[zoid.com]

TimeDomain? They are the leader in the UWB development and hold a bunch of key patents.

http://www.timedomain.com/

Cheers!

Re:Why didn't he mention...

[rbeattie]

Hmmmm... Interesting. The first link on the TimeDomain's website is this LA Times Article about how the FCC is set to aprove the technology next month and how they used UWB during the World Trade Center disaster to look for victims.

Like Johnny used to say: "I, I did not know that."

-Russ

Re:Why didn't he mention...

[noad]

Multi Spectral is the leader! Not Time domain.

Re:Why didn't he mention...

[AllInOne]

It's not in the article but it is linked from his "I like it page".

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/like/like20020124.ht ml

more info

[Syre]

Here's a FAQ from the Ultra Wideband Working Group.

It's not clear that it will be allowed to be deployed widely, since it may in fact interfere with the spectrum allocated for other uses. As the U.S. Governmetn's Ultrawideband (UWB) Signal Characterization Project says:

Many claims have been made that UWB communication transmitters can effectively share spectrum with existing users. Some of these claims have not been independently verified.

We'll have to wait and see...

More on wide band networking

[Anonymous Coward]

My research group at Stanford has been experimenting with various modulation and encoding techniques for these types of future networks in an effort to minimize errors, and get as close to the Shannon limit as possible. Check out our site that describes some of our research and has pictures of various prototype "wide" equipment.

Wide band wireless networking

Skeptical but hopeful

[kenneth_martens]

As with any revolutionary new product/technology, I am skeptical--but I so much want to believe! I need bandwidth desparately. As a university student as an engineering/computer science school would think I would be blessed with lots and lots of bandwidth, but you'd be wrong. For 800+ on-campus students, half a dozen computer labs, and all the professors, we have just 2 T1 lines, one of which seems to work only sporadically. And I can't get cable or DSL in the residence halls.

So you can understand why people like me need easy access to high bandwidth. And if UWB lives up to the hype in the article (here's to hoping!) that might just solve my problem--my university can buy lots of UWB and let the students download and run web servers to their hearts content.

Alas, it will probably never come to pass. It's just too good to be true.

Re:Skeptical but hopeful

[El_Nofx]

This technology actually exists though, it has been proven to work, it has been around since the 60's. The guy who got it to work with cheap chips and software was featured in a wired article last year. He did it in his own back yard. All his collegues told him he was nuts

Man you are getting screwed at your campus. Mine has 10,000 students, over 700 computers, and a pipe so fat half the time my downloads are limited by ethernet, not the wan connection.

It will come to pass, this won't go the way of the 100mpg carpeaurator.

I Think I'm Missing Something

[Trillian_1138]

I have a question about wireless vs wired communications systems. I am admitadly next-to clueless about telecommunications in general, but I'd always thought it would be faster and cheaper to send data over physicals wires, period. How does it work that this technology (UWB) can send data faster and cheaper than physical lines?

I'm assuming there's some key point I'm missing, but I don't know what. (If I did, I presumably wouldn't be missing it any longer...)

-Trillian

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[Afrosheen]

Ever try to wire a house, a building, a metroplex? It's horribly expensive and fraught with licensing, deals with the city/builder, permits, yada yada.

With wireless, you throw up an antenna and a power source, and go on about your business.

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[grumling]

With wireless, you throw up an antenna and a power source, and go on about your business.

Umm, are you going to throw that antenna up with a sky hook? Last I read, antenna sites require real estate, zoning, schmoozing the planning commision, etc. Sure there are plenty of high places, but if you only have a KM worth of signal, you are going to need a lot of antennas to cover a town with any sort of realiability. Where are you going to put 'em? Power/telco poles? Are you ready to pay rent? How are you going to power 'em? Solar? Is the power company going to let you put solar cells on their poles?

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[Afrosheen]

True, but consider having to dig up streets all over a metroplex or through a downtown area. It's all relative, and overall, wireless is cheaper and easier to implement. Here in Dallas there are wireless radio retransmitters on almost every light post. Look carefully around your area, you may notice these little dudes also.

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[Kwil]

I'm no engineer, but what little reading on it I've done suggests it works like this:

Think about your normal physical line. It sends data in a sequential form.. first a 1, then a 0 , then a 1, then a 0 and so on. Now admitted, it does this ridiculously fast but it's still sequential. (This is a huge simplification, btw, but it's the general gist)

Now UWB is using a whole bunch of frequencies to send those ones and zeros, but each frequency carres a different bit. So the first frequency carries a 0, the second carries a 0, the third carries a 1, the fourth carries another 1, and so on. The trick is, it sends these all at the same time and it's up to the receiver to not only know exactly WHEN those frequencies will be carrying information to it, but put them together into the proper sequence of bits.

It's the difference between getting hit by a steady, narrow stream of water, and getting hit by a single tidal wave. They'll both get you wet, but one will do it a lot faster.

So that's the faster.

The cheaper is that a physical line requires a way to code and decode the information and.. well.. a physical line. Which means you have to pay for the line, you have to pay for running line through cities and into people's houses, you have to pay for when a bad weatherstorm comes and a tree busts the line, you have to pay licensing fees to lay all this line, etc.

UWB requires a more sophisticated coder and decoder, but since it doesn't require a line and microchips are so cheap these days, this comes out to be a much lower cost - especially if the FCC lets it go unregulated.

Now as to how it avoids interfering with each other, I really don't know, because if you have enough of these devices, you would think that sooner or later *some* of them in the same area will be sending at the same time.

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless can easily be cheaper (think less infrastructure) but it's not necessarily faster. You're probably comparing the bandwidth projections from the article to 100Mbps ethernet or even Gigabit Ethernet. But what does an OC-48 use -- some type of physical medium.

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Its cheaper because you don't need some hairy ape running around digging and drilling and laying wires.

It's faster only if its short distance- then you can get many megabits/second. Long distance you can too, but then you take up too much bandwidth over a wide area.

Even the UWB takes up bandwidth, but because it steals such a small amount from the existing fixed bands you can mostly get away with it; and the total power is very low, and any interference is only likely to be over a short distance anyway.

Re:I Think I'm Missing Something

[AnotherBlackHat]

You're not completely wrong - it is faster and cheaper to use wires than wireless, ignoring the cost of running the wires. Current "cheap" UWB claims 40-60Mbps, and is considerably more expensive than 100baseT (100Mbps) Ethernet. Gigabit UWB may happen in the future, but gigabit-over-wire exists today. The only reason people don't use it (much) is gigabit over fiber optic is cheaper still.

The key point you're missing is the cost of running the wires, which can be extremely high. I've seen estimates over $500,000 a mile in cities, and even in rural areas it's over $15,000 per mile. And that's ignoring state and local laws which can and do tax almost anything that makes money.

--- "He's making money and I'm not getting any" - far too many people.

More likely the FCC than GM

[archnerd]

Cringely asserts that the technology is likely to be bought out by big business, but it seems to me that this would be a boon to the communications companies. What high-tech company wouldn't love to get first dibs on superior technology? I think that if the technology is halted, the culprit is much more likely to be the FCC. Buerocracies like the FCC are unlikely to recognize the promise of anything new and aren't going to like the idea of it even marginally interfering with other devices.

UWB sounds like

[Ralph Malph Alpha]

the ultimate technology. I love it!

Bad news for the movie industry...

[Shade, The]

And they thought Divx ;) was going to be a problem...

UWB _IS_ spread spectrum

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a successor but a kind of spread sprectrum. There are other inaccuracies in the article: it's spectral power density is low, not it's power. It does not violate any information-theoretic rule (some people still don't seem to grasp the difference between a law of the state and the laws of nature :-). You still need good enough SNR. And the limitations to the number of multiple access are just the same as with concentrated spectrum transmission, except that you have "graceful degradation" of the QoS. In my country, BTW, UWB is permitted for military use only. Yes, it's hard to detect, but not impossible at all. Commercial UWB is explicitly outlawed. Not that I'm happy with this legislation, though...

Anyone else notice?

[The Cat]

That front page picture looks a little *too* much like David Letterman?

"You know Paul, that UWB technology, gizmo, thing, it's ultra low power, about a ten-thousandth as much as a cell phone.."

(waits as Paul nods and says "crazy" after adjusting the microphone, then turns to camera and raises one eyebrow)

Seti Etc.

[Alien54]

The biggest losers, though, would appear to be the radio astronomers. Just as the light pollution from street lamps made work harder for astronomers with optical telescopes, UWB will raise the noise threshold for the radio astronomers.

Not only that, but what if all of the Alien Civilizations are already using the equivalent of UWB for all of their interstellar communication? This is going to be really hard for SETI to deal with.

;-)

Re:Seti Etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if all the noise picked up on the soon-to-be-ubiquitous UWB receivers is a code from an alien civilation, when decoded, is an endless loop of Nelson from the Simpsons and his "HA HA!".

Re:Seti Etc.

[hashashin]

Honestly, I don't see UWB (as described in the article) as a huge threat to radio astronomers. With the limited range of UWB (hundreds of feet for a fast connection, 1km for a reliable one) and the tendency of astronomers to locate their observatories far from population centers, not to mention the parabolic dish antennae, I don't imagine that it will significantly influence their results.

Re:Seti Etc.

[andrews]

Just because the RANGE is 1km doesn't mean the RF stops there. RF keeps going and going subject only to the inverse square rule, or something absorbs it and converts it to heat (like your tv dinner in the microwave). That's why we still receive microwave radiation leftovers from the big bang today.

The "leftover" radiation from millions of devices could significantly raise the noise floor and cause problems for all operators, licensed or not.

The limitations of UWB?

[smbober]

UWB is true digital radio communication, a series of very short electrical pulses (billionths of a second) that exist not on any particular frequency, but on ALL frequencies simultaneously.

It seems to me that if this technology is to be usefull, I should be able to use it anywhere in the world. If I am to use this technology anywhere in the world, it would be fair to say that all of the transmitters of UWB would have to have the same same timeing scheme. That is to say that my UWB device would have to "KNOW" WHEN to accept packets that were destined for ME WHEREEVER I am (and WHENEVER I am) in the world. So, if technology only transmitts once every billiionth of a second, is there a chance that there won't be enough billionths of a seconds to go around for all of the demand for these UWB/extremely secure devices?

Sean

The thing that upsets me the most...

[Person 112375793]

is that UWB has been talked about for a while now. But all of the really amazing, useful technology is used and controlled by the U.S. military. UWB will only be available once the Powers That Be allow it to be. I don't know when that will be but I don't like the fact that the sector of our society that specializes in killing people gets to control the fate of the things that are really useful.

Re:The thing that upsets me the most...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I worked recently for one of the world's largest hosting firms, and one of the chief technical guys there already had UWB up and running as a 'garage project'. The technology is out there now, if you build it yourself. The only thing we're waiting for is to be able to buy it down your local store.

Incidentally, this guy had the range up to 16K at least, not the 1K in the article.

Security, not bandwidth

[kenneth_martens]

What's most appealing about UWB is not it's promise of high bandwidth, but it's promise of a secure wireless protocol. According to the article, "UWB is pretty much immune to eavesdropping, is equally immune to interference or jamming, and because its broad frequency range includes the ultra-low frequencies used to communicate with submerged submarines, UWB can be used easily in buildings and even underground." With all the problems with the inherently insecure 802.11b wireless protocol, UWB sounds mighty appealing based on security alone, and when you consider its greater bandwidth that makes it doublely attractive.

Better security and more bandwidth? It sounds too good to be true. (It also sounds expensive.) Here's to hoping it's for real.

Re:Security, not bandwidth

[hpa]

because its broad frequency range includes the ultra-low frequencies used to communicate with submerged submarines, UWB can be used easily in buildings and even underground.

Bullshit.

There is so little bandwidth in those low frequencies that you can hardly talk about "ultrawideband"! If it wasn't clear that he doesn't know what he was talking about beforehand, that statement should have made it clear.

"Ultrawideband" is really not anything other than a marketing name for direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS). It has been rebranded in no small part in order to attempt to get the FCC and similar regulatory agencies to allow it to be spread across already allocated radio bands (where they become part of the noise floor) rather than confined in between narrowband applications.

All of this really isn't anything particularly earth-shattering. The standard electromagnetic spectrum frequency domainis given by a Fourier transform of the electromagnetic wave using sine waves as base functions. Spread-spectrum technologies simply create a new "frequency domain" use a different set of base functions. They are resistant to interference or jamming only because most sources of interference or jamming operates in the standard frequency domain, not in the "alternate" one. 802.11b actually uses direct-sequence spread spectrum (spread across a fairly wide 2.4 GHz band officially used for industrial applications and microwave ovens) already -- the security added by DSSS is automatically removed by the fact that you can buy 802.11b-compatible waveform correlators for a few hundred dollars at any electronics store. Sorry guys, you still need encryption.

Re:Security, not bandwidth

[Danse]

Ok, so it's not secure and not necessarily high bandwidth. So what is it good for? What will the latency be like? As bad as satellite broadband service? Is it just gonna end up being a metro-GPS service?

Re:Security, not bandwidth

[WolfWithoutAClause]

It isn't just DSSS, I think the UWB bit may refer to picosecond pulses to maximise the bandwidth.

Re:Security, not bandwidth

[cats-paw]

"Ultrawideband" is really not anything other than a marketing name for direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS).

That is not true. It is a different communications scheme. You need to go read up.

DSSS works by mixing a wide bandwidth PN sequence with a low BW data stream.

UWB communicates by accurately positioning pulses in time.

Re:Security, not bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh...


With conventional sinewave technology, the bandwidth of the signal relative to the carrier frequency is very small at most a few percent using spread spectrum. However, it is possible to transmit and receive electromagnetic impulses which have a relative bandwidth approaching 100%. This "nonsinusoidal" radiation is currently being used for anti-stealth and ground-probing radar, under the more common heading of ultra-wideband or impulse radar.

You are confusing technologies.

Please refer to this website for more infomation, or even this article

Jammer

[Anonymous Coward]

In the electronic warfare community these devices are called "click-type jammers" Yes, they've been demonstrated to work against radars. With the current FCC power requirements, they'll also be able to break lock on some GPS recievers and probably be able to prevent many GPS recievers from aquiring a lock. Read the docs, people.

Re:Jammer

[Anonymous Coward]

EW jammers produced narrow band carriers, or wideband carriers (barrage jammers). UWB doesn't use normal RF carriers, but instead uses monocycles.

Leave Dubya out of this

[archnerd]

Maybe the FCC is causing some trouble, but Cringely's slap at GWB was a little below the belt. Yes, the FCC is in the executive branch which the president is the head of, but I seriously doubt GWB has any direct involvement in the matter. Cringely, if you can provide me with evidence that Bush is directly responsible for delaying approval, then I'll consider that in Nov 2004, but if you are unable to do so, that's pretty low of you.

Re:Leave Dubya out of this

[Dr. Spork]

He is an idiot, but perhaps you are right, he neither knows or cares one bit about frequency allocations. Still, he is the one who appoints the head of the FCC, and guess what: it's Colin Powell's son, an unellected pro-big-buisiness right-winger who thinks there's nothing finer than corporate welfare for the companies that bought off the administration (er--"purchased frequencies"). So this is not a low blow. In fact, this administration is the single biggest hinderance to any progress on the UWB. We should be looking to replace them with some people who might act in the interest of the public.

Time to change

[f00zbll]

As some one else mentioned, Time Domain is already selling/marketing their chipset. There still isn't a diffinitive answer on whether or not millions of UWB devices would cause problems for other devices. There still has be third party verification of broad deployment to really find out if it's practical. The military will most likely use it, since well they are above the laws of the FCC (well not really, but they sometimes act like it). I hope it pans out, since it would dramatically change the telco/cable world and force a drastic change.

Cybiko went belly up!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Cybiko?BTW how about working on making the distance longer, on the diffrent network bands. Only a couple of feet on 8002b. Bluetooth...NOT! Is it too much to ask for atleast a mile of range?

FCC to approve this next month

[plasticquart]

LA Times Story here

From the article:

"The Federal Communications Commission still is negotiating with opponents, but Bruce A. Franca, acting chief of the FCC's office of engineering, said he is hopeful that an accord can be reached and that the FCC will approve the technology next month."

will this really help last mile problems?

[Lelon]

1 km isn't very far. for sure farther than I am from my DSL provider. is this really going to help?

Re:will this really help last mile problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Sprint PCS phone works in most areas and has the same distance limitation as this technology.

School Glue GEL

[Graymalkin]

Ultra wide band communication isn't so damn fancy conceptually. The problem is is practically difficult. It works on the same principals as regular sized band radio transmission with the small difference of not splitting the band into channels. Channels are just time slots you set your transciever to listen to or send on which arej ust portions of a band. With UWB there's no channel designations so reception and transmission frequencies can be all over the specified band. It sounds like a good idea because there are not channels to occupy or share with others and your beeps all over a band can be construed as static rather than interference. A random beep in the middle of a frequency used for aviation radio isn't going to crash a plane as it is catagorized as static.

The problem with implimenting UWB is getting the electronics to move fast enough. In order for me to send lets say my voice over UWB I need electronics in my transmitter that can switch really quickly between enough frequencies in order to give me the aggregate bandwidth to send my voice signal. Easy you say modern CDMA cells phones already do that. Granted they make the most of their radio spectrum by splitting up data over the entire band but they are splitting up big chunks of data over a limited band. UWB transceivers will have to switch fast enough where a single radio blip might only be half a word or a quarter of a word and switch over a much higher range of frequencies.

In order to have a gigabit of bandwidth your transceiver would have to switch frequencies in excess of a billion times a second (not merely transmit at a billion hertz). It takes x electronic clock cycles to switch the electronics to switch frequencies you'd have to have electronics working at xgigahertz in order to send a gigabit of data. In a handheld unit? Not likely in the next couple years no matter how fast microprocessors get. Companies have just recently been able to build circuits that can switch at 10GHz it will still be a little while before actual logical circuits can be mass produced and run on batteries. Handheld devices are going to have the same amount of information throughput as they have now even if the radio band they work on is a good portion of the radio spectrum. There is alot of engineering left before UWB is really a viable solution to any problem but it is still a cool concept and I hope these problems get worked out sooner than later.

Re:School Glue GEL

[Anonymous Coward]

UWB boxes don't switch frequencies, but you're sort of on the right track. They simply use *very narrow* pulses, which in the frequency domain have an "ultra wide bandwidth". IIRC our friend Bob made mention of this.

Someone in a previous post also posited UWB is nothing more than remarketed spread spectrum. It's definitely not DSSS, but I'd say a distant cousin. UWB relates to DSSS only in that both achieve robustness and discourage detection by intentionally spreading the signal in the frequency domain. There are no separate spreading and payload modulations with UWB, though. UWB trades the functional complexity of a DSSS radio with more simple, but much higher precision parts, to achieve tight timing requirements.

According to a digital signals textbook I own, there are three main "flavors" of spread spectrum systems - frequency hoppers, direct sequence and time hoppers. I've never seen a commercial time hopper radio, but have read the US military at least experimented with them. UWB is time hopping (information transmitted in pulse timing - I believe also can be called pulse position modulation), combined with the use of picosecond or even femtosecond-range pulses. Very short pulses also allows for lots of pulses per second... hence the ability to potentially offer high data rates.

It's been about 3-4 years since I worked in the wireless field, but even then UWB was being actively talked about, tested, and Time Domain the company was doing demos. Typical signal bandwidths were on the order of 2-3 GHz, occupying spectrum between 1 and 4 GHz. The occupied bandwidth was determined by a bandpass filter and little else. And that's all one needs, since the rest of the radio is all done in timing of the pulses.

Another interesting technical challenge of UWB (which ties in with the preceding paragraph) is the antennas. Physically constructing antennas that present a good impedance match across a wide range of frequencies and have good phase/group delay characteristics, let alone be an efficient radiator is *tough*. This is a knotty engineering problem for any long range use of UWB technology. In that respect, I feel 1km range for UWB is not as practical as Mr. Cringley makes it sound. However, for very short range, inefficient antennas can be good enough, and that's where I believe we'll see the first applications.

It's closer than you think. The 10+ GHz Ethernet technologies now making their way into the mainstream will make the necessary technology a commodity. The engineering veep of a well-known wireless vendor once told me the (relatively) cheap 2.4 GHz stuff we now know and love was made possible by the mass production of PCS (1.9 GHz) parts, antennas, etc. - then adapted to 2.4.

Re:School Glue GEL

[Graymalkin]

You make a good point about antennas which I didn't mention but is very pertienent because not all antennas send or receiver well at all frequencies. The sky high expectations of UWB technologies providing gigabit upon gigabit of data throughput is a bit ridiculous when you figure in the actual physics of the system. UWB is most effective when you use predetermined bands but widen them considerably over conventional channel arrangement techniques. This limits the amount of interference a prevelance of these devices WOULD actually make. It would be rare for a handful of devices ever to send enough bit pulses to cause perceptable interference in electrical equipment but millions and millions of devices all doing the same thing will statistically cause enough interference on one band that narrowband equipment or electrical devices will register it and it will cause problems. Cringly also talks about antennas that need no tuning, millions of tiny antennas all broadcasting radio pulses with no concern for tuning out harmonics is a crappy idea.

As for 2.4GHz phones being made from 1.9GHz parts that is mostly due to the similar antenna and electrical requirements of transmitting on the two different bands. The phones are also operating under the same principals so they have the same bandwidth requirements whether they are transmitting on 2.4 or 1.9GHz. The digitalized voice signal needs a certain amount of throuput no matter what frequency it is eventually transmitted over. Adapting current technologies for UWB is a bit more difficult because it requires VERY high precision electronics in order to make the whole thing feasible. A PCS or GSM cell phone can miss out on a small chunk of data without the phone HCF. An UWB receiver needs to have pretty incredible reception and timing characteristics because the natual SN ratio is just enormously high. I think we're still several years away from marketable products using UWB.

Re:School Glue GEL

[BeBoxer]

I was going to mod the parent down, but I figured it is better to correct misinformation. You need to go read up on how UWB actually works. It absolutely does not require the transmitter to "switch frequencies". It does not attempt to transmit a little bit of information on lots of different frequencies. Rather, it transmits little bits of information on all frequencies at once. Doing this is not hard. Rather, it is trivial.

You see, in many ways UWB is just like the very first radio tranmissions. The first radios were "spark gap" transmitters, which basically generated RF by creating a little arc of electricity. Doing this creates a little burst of energy which is spread across most of the RF band. You can still hear this effect by trying to listen to AM radio during a lightning storm. Each lightning strike sends out a burst of RF which you can hear on any AM modulated radio. It wipes out all the AM stations, and I guarantee you that the lightning is not using any fancy electronics to "change frequencies". You don't notice the interference as much other radios, such as FM, because they use more advanced modulation techniques. So, the noise from lightning doesn't usually manage to turn into actual audible interference. But if you are listening to a weak signal and the lightning is close, it will still fade out when the noise from the lightning overpowers the signal from the radio station.

Back to UWB, the basic 'unit' of transmission is not unlike the signal generated by a spark gap transmitter or a lightning strike. In order to transmit a bit, the transmitter sends the wide-band pulse either a little bit early or a little bit later than expected. The receiver knowns exactly in time when the next pulse should show up. It has a bit of circuitry which can detect whether the pulse shows up early or late, and spit out a 1 or a 0 accordingly. If the pulse never shows up, nothing gets output. The circuits involved are actually fairly simply. Certainly simpler than a frequency-hopping radio which does work the way you described. Actually, I think you've gotten your wish for "these problems get worked out sooner than later." I say this because I think they have working hardware now. It's not on the market, but it would be if the FCC approval came thru.

Of course, the claims that UWB won't interfere with existing RF users, or with itself, is pretty close to BS. UWB definitely creates interference for other radios, it just a question of whether or not it's enough interference to be noticable. But it will definitely raise the noise level for pretty much every other RF band, so it's safe to assume that the potential of problems exists.

UWB will also interfere with itself. If you are the only user, your fine. But as soon as more than one person is using it, you are going to start finding out that pulses from other transmitters are showing up times which set your receivers correlator off erroniously. If a lot of people are using it in the same area, you are going to get more and more errored bits showing up at the receiver. These can be worked around by using error correcting codes at a higher layer, but it's still interference. Folks who think it can't be jammed are full of it too. One of the papers mentioned that the radios might have a duty cycle as low as 1% or less. If I build a radio that starts spitting pulses out at a 50% duty cycle or some such, I can probably get everyone elses receiver to go nuts trying to deal with all of my extraneous pulses. Maybe I'll need 100 radios running at 50% duty cycles, but it can be done.

As another poster mentioned, eavesdropping will still be quite possible for most applications. It might be hard to detect UWB if you know nothing a priori about the signal. But, anybody who is using it already has a receiver which knows everything it needs to know to pick up signals! It's just like 802.11. It might be hard to pick up a FHSS 802.11 radio if you know nothing about the signal. But if you go out and buy an 802.11 receiver for $100, you can pick up the signal just fine. To some extent this can be worked around by using cryptographically secure PRNG's to generate your timing signals. Then only folks who know the 'key' will be able to pick up the signal. But I can guarantee you that consumer UWB gear will not under any circumstances use secure PRNG's if for no other reason than it would make it a real pain in the ass to set the stuff up to work properly.

Re:School Glue GEL

[Graymalkin]

I probably do need to read a bit more on the UWB transmitters because I was under the impression they were just an extension of FHSS transmission systems. That's how I've seen it explained in several cases, this is the first time I've ever had someone relate UWB to spark-gaps. At least I was right about the BS being thrown about UWB being interference proof.

First /. Robert X. Cringely Investigation

[John Harrison]

After extensive research I have determined that Bob Cringely and David Letterman are in fact the same person.

So if /. does ever decide to get that much needed Cringely icon may I suggest this!

Lamars patent correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Lamars patent covered TDMA, spread spectrum and UWB are only variant specific implementations.

100 mile-per-gallon carburator

[Anonymous Coward]

Cringerly writes: "The 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor is supposed to be a gizmo that does exactly as its name suggests, only of course, we can't buy one. That's because the oil companies and the car companies and who knows what other companies are supposed to have bought-up the patents on the 100 mile-per-gallon carb specifically to make sure it never hits the market. "

I found a few patents on fuel efficient carburators, but I didn't find anything called "100-mile-per-gallon" carburator patent.

Hoax

[ruvreve]

UWB sounds so amazing it reminds of the /. story like two days ago about free energy spewing from a little shack in Ireland.

umm..

[poemofatic]

it's GW's cabinet. He appoints the people based (supposedly) on their philosophies, so he's responsible for them. You don't have to prove that. He 1) stands by their choices, or 2) overrules/fires them, or 3) is incompetent. You only need evidence to choose which of the three you believe.

This will be outlawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only telcom companies will be allowed to own or use it. The government won't allow individuals to use it since it threatens the profits of the telcos and allows regular folks the ability to run "evil servers." I mean wouldn't it just be a sin if there was something worthwhile rather than Mickey Mouse and all that other dull corporate bullshit?

Expect to see this banned in the name of "preventing terrorism."

History of UWB

[hex1848]

This link summarizes the history of UWB technology. Pretty neat stuff. Apparently they have been experimenting with various impulse based radio/radar signals since the early sixties.

Re:History of UWB

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend, THIS is history, and we are doomed to repeat it:

On MONDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Monday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

***
On TUESDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Tuesday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

***
On WEDNESDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Wednesday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

***
On THURSDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Thursday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

***
On FRIDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Friday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes. He continued well into the evening.

***
On SATURDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "I will repent and keep my pee sprout free from any fecal flecks."

Saturday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

***
On SUNDAY morning, Cmdr Taco said "Today is the Lord's day; I will repent and keep my pee sprout from any fecal flecks."

Sunday afternoon, he was putting his pee sprout into young boy's poop chutes.

Here in the south...

[Anonymous Coward]

We call this double-wide band... ;-)

UWB is not a problem

[SkewlD00d]

All you need is two+ antennas and you can use the phase to lock into a signal in a certain direction, even if some other signal steps all over a weak signal. That's what the F-16s use in a more complicated arrangement, to prevent GPS jamming.

Bah! TANSTAAFL.

[phliar]

This keeps coming up every so often.

UWB is ... a series of very short electrical pulses ... on ALL frequencies simultaneously.

UWB requires ultra-low power... [it is] a signal that can't be detected and doesn't interfere.

Here goes: Bullshit!

He (or whoever he got this story from) needs to read a little bit of signal processing. Yes, it sounds very nice, and you can build it, and it's all true... if there's only one such device. You see, what this does to other users of spectrum is raise the noise floor just a bit. No big deal.

But what happens if there's a whole bunch of these devices? Well, let's say you're an FCC licensed user of spectrum. You've been allocated a certain bandwidth. Your channel capacity depends on the bandwidth and the noise floor. If your noise floor goes up, your channel capacity goes down.

Where did that lost channel capacity go? It's being used by these "UWB" devices. As evil as the FCC is, we do need some arbiter of the EM spectrum.

TANSTAAFL, folks. Go read Shannon.

Cringely is an idiot.

Re:Bah! TANSTAAFL.

[Afrosheen]

And what better arbiter of the EM spectrum than this kook?

Re:Bah! TANSTAAFL.

[raving_cock]

He's right. CDMA transmits below thermal noise, and it still needs to have its own band. Maybe if they're low power and short range, they can work and be unlicensed, but forget it for any kind of power. You may be able to get signal out of low power over range with directional antennae, but you can't punch through or bounce off material. No cell phones or radios certainly. Also, don't forget, the broader the band you take signal from, the wider and faster a A/D converter you need, and that can eat power.

Re:Bah! TANSTAAFL.

[Anonymous Coward]

TANSTAAFL, folks. Go read Shannon.

No, you need to go read Shannon (and Costas and Karn)...

Would you rather have an increased noise floor?

Or all the available communications channels in your system occupied?

This is why we need to use and adapt spread spectrum technologies.

Re:Bah! TANSTAAFL.

[Vagary]

It may interefere with already allocated bandwidth, but that doesn't mean it won't be used. Whether the FCC likes UWB or not, there's no way to detect it because as you yourself say: it looks just like noise. They can prevent companies from using UWB, but it could be the free wireless networking that cyberpunk fans and anti-corporate protestors have been waiting for.

"We own the public airwaves." ~ Ralph Nader

How does this affect Bluetooth?

[chiph]

If UWB provides ultra-high speeds at fairly decent ranges (a few hundred feet), and the devices are going to be cheap enough for the Navy to attach one to every piece of goverment owned property, why would anyone want to use Bluetooth, with it's much shorter range and lower speed?

Your cellphone could then contact your PDA's address book from across the street. You could put a solar-powered camera on the back gate to announce visitors, or keep an eye on people in the alleyway behind your house. Replace the microchip under Fido's skin with one that allows you to track his movements up to 1km away, and stores more than just a hexadecimal ID number.

This opens up a lot more possibilities than just motion video on your cell phone.

Re:How does this affect Bluetooth?

[f00zbll]

Well assuming the FCC approves UWB, it will make bluetooth obsolete. All the issues related to 802.11b security isn't present in Time Domain's chipset from what I understand. UWB uses far lower power and time codes the data in picoseconds. Without knowledge of the timing, the data is total gibberish. Of course that's not to say UWB doesn't have security issues, just not the ones 802.11b has.

More UWB articles - Tech and Regulatory

[billstewart]

There's an article on UWB on Dave Farber's Interesting-People List, posted from The451.com with content from Janos Gereben and Dewayne Hendricks.

There's a longer article on Hendricks's work in This month's Wired, talking about UWB, unwiring Tonga, and using Indian Reservations to try out radio technology because their sovereign nation status may be a useful regulatory hack as well as because they need better communications on the rez.

Tired of being ripped off by cell phone companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this technology becomes wide-spread if for no other reason than you would have real competition for wireless communications. Anyone using any wireless service, cell phones ..., is being ripped off. Imagine being able to make a phone call to anyone via a UWB cell-phone, or access the internet, in any metropolotan area in the country for a monthy plan of $30 with UNLIMITED minutes. Included is long distance via voice of IP. I pay more than that for just my cell phone access fee.

My University has a 13.64MBps

[Anonymous Coward]

connection! For 24,000 students. The entire campus is wired 100mbit so that is the limiting factor here too (ou.edu). Actually our town (Norman, Oklahoma) is installing 802.11 for the entire town! ($50/month is the downside)

Spread spectrum, the actress and composer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spread spectrum, which was patented in 1942 by actress Hedy Lamar and composer George Antheil (I am not making this up)"

Pretty much proves that anyone really could patent inventions plucked from Britain after and during WW2... just goes to show ;)

"So what if I'm a janitor, I really invented the Jet Engine, god damn it"

'So how was your trip to England'

"Great, thanks"

Re:Spread spectrum, the actress and composer?

[alizard]

Pretty much proves that anyone really could patent inventions plucked from Britain after and during WW2... just goes to show ;)

"So what if I'm a janitor, I really invented the Jet Engine, god damn it"

'So how was your trip to England'

In your case, I'd suggest you invent a method for keeping your shoelaces tied so you won't excite laughter by falling on your face.

You have trouble with the idea that a beautiful woman might be smarter than an Anonymous Coward? I don't. Neither does the EFF. Finding the following at Google took less time than your whine took to type:

http://www.ncafe.com/chris/pat2/

Sample quote: "Note: Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil's invention of spread-spectrum has recently been awarded an EFF Pioneer award. (The nomination is here) This 'weblet' is a tribute to this interesting and significant technology and to the people who are using it."

NOT

[Lumpy]

Until they can demo it with the current "bandwidth limitless" carrier frequency called laser light it's nothing but hot air. Come on, point to point laser links are horribly slow compared to a fiber. It should be easy to do this with a laser as the technology already exists, they just have to add error correction and other fixes for natural distortion and interference. (Of which there is much less on a laser link than a RF path.)

Before they go screaming about what might be,they need to try making what we have work right.

more vaporware crap

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe this is why the big business-loving administration of George W. Bush is suddenly digging in its heels, delaying FCC approval of UWB."

YEAH THATS GOT TO BE IT! FUXING REPUBLICANS! Cuz you know during the 8 years with Clinton he was pushing this technology everyday. Its a wonder why it isn't out already!

the noise can be calculated

[cats-paw]

But that doesn't mean that it's not subject to a lot of political bullshit. Here ya go :

UWB : 1uW in 5GHz BW => 200E-18 W/Hz

US Digital Cell phone BW is 30kHz

total intercepted noise in a 30kHz BW : 6E-12W => -82dBm

Assume 40dB path loss from UWB device to cell device : -122 dBm. Which is generous, if the guy standing next to you is using a UWB device the path loss is more like -30dB.

Thermal noise floor kTB = 1.38E-23 x 300 x 30kHz
That's 124E-18 W => -129 dBm

So my cell phone sensitivity just lost 7dB which will cut the range by 1/2 and that's for 1 UWB device.

Guess what happens when there is 10 of them ?
Guess what happens if I need 10uW.

Brian

Re:the noise can be calculated

[guygee]

Ever hear of a "notch filter"?

Frequency Bandwidth and Information Bandwidth

[guygee]

I think several (highly modded) contributors to this discussion are confusing
the concepts of information bandwidth and frequency bandwidth. Ultra-wideband
refers to the bandwidth in the frequency domain, which is only indirectly
connected to the concept of information bandwidth, in that a wide band in
the frequency domain translates to narrow pulse in the time domain. Coding
techniques also strongly affect the ultimate information bandwidth of the
system. UWB is nothing like IEEE 802.11b,
which operates in the narrow 2.4 GHz - 2.483 GHz band.

I have been working on a project for US Army STRICOM,
in which we are using 8 UWB devices manufactured by
Time Domain Inc. to perform position location. These devices
operate at 1.9 GHz center frequency with a 2 GHz bandwidth,
which translates to a 500 ps pulsewidth.
We have a short conference paper on UWB simulation, accepted for presentation
to the 2002 IEEE Antenna and PropagationSociety Symposium,
which you can access
here. Speaking in general and rather simplistic terms, the information
bandwidth of such a system would depend of the time frame over which you
will allocate these 500 ps slots to listen for the transmission of 1 bit
of information. For example, if we choose a 5 ns time frame, then we
could theoretically obtain 200 Mb/s information bandwidth, while (ideally)
allowing for 10 channels of operation. Of course, the previous analysis
neglects the need for redundancy, and you may want to choose a time slot
over which to listen for a pulse different than the pulsewidth itself, but
I think the discussion gives one a good idea about how to relate information
bandwidth to frequency domain bandwidth in a simple communication system.

This will happen..and heres why

[rambot]

Even if they do try to ban it because it would turn all communications industrys upside down making there current infrastructure worth much less (or worthless in some cases). The fact remains, you can't stop technology. If development stops here, it picks right up in 5 other countries. I would be watching communications companies you own stock in very closely. Finger on the trigger for sure.

Re: Get a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

UWB refers to a stepped frequency or a
short-impulse signal NOT spread spectrum.

UWB is signals usually have a bandwidth of
no greater than 1.5GHz. Military hardware used
for radar jamming can cover frequency ranges
greater than 15GHz, so "jamming resistant" is
really a misnomer. The impulse type UWB
transmitters have a low probability of
interception due to short duty cycle, so it
does provide some protection against repeater
type jammers but that's it.

Established industries.

[Restil]

First of all, the scare that industries will vanish overnight due to newfangled technology is an unwarranted one. Granted, over time new technology will slowly replace older. Industries need to learn to adapt and grow. The market for horsedrawn carrages isn't what it used to be, but the introduction of the car wiped that industry out. But it didn't happen overnight. Even if cars are built that get 100 miles to the gallon, there will be a brief period of time when those cars cost more than the general variety. And not everybody is going to instantly trash their current cars and start buying up the new ones. The reduction in fuel requirements will be offset by the purchase of more vehicles now that people can afford it. It all works out. And if production is less, you lay off people. And natural resources last longer. Its all good.

Bandwidth is the same way. The dialup ISP will slowly go away, but "slowly" is the key word here. Business will adapt. And if they don't, they die. It happens. Tech related businesses are USED to going out of business. And the smart businesses will find a way to embrace the new technology before it destroys them. Then the next big thing will hit.

And there's always the possiblity that there are problems with the technology we aren't aware of when its more a theory than widespread in practice. Sounds cool to me. I can't wait to get 1gbps to my home! :)

-Restil

Re:Positioning - avalanche transceiver

[spd_rcr]

maybe it won't tell you where you are, but a ground penetrating low power radio avalanche transciever would be right @ the top of my list of mountaineering toys ! oh ya =)

Stealth of the technology will render it illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this technology be monitored/taxed by the FCC if it presents itself as only "noise"?

One could begin using the technology tomorrow and no one else would be the wiser(!) since the only manifestation would be a slight increase in background noise.

Also, how could the FBI and other agencies implement wiretapping were criminals or agents provocateurs to use such technology?

For all we know, this technology is already in use today!

My guess is that

1. the government will rule that use of the technology by other than government personnel is illegal,
2. knowing that it is undetectable, the Bad Guys will use it anyway!

No Free Lunch!

[Detritus]

Having a snazzy acronym does not repeal the laws of physics and communications engineering. There is no such thing as free bandwidth. Increase the data rate, the range decreases. Increase the power, the range increases and the noise floor goes up, degrading every other user's SNR.

UWB is the modern equivalent of the spark-gap transmitter, which was banned many years ago. It is like dumping your old motor oil in the city water reservoir. If a few people do it, nobody notices. If everyone does it, the reservoir becomes a toxic waste dump.

Not certain (I'm no engineer either), but...

[BlackGriffen]

I think that UWB devices don't interfere with each other because you would need two waves to hit at the same time and in the same place, right on the receiver, to actually notice the interference. Otherwise, the interference would be there, you just couldn't detect it from where you where. Because of the short duration (they sound almost like fourier approximations of dirac delta spikes), this coincidence is extremely unlikely. Even with thousands of devices on a single block, they probably wouldn't interfere with each-other any more often/severely than current noise.

The reason they wouldn't interfere with standard receivers, I think, is that the duration of the spike is so short that the signal will barely have time to propagate down the antenna (light travels about 1 foot every nanosecond, electricity travels slower, so the signal may barely reach the end of a 1 foot antenna). Even if a signal was passed on by the antenna, the receiver probably doesn't run at high enough frequency to notice (to notice a nanosecond pulse requires that the receiver can resolve that small of a time scale, i.e. it can operate around the GHz range).

All this makes me wonder how the signal is detected at all, even if the receiver knows when to look. I also have to wonder because of the pulses have nanosecond widths, the position of the device has a significant effect on wether it's timing is synced with the signal (i.e. since light travels about a foot in a nanosecond, a shift in the position will lead to a shift in the timing). Perhaps the device listens starts listening 2 nanoseconds early to 2 nanoseconds late, and broadcasts often enough so that it can adjust the timing?

Just some thoughts from a physics undergrad.

Worldwide Mobile Communications Device?

[martyb]

I sure hope we've learned from the incompatible mobile phone protocols that have developed over the years (GSM, CDMA, etc.). Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic given what I've read so far.

Though UWB sends its signal over "all frequencies", it depends on sending out the information at "certain times" (like an extremely fast clock, as best as I understand). It seems to me that if the USA comes up with a standard to clock that at one rate, and other countries at other rates, we'll end up with the same mess we have with current mobile phones.

Or are we likely, because the FCC is considering approving it as an unregulated use of the spectrum, to end up with each mobile phone manufacturing company coming up with its own variation and we'll end up with yet another variant on the old beta vs VHS battles?

What are the chances we can finally get a single world-wide standard that would allow a single mobile phone to work anyplace in the world?

Faster vs. Fast Enough, Far Enough, Interference

[billstewart]

As other people have said, if you've got the wire, using wire is cheaper, but running wires costs money. The big change with some of the newer wireless technologies is that they're starting to go fast enough and far enough to be useful. 10kbps connections are fast enough to run voice on, and paging, and sometimes email, but not something you'd run real computing over. Metricom's ~30-100kbps was better - but the tradeoffs of how many users fit in a given area, how far it goes, and how many microcells it needs didn't quite work for them. But 802.11b, at "11" Mbps, is really fast enough for many networking applications, and distance-limited enough that lots of people in a city can use it without overly stepping on each other's bandwidth needs - you can use it for typical office data applications and voice phones, though you'll still need a feed to the outside world that's usually wired. Inside an office building, run by the end users, it's a win; adapting it to be a public wide-area service is a different game economically, with different competition, and perhaps folks like BAWUG or Starbuck's Coffee will succeed. But those applications still require an upstream feed, and the cost of using a wired feed is enough that the economics are still dodgy for free service, and the market for paid service hasn't taken off quite fast enough. 802.11a, at 55Mpbs, is even more useful for office LANs; we'll see if it can provide upstream feeds for WANs.

What UWB technologies can offer is that they increase the number of users and amount of bandwidth that can operate in the same space without interfering with each other, and they also have sufficiently entertaining options for directional data and longer distances that it might be possible to build a meshed distribution network that's got enough horsepower to be self-sustaining without lots of wired access points. That not only makes it more viable for wireless users to access services on each others' machines, but also to get better economies of scale sharing upstream bandwidth - N users on a 45Mps T3 connection get much more effective capacity than N/28 users on a 1.544Mbps T1 connection, plus you save the costs of running lots of small connections to lots of individual cells (the access costs for a T3 are typically about 10 times the access costs for a T1, and you get 28 times the bandwidth, plus you also have more users who'll be sending data to each other instead of to the outside world.)

More information on the subject:

[John_McKee]

Here are a few more articles on the subject that IMHO are a bit more substantive:

From BusinessWeek

From M Commerce Times

Some Information on its Problems:

A brief primer from the Ultra Wideband Working Group

And a very in depth look at the history of UWB

-john

Re:More information on the subject:

[cheezehead]

Somebody mod the parent up, please. If this is not informative, I don't know what is.

Again who cares about the FCC, USA != EARTH

[cb0y]

Like GSM for mobiles in 80% of the markets outside usa, the FCC position means nothing, its the rest of the planet that will REIGN RULL and define futures. Europe + Asia + Russia and Pacific will define the use of technology since combined they have 10x more people/customers that matter.

Remember in the 20th century USA mattered, in the 21st it is just a blip on the radar and means SFA.

Imagine 300m europeans, + 200million rich indians, + 200m rich chineese + 200m misc in other countries... that whipes out any marketing muscle USA has.

Theres a tiddle wave comming and its gona give a big wake up call to USA.

UWB Should Get Green Light Immediately

[dh003i]

UWB not getting the green light is a reflection of corporate and political corruption, and big-money politicians protecting their big-money business buddies. And its not just republican's and GWB who are in on it. Big business has influence on both major parties, major influence. Personally, I think GWB's gotten an unfair rap in this Enron thing, b/c the Execs called him up asking him to bail out the company, and he did nothing: how's that favoratism?

But anyways, back to UWB. There's no reason to stop the release of this technology -- it could be very useful. Forget about...no, fuck all those companies and industries who would lose big because of it. They're obsolete. Survival of the fittest. No one gave a shit when electricity put the whalers out of business, why should we care if ISP's, communications, and TV companies get shut out?

If we are to be an enlightened society -- worthy of the superiority we claim we have over despotic socities -- new technology cannot be held back because it challenges old and obsolete regimes, beliefs, or companies. No, we can't stop the inevitable wave of gene therapy, genetic engineering, and cloning because it "makes religious nutcases worried about playing god, or messing with nature" or because some people think "its not right". No, we can't stop P2P, MP3-Player, Encoding, or UWB technologies because they make old industries or companies (i.e., Time Warner, Verizon, RIAA) obsolete. No, we can't prevent strong encryption technologies because it hinders the US Govt's ability to spy on its own people.

Not only should UWB be given the green-light by the FCC, but it should be totally unregulated...as radio waves should have *remained* unregulated. With UWB, there's no justification for regulation, because one signal cannot interfere with others. Even with radiowaves, it isn't necessary. Anyone could be allowed to use frequencies, and no jibberish or noise would result. You simply use a LAN-type system. As people want to use the radiowaves, they're dynamically assigned a random frequency. If two people make a request the same frequency at the same time, an error message is sent to each of their transmitting device, and each device resends the request after a random time interval.

But this technology does face strong opposition (though it also has strong support, such as IBM). We need to fight that opposition. Indeed, there's a long history of powerful companies buying out potentially challenging technologies, or stiffling their release, or FUD. MS does it all the time. AT&T consistently bought patent-rights to superior phone-system/infrastructure designs so it wouldn't have to redesign. The Music industry simply buys out companies that produce file-sharing technologies.

These are all acts which, though facilitated by having a large monopoly, do not require it. Any *large* corporation can engage in them. This is a different kind of abuse and unfair competition -- as well as unfair to consumers -- which should be prohibited. It is buying patents for the express purposes of stiffling innovation/progress, and not having to upgrade. Or engaging in public lobbying to get a threatening technology banned (i.e., w/ the FCC). This should be banned, and treated just as seriously as monopolies.

Lawrencce Lessig has a nice discussion of this in "The Future of Ideas" as does Brian Martin in "Information Liberation", both of which I'm sure you've all already read.

Time Domain Invented UWB

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Domain invented UWB, holds numerous patents on the technology, but what they have is not absolutely exclusive as MultiSpectral and others have shown by duplicating the capability using slightly different approaches. Time Domain has been trying to get this past the FCC for the last 20 years.

Re:Time Domain Invented UWB

[noad]

some dude from the 70's invented UWB. Not any modern day company.

UWB.ORG is a front for Time Domain, Inc.

[Animats]

UWB.ORG claims to be an organization of companies that want the FCC to approve ultrawideband transmission. But when we look in the WHOIS database, we get:

Registrant:

• Time Domain Corp (UWB2-DOM)
• 
  7057 Old Madison Pike
  Huntsville, AL 35806
  US

  Domain Name: UWB.ORG
  

I thought that hype looked familiar.

General Note on Implementation of Superior Tech.

[dh003i]

The US is generally lazy and stubborn about implementing new, superior technologies.

This is partially due to corporate interests, as discussed in my previous post; partly due to lazyness, which seems to be an American tradition; partly due to stupidity, another American tradition; and partly due to irrational fear of the unknown, a good American tradition going back to the burning of innocent women as witches at the stake.

Typical examples:

1. The metric system. Vastly superior to inches and miles, as any scientist will tell you.

2. Military time. Again, superior to civillian time. No confusion with AM or PM. You can even say 13-o'clock.

3. Metric (n-base-10) time. Time is currently measured in increments of 60 about seconds...then, when below 1s, its metric, measured in nano, micro, and pico-seconds. All time should be metric. Time should be metric. Seconds should be glopped into units of 100, as should hours. Not for purposes of telling time by the watch, but for purposes of telling how much time has elapsed, time should be measured in metric (decimal). 100 seconds in a "big-minute" for example, or 100 minutes in a "big-hour". This makes calculations easier. For example, if someone says to me, "I'll meet you in one hour and 23 minutes"... what does that mean? How many minutes? I have to add it up: 60 + 23 = 83 minutes. But if someone says to me "I'll meet you in .83 'big-hours' or 83 'big minutes' ", I know exactly how many minutes, and seconds (83 * 100 = 8300).

4. 220V outlets. High-voltage outlets are much more efficient. In Germany, my father says, they were the standard 60+ years ago in Germany, during the war. How is it that us asshole Americans are that far behind? No excuse for such incompetence. 220V outlets are more electrically efficient, and allow for thinner wires, which may increase "bandwidth" and also reduces material costs. Indeed, even higher voltage outlets -- such as 440 -- may be better, allowing for even thinner wires, and more efficiency. Of course, its more dangerous if you touch it -- just consider it another way to weed out the stupid. Additionally, for old 110V devices, adapters could be made, so no one would be left behind. Eventually, people would replace old equipments, and everyone would be higher voltage. You hear democrats whining so much about energy efficiency? Ever hear any of those genuises mention this possiblity? No, of course not -- that would actually be an intelligent practical suggestion. But can politicians come up with practical long-term solutions? No. The solution to the energy problem is either the democrat's impractical and impossible "walk instead of driving" (like that'll happen) or the republican's short-term fix, "drill in Alaska". Admittedly, in my mind -- given, I don't care much about the environment -- the republican solution should be implemented as a short-term fix. But a long-term solution -- such as efficient solar cells or nuclear fusion -- should be implemented. Even fission's fine with me, so long as appropriate safety precautions against a nuclear disaster are taken. Don't know what to do with the nuclear waste? Save it, and put it on a rocket ship -- send it on a path of direct intercept with the sun. There's a solution for all our trash problems. Save up trash for 10 years, then make one big trip to the sun -- its like a giant garbage disposer. Pssst, environmental wacko's, sending a little bit of nuclear waste, pollution, and trash into the sun isn't going to alter anything...nothing man can do can mess up the sun.

5. Switching from Windows to superior OS's like the Linux family, *BSD, BeOS, Amiga QNX, Hurd, etc.

6. The temperature scale. Fahrenheit? Fahrenheit was based of of human body temperature as a reference point. Temperature is a measure of motion. Fahrenheit can be negative, and that makes no sense, as there's no such thing as negative motion. Though Celsuis was based off of the boiling point of water, its no different in effect -- negative temperatures don't make sense. Kelvin's are the only logical and really meaningful unit of temperature. Big deal, people would have to learn what room temperature is in Kelvin. Just remember this, 25C is room temp, and Kelvin is Celsius + 273. Thus, 298K is room-temp in Kelvin.

You have questions, we have answers

[Animats]

I have questions though:

• Can an enthusiast make one of these "impossibly cheap" devices?
  Yes, but not "impossibly cheaply". The "really cheap" part assumes custom ICs have been developed and produced in large quantities. The parts cost of the radio in a cell phone is about $10. So there's no big price breakthrough here.
• Are as the article suggests these devices really going to take off within the next year or will they be suppressed as the article suggests other technologies will be.
  Probably not. It's not that great a technology. Ordinary spread spectrum systems have most of the same advantages, without blithering all over the RF spectrum.
• Is it really that resistant to interference?
  Only if the receiver is really good. It's tough to build an untuned receiver that won't saturate when there's some big signal in the neighborhood. Unclear how well Time Domain has actually done in that area.
• Will it interfere with traditional radio signals?
  If the power is high enough, or there are enough of the things, yes. The FCC is very worried about this, with reason. Spread spectrum is only allowed in bands that don't have anything important, but UWB will overlap important stuff.
• Does anyone have experience to say whether this stuff is really as good as it proclaims to be?
  It can't live up to Cringley's hype; that's physically impossible. It might lead to better wireless LANs.

This isn't really a technical breakthrough at all. It's more of a political gimmick to take spectrum away from incumbents who are underutilizing it. For example, you could probably run spread-spectrum cellular telephony on top of existing UHF TV stations, and nobody would notice. There's be a little more snow on screen, that's all. But the broadcasters scream if somebody suggests something like that. This is an end run around that political objection.

Implications for Seti?

[douglips]

In other words, with UWB you have to know exactly WHEN to listen in order to hear. This makes UWB very secure ... UWB is pretty much immune to eavesdropping...

Assuming this story is remotely correct, and if this is the wave of the future, then do we have any hope of detecting extraterrestrial signals? If ETs are as intelligent as us, they would have discovered UWB. And then, seti@home will be unable to detect these signals.

the UWB landgrab

[markj02]

There is only so much bandwidth to go around. You can allocate it one way or another. We have chosen to allocate it by frequency channels. That's simple and low-tech.

UWB doesn't give you any unused spectrum, it just degrades that the spectrum there is uniformly for everybody else. In small amounts, that may not be a problem, but in big amounts it is. Think of it like trash: the occasional piece of paper on the street isn't a problem, but if everybody dumps their garbage on the sidewalk, it's a big problem.

If UWB were ever widely deployed, you can think of it as generating noise kind of like one billion light switches turned on and off many times per second. It's best to put a stop to that before it starts. Or, if we are going to throw out frequency based allocation, let's do it consciously (and let's wait for the UWB patents to run out before we do it).

Re:the UWB landgrab

[ssyreeni]

On the other hand, overlaying multiple different modulation methods on the same frequency bands can lead to better aggregate utilization of the total bandwidth. I'm not sure this couldn't happen when we have overlap narrowband (frequency localized) and UWB (time-localized) signals. Conventional CDMA on top of that is probably cutting it a bit close, though.

Re:the UWB landgrab

[markj02]

overlaying multiple different modulation methods on the same frequency bands can lead to better aggregate utilization of the total bandwidth.

Only if the individual modulation methods aren't using their allocated bandwidth optimally. Of course, for historical and practical reasons, they don't. But the same technology that makes UWB feasible also allows more efficient utilization of spectrum within our current allocation system.

Trying to use UWB on top of the existing allocations in order to achieve better overall utilization seems like saying "we'll just park this car in your front yard--you aren't using the space for anything important anyway".

Deadborn. Let me explain why.

[Thor Ablestar]

Because the CDMA (UWB is CDMA) signals are not orthogonal. If you use the traditional radio you use the filters that ideally don't let other channels pass in, and really suppress them as well as needed.

But for the CDMA it's not true. The signals are not ortogonal. Other channels appear to be like a noise, and the only method I know to make them fully ortogonal is the one that is used in CDMA cellular phone - use of special code sequences that produce really terrible spectrum with a lot of narrow peaks.

Then, the fundamental power laws come into existence. To transmit a bit you need some energy to be received, and this energy cannot be decreased. If you spread the energy over the spectrum, the spectral density will be decreased but the energy itself will not. You needed 600 mW for AMPS and you still need it for CDMA.

Then, for instance, if you transmit 1 mbit/s over 1 MHz channel to 1 kilometer, you will need about 10 dB over the noise (Or less, if your coding scheme is really good). If you spread the signal over 1 GHz, the s/n at receive end will be about -20 dB and your receiver will be able to recover it. But on 100 m from the transmitter the s/n will be 0 dB - quite an interference for anything using any part of the 1-GHz band. In 10 meters it will be 20 dB and nobody will be able to use the band at all. So the CDMA towers command the phones to adjust the power levels in less than 1 dB increments to keep them equal. It cannot be done in usual conditions.

Limitations of UWB

[XNormal]

Ultrawideband cannot be used to communicate from your car.

A pulse width of 1 nanosecond translates to about 1 foot. A car travels many times that distance in a second. In a free space environment such as ground-to-air communication it is possible to compensate for this, but in a typical urban environment with many reflections it is probably impractical to track so many different propagation paths that chance so rapidly.

Narrowband communication is less susceptible to this problem. Multiple paths that differ by less than one bit time do not affect the receiver too much (although they have a certain probability of fading).

The processing gain of UWB is very high, but not infinite. A cellular phone transmitting too close to a UWB receiver *will* jam it. Combining the two in a single device is probably not practical. Filtering this frequency range will not help either: the notch filter may look OK in the frequency domain but in the time domain it creates too much ringing for UWB to work correctly.

This one happens to be correct

[XNormal]

There are other inaccuracies in the article: it's spectral power density is low, not it's power.

There are many errors in the article, but this one is not entirely incorrect: in practice, USB does use lower power than narrowband. UWB is not suceptible to fading so it does not need the large fading margin required by narrowband radio.

With narrowband communication the SNR fluctuates widely because of Raleigh fading - different reflection paths interfering either constructively or destructively. You need a large fading margin (extra power) to ensure robust communication.

With ultrawideband (i.e. bandwidth approaching center frequency) there is no Raleigh fading and the signal power does not fluctuate so much, even in environments with severe multipath reflections. This translates to as much as 20db savings of real transmission power.

UWB antennas

[XNormal]

The antennas have to be specially designed for broadband. They may be larger than practical for handheld phones, but fractal antennas may reduce the size.

Not any wideband antenna is good for UWB. UWB uses time-hopping modulation. This requires a very short antenna ringing time. The antennas cannot be large and they cannot be complex. The UWB antennas I have seen look ridiculously simple - a short piece of wire or a square of metal. That does not mean that they are simple to design!

Fractal antennas may be good *wideband* antennas but they are probably bad for time-hopping.

Almost free lunch

[XNormal]

Yes, Cringely doesn't understand 99% of the technology he writes about. That does not make the technology bullshit.

UWB is real. It's as close as it gets to a free lunch, and Claude need not turn in his grave.

you can build it, and it's all true... if there's only one such device

Not correct. UWB devices share the spectrum just fine. In fact, it's a far superior way to share the spectrum than narrowband frequency allocations.

The problems start when different devices use very different power levels: GPS uses extremely low levels, TV stations use very high levels and almost anything is at very high levels if you are close enough to the transmitter.

Spectrum sharing by frequency allocation provides very good separation between bands that use widely differing power levels. It's not too difficult to build filters that reject out-of-band interference by 100db or more. With ultrawideband, the rejection of unwanted signals cannot exceed 40-50db. UWB will work very well if all narrowband communications below 1GHz are shut down. Since that will never happen it will probably remain limited to very low power levels and certain niche applications.

Here's what might happen if all narrowband transmissions *are* shut down:

UWB cells for "last 10 miles" delivery, combined with long range fiber and satellite infrastructure could bring 100kbps to almost any person on earch and 10mbits/second to anyone living in a city. The terminals will use very little power and can have long battery life. Location tracking with 20 centimeter accuracy will be available anywhere in a city, including indoors.

How is all this possible with just 1GHz of bandwidth? The utilization efficiency of spectrum should not be measured in bps/Hz but rather in bps/Hz/square Km. Today's cellular infrastructure uses a very crude form of frequency reuse to optimize this capacity. IS-96 CDMA barely begins to utilize the real advantages of spread spectrum with a bandwidth of 1.25MHz. With 1GHz of spread spectrum things start to look different. And it's not just the bandwidth: 1GHz at a center frequency of 15GHz can only be use for line-of-sight communication. If the 1GHz band has a center frequency of 700MHz it has much better propagation and is immune to fading.

Of course, this will never happen. But not because it is mathematically or technologically impossible.

Re:Almost free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Ghz bandwidth centered at 700 Mhz...Hmmm

Re:Almost free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

200MHz to 1200MHz is 1GHz centered at 700MHz. Duh.

Well

[autopr0n]

He certanly seems taken with the technology. It would certanly be cool if this technology did free us of all our technological woes, but given that I'm not really a radio engineer, I'll remain skeptical untill it happens :)

Anyway, it would certanly be cool if it were true, but I do have trouble beliving that even if it were the FCC would let all that bandwidth go for free, I mean, I bet even if UWB does end up in wide use, it'll still be controlled by the same local monopolies that controll bandwidth now...

Huh?

[autopr0n]

How can you own a frequency?

I mean, if UWB really can deliver on it's potential, then why the hell should we stime it just so people who have invested in outdated technology can profit? That's moronic. Look, I mean if you own land and the government wants to put down a highway or a railroad, then they will. They just have to pay you for it.

The idea that we should hold back a huge technological advance on account of some moronic idea that people can 'own' mathimatical descriptions of b-feild flux is incredibly stupid.

UWB de-mystified

[icarumba]

For a discussion of UWB from a technology company that has been active in the field for over 13 years, check out these links:

UWB Frequently Asked Questions

History of UWB technology [from perspectives of 4 experts in field]

Various papers and presentations on UWB technology

Multispectral Solutions' submissions to FCC UWB proceeding

This has been discussed before

[Zarhan]

There already has been many well moderated comments about how this is really nothing except a new spread-spectrum concept.

I'll just add that it has been discussed before and even then we came to a conclusion that this is full of hot air. Only thing this article added was to the fact is that Cringley is a moron and doesn't know squat of what he is talking about. "It only raises the noise floor, it's not bad". Yeah. Right.

Hrm?

[autopr0n]

According to the artical, the military is already using UWB. I don't know why they would care, I don't see why UWB would cause problems for SS, and anyway, I'm sure the military would be using good digital encryption for anything important now.

700 computers?

[autopr0n]

That number seems a bit off. 700 for 10,000 users?

"Funny" Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

To the moderator the modded this as funny - Good one. What you don't
know is that I'll take those points anyway I can get them ;-)

Seriously, it is not time to talk about jitter coding and edge detection
when you have a discussion containing such blatent misunderstanding of the
technology as evidenced by the following statements:

Modded 5: "There is so little bandwidth in those low frequencies that you
can hardly talk about "ultrawideband"! If it wasn't clear that he doesn't
know what he was talking about beforehand, that statement should have made
it clear. "

Modded 4: "In order to have a gigabit of bandwidth your transceiver would
have to switch frequencies in excess of a billion times a second (not merely
transmit at a billion hertz). It takes x electronic clock cycles to
switch the electronics to switch frequencies you'd have to have electronics
working at xgigahertz in order to send a gigabit of data.

Modded 3: "So my cell phone sensitivity just lost 7dB which will cut the
range by 1/2 and that's for 1 UWB device".

Modded 3: " If UWB were ever widely deployed, you can think of it as generating
noise kind of like one billion light switches turned on and off many times
per second."

Can never access pbs.org, am I alone here?

[fire-eyes]

I can never get anything from the entire pbs.org domain to come up, for the past few months. Not even so much as any sort of icmp error messages from anywhere.

Am I alone here?

No Free OS

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the argument that an OS can't be all that good if its free... "You get what you pay for". Why not take a wait and see approach. If it really does cause all these problems, it won't be used. Give it a chance. The best solution (it appears) is to switch EVERYTHING to UWB, but still allow the dedicated spectrum for legacy devices.

Re:No Free OS

[Detritus]

) take a wait and see approach.

Because the electromagnetic spectrum is already polluted by unintentional radiators, due to lax regulation by the FCC. These devices don't go away until they break or are replaced, which may be decades.

The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource. There are ways of using it more efficiently. There is no magic wand that will create more spectrum. That means that somebody, such as the FCC, has to allocate it to the competing uses and demands.

Some of the hype behind UWB is the modern equivalent of perpetual motion, a promise to provide something for nothing.

Good Technology, but Long Way to Go

[GroundBounce]

I have had some exposure to companies working on UWB. There are currently two primary markets being targeted by UWB: position and tracking (including through-wall radars used by the military and law enforcement), and communications.

So far, the primary focus seems to have been on the position and tracking side. Primarily, this is because with out FCC approval, the only markets that could be targeted for an actual product are markets where it is possible to get a waiver - military and law enforcement are two such areas.

The current crop of chips that these systems are built on are very expensive and power-hungry. Because of the sub-nanosecond nature of the pulses, fairly exotic and relatively expensive technologies are required to both generate the pulses (which must not only be fast, but also properly shaped so they don't contain too much energy in certain areas of the spectrum), and to receive them.

In terms of communication capabilities, the current technology is not anywhere near the information bandwidth vs. range quoted in the article

Next generation chipsets will both increase performance and reduce power and cost, but these chips are still in the early planning stages. I wouldn't expect too many cheap, mainstream products in 18 months - it will probably take longer than that.

The technology clearly differentiates itself in the position and tracking area, with accuracies that are difficult or impossible to achieve with narrowband technolgies. The communications market, however, is extremely cost sensitive, and the road is littered with cases where the best technology didn't necessarily win, for a large number of reasons.

The companies championing UWB, such as Time Domain, are working hard to make both the technoloy and FCC approval a reality, and over time UWB will probably find significant markets, although it may not completely change the face of the earth overnight.

Time Domain dubious I'm afraid

[horza]

Last time I looked at Time Domain and did a little background reading I became *very* skeptical of them. I later spoke to someone high up in the Radio Agency (the people who approve/disapprove the use of radio spectrum in the UK) and he told me he had investigated them and hell would freeze over before they were allowed to operate over here. I think it will be an interesting proof of concept for the forseeable future.

Phillip.

What about shannon?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so shannons law says that:

C=W log (1+S/N)

(log is base 2)

where C is channel capacity in bits per second
W is bandwidth in Hertz and S/N is the signal to noise ratio.

These guys make W huge but are still limited by the signal to noise ratio. Conventional signals are narrow band and therefore won't give a wide band time correlated receiver too much trouble ? So what happens when everyone has one of these things, the noise floor on all frequencies goes higher and gradual escalation of power output begins in order to get the same performance you had way back in 2005?

I wouldn't mind seeing an antenna that radiates efficiently on all frequencies tho ;)

Just for curiosity....

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your country?

Fuck the US

[Dr. Spork]

From the bit of web research I've done on this, the FCC will block UWB--at least as long as there is a Republican administration in power. Their line is "we need to do more research (and we're prepared to repeat this line ad infinitum)." Well, tough shit for North America.

I have faith, however, that Europe, India, China, Korea, Brazil and other civilized countries will switch to UWB, and thumb their noses at us US-Americans. Well, we deserve it. Still, it's depressing, and makes me wish I lived somewhere else.

Inverse Square Law

[GroundBounce]

The raising of the noise floor for narrowband users (and other UWB users for that matter) is a concern, but I think the effect has been overestimated a bit. It is true that many UWB transmitters in a close area will measurably degrade the noise floor for other radios operating in that local area, but the RF energy falls off as at least 1/r^2, and in UWB it is very small to begin with (the UWB emissions actually meet part 15 specs for unintentional emissions).

Once you are very far at all from a group of UWB transmitters, their ourtput will not affect the noise floor beyond what would otherwise be the current noise floor to any measurable amount. In this sense, it's not quite as bad as the trash analogy. If UWB is used for short range indoor comm applications (e.g., in-home video distribution and networking), any increase in the noise floor caused by the equipment in one house would be nonexistent four or five housed down the street.

In other words, for short range UWB applications, the local noise floor will only be affected by those UWB transmitters within a certain relatively short distance, not by all the UWB transmitters in the country.

God Bless America

[icarumba]

Luckily, you don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to buy jerks like you a one way ticket to whatever country you want.

Keep an eye on the FCC meeting agenda for February (check this site on 7 February, one week before the Commissioner's scheduled meeting for the 14th: http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/agendameetings.html)

You can watch the meeting live on the net.

God bless America.

Re:God Bless America

[Dr. Spork]

Well, I'll take the ticket, but I won't stay unless you can also get me a work permit there. I'd be happy to let this ship sink with fools like you on board (while I surf the net on UWB in a country that at least makes an effort to be a democracy).

Re:General Note on Implementation of Superior Tech

[wierdo]

I really shouldn't feed the trolls, especially this late in the life of a story, but I feel that a point by point response is in order.

1. The metric system. Vastly superior to inches and miles, as any scientist will tell you.

I agree, in a qualified way. For general use, the metric system provides no inherent advantages. For scientific use, the metric system provides lots of advantages, ease in calculation being the main selling point. But if I'm giving directions to an old timer who doesn't know a kilometer from a hole in his head, saying "Go down the road about a mile and a half, and make a right" works quite well. The key is to simply have a passable knowledge of both, or at least have the conversions memorized. It would be good for the US to switch, but it doesn't make us some society of morons. I'm sure other parts of the world have their own morons that think in metric rather than imperial measures.

2. Military time. Again, superior to civillian time. No confusion with AM or PM. You can even say 13-o'clock.

What is the point to changing to a system that has no advantages. Most Americans (and others throughout the world) are capable of understanding military time, but nobody uses it, since there's no real point. You can say "I'll meet you at 2PM or I'll meet you at 14 o'clock" Makes no difference. I've never once not been somewhere on time due to an am/pm misunderstanding.

4. 220V outlets. High-voltage outlets are much more efficient. In Germany, my father says, they were the standard 60+ years ago in Germany, during the war. How is it that us asshole Americans are that far behind? No excuse for such incompetence. 220V outlets are more electrically efficient, and allow for thinner wires...

You're right, there is no excuse for incompetence. You appear to be making all the reaches you possibly can to condemn Americans as "backward and stupid." Thinner wires and higher voltage is exactly what you want...if you want to start a fire. Besides, every single one of us can get 240v out of the wires in our homes. In addition to being more dangerous, the cost of the change outweighs any benefits you will see. There are billions of electrical devices in this country that run on 110, and the energy savings are negligible, since it's all at much higher voltages until it gets to the pole top (or underground) transformer that brings it down to 110. In large buildings 440 and higher voltages are commonly used for the feed into the building, which is then converted to 110 to run the office equipment, while still leaving the 440 to run the elevators and other equipment. It's all about using the right tool for the job.

5. Switching from Windows to superior OS's like the Linux family, *BSD, BeOS, Amiga QNX, Hurd, etc.

And you think elsewhere in the world people are switching in droves?

6. The temperature scale. Fahrenheit? Fahrenheit was based of of human body temperature as a reference point. Temperature is a measure of motion. Fahrenheit can be negative, and that makes no sense, as there's no such thing as negative motion.

See the arguments for #1, with the additional point that Fahrenheit is a shitty scale, but it works just fine for reference, just as "fooglebloxes" would if everyone knew what they were. I guess that's why most anywhere you see temperature measurements you see xxF/xxC. Both side by side, what could be a better solution?

After responding, now I know you were trolling.

-Nathan