Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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."
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.)
>I hardly think the "property" argument jibes with the "public interest, convenience and necessity" traditional mandate of FCC regulation.
/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!).
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
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*
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.