An Introduction To Wireless USB (WUSB)

An anonymous reader writes "This technical whitepaper by Rafael Kolic, a technology marketing manager in Intel's Corporate Technology Group, introduces Wireless USB (WUSB) and explains how it will impact device performance and mobility. The latest iteration of USB technology, WUSB will offer the same functionality as standard wired USB devices -- but without the cabling."

Comments

Doesn't this already exist?

[JayDiggity]

Ummm.. don't we already have something for that called Bluetooth? Hrm.

From the Bluetooth SIG Mission Statement:
Develop, publish and promote the preferred short-range wireless specification for connecting mobile products...

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[afidel]

No, Bluetooth is much smarter because it doesn't require a PC. Bluetooth is peer-to-peer whereas USB is a stupid bus for connecting devices to a PC.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[eraser.cpp]

Adoption of bluetooth technology has been very slow though. And since this would most likely see implementation on motherboards it is very likely to be bluetooth's successor if it actually ever enters production.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth is a low power, relatively low speed, low range wireless personal network. It's not meant to transfer large blocks of data.

Unfortunately Bluetooth arose in an age where it was already outdated, as our devices quickly became too powerful for this dismal standard.

I'm really excited about wireless USB, especially if cheap solutions allow us to convert wired to wireless. I work in a high tech classroom with digital smartboards and a stereoscopic wall, and one of the problems we're having is connecting devices (such as cameras and microphones for video conferencing) from the classroom back to the computer closet behind everything. The normal cables just don't reach, so we have to either use a series of repeaters, or USB to ethernet converters, both of which are nontrivial in price.

Of course if they could develop cheaper wifi chips, everything could just have an 802.11x interface and you could network any devices, so maybe what we'll see is a happy medium between bluetooth and wifi.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[the melon]

I gusee you could say USB(2) is to firewire what WUSB is to Bluetooth. (W)USB are host-based where firewire and bluetooth are host independant.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[Crypto Gnome]

Develop, publish and promote the preferred short-range wireless specification for connecting mobile products.

And if you read this "introduction" it's CLEARLY positioning WUSB for things like in-the-home high-capacity connectivity for devices where you're rather not have wires (eg HomeTheater, they specifically talk about bandwidth consumption of HDTV streams etc).

Very muchly *not* what BlueTooth is aimed at.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[MBCook]

If you read the posted article, it will allow limited host capability which would allow you to do things like print pictures straight from your cellphone to your printer without having to have a computer involved. This is a good thing too, because bluetooth allows the same thing, so to not include it would be quite stupid.

Also, this is designed to compete in a different space. While it can do the things that Bluetooth does, it's also designed to be used by hard drives and other devices that require MUCH more bandwidth than is available with Bluetooth. Maybe when it's updated, but right now you just couldn't use it for a hard drive or to connect your 5MP digital camera.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[khuber]

What's wrong with wires? They're simple, cheap, and reliable. Not only that, but they tend to have better performance.

I can understand a bluetooth iPod or other mobile device, but for electronics equipment that sits in your house, wires work better. For example, I don't see why people put up with crappy 10-55 Mb/s Wifi when standard cabling is so cheap! Likewise, why do you want wireless HDTV for home theater? It seems to offer little benefit for stationary equipment. I think it has more to do with conspicuous consumption (oh look at how hip I am with the tech!) than practical benefits.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[ergo98]

For example, I don't see why people put up with crappy 10-55 Mb/s Wifi when standard cabling is so cheap!

Wireless is freedom, and it doesn't require you to snake wires through your walls (which is a major bitch in most cases if you want to do it right -- i.e. not running it through an air return and then hanging the wire around your baseboards). The few times I've really had the need for 100Mbps (versus the 36Mbps I'm currently getting over 802.11g, up on the second floor with the WAP in the basement), I'll bring the laptop to the basement and plug-in, but otherwise this whole wireless thing is fabulous.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[CowboyNick]

Well, you are talking about a distance of a few feet for your headset. Your net2phone connection has to go through encoding to TCP/IP and transmission through miles of cable.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[Enry]

Hey look kids, Rob Enderle showed up.

It comes down to what you need.

802.11* is a high speed standard for replacing much of the Ethernet wiring. Great for mobile devices that have good sized batteries (i.e. laptops).

Bluetooth went the other direction. Instead of focusing on speed, why not power? Bluetooth has a much lower power requirement, and at ~760kbps makes a great way for cell phones (which are currently in the ~128kbps range) to talk to small, low power devices (like a palm or WinCE or Zaurus).

I recently had the choice of PDAs to get one with bluetooth or 802.11. I took the bluetooth and so far have not had any regrets about it. Of course, my laptop has both 802.11 and bluetooth in it.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't have said it better.

It's been said again and again, but I'll do it again for fun if nothing else: if you need a very high speed connection, plug the damn thing in.

Here's the design philosophy for wireless communications, and for all things, really:

1: Make it cheap
2: Make it fast
3: Make it so it dosen't suck energy like a muscle car sucks gas.

Chose two.

It will hold true always. There will always be a solution that, while not the fastest, accompolishs most things that one could wish to do with it, be more cost effective, and use less energy.

Guess what? Bluetooth is that solution.

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[fyonn]

actually, I think that the adoption of bluetooth has been pretty quick and fairly widespread. I'm in the UK and a large percentage of mobile phones come with bluetooth already and most of the ones due out soon include it. most of the current crop of pda's either have bluetooth on board or can be upgraded via a card to support it. you can buy countless BT headsets and hands free kits for your car and many laptops have it onboard.

thats pretty much bluetooth's market sewn up. while it's true that most desktop's don't come with BT as standard, some do and it's only a 17 usb dongle away. I got a dlink BT dongle for my mac and it works like a charm to speak to my siemens mobile phone, I just wish the prices of BT memory sticks for my clie weren't so outrageous.

sure it's not overly fast but it is easy and convenient and works. I thought it was doing pretty well.

dave

PS. saying that, has anyone else seen a bit of incompartibility between apple's bluetooth stack and a siemens mobile phone? I can sync over BT fine but sending txt's via it is problematical. it says everything is fine but alot of the time the txt's don't get sent. anyone else?

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[fyonn]

thats a bit of an unfair comparison. wires are cheap, very cheap, it's just that most places mark up wires to a huge amount to try and make up for the cheap pc's they sell. as as for radio chips, they might even be cheaper than that, but not to you, to someone buying 5000 of the damn things.

dave

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bluetooth is much smarter because it doesn't require a PC."

Smarter in the sense of "the best networks are dumb, and innovation happens at the edges"?

Let's have a protocol that's as easy to solder to a PCB as RS232 is with no licensing requirements, a spec that fits on 2 pages of A4, and controller chips that you can buy in Maplin. Then we might get somewhere with this wireless idea...

Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[BiggyP]

but if the article's claim is true this is far far smarter than Bluetooth

"WUSB will offer the same functionality as standard wired USB devices -- but without the cabling"

does that mean that i can still have small devices draw power from the bus? wireless power transmision sounds good to me ;)

Netcraft confirms, WUSB is dying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now that Bluetooth is dead, it's good that WUSB will come out soon. That way Netcraft can confirm that WUSB is dying.

They have to do something all day there...

"...without the cabling."

[John Hasler]

Or the security.

Re:"...without the cabling."

[Ferretski]

...or the power

Re:"...without the cabling."

[MBCook]

This is what I'm worried about. Let's take the home theater example. While it would be nice to have my DVD player talk to my reciever, they are both powered independantly. But what about connecting to my speakers using WUSB? Do I have to keep batteries in my speakers now? Will each speaker have a seperate power cord? Wouldn't EITHER of those be a large pain?

To go back to computing space, there are lots of little USB devices that get power from the bus, and I wouldn't want to have to add batteries to everything. My GBA Flash Cart programmer get's its power from USB. What about USB->serial/parallel converters for when I want to use some of my older stuff? While this would be handy for hard drives and other things that often need seperate power anyways, this could be a pain in other circumstances.

Re:"...without the cabling."

[gabebear]

These things are going to eat several times more power than a Bluetooth radio. The article says: "The power target for WUSB radio will be introduced at less than 300 mW and drive to a target of 100 mW over time."

That's the same as lower power 802.11 cards

Bluetooth chips generally eat less than 40mW, some as little as 20mW. I wouldn't put WUSB in a cell-phone.

Re:"...without the cabling."

[toasted_calamari]

Just use stick a largish tesla coil in the room, it'll power everything- wirelessly.

Oh, and make sure to get big speakers to drown out the racket

And make sure your sofa doesn't have any metal in it.

And keep a fire extinguisher handy.

But aside from that, i'm sure home tesla coils will be a revolutionary addition to the wireless house.

Re:"...without the cabling."

[TummyX]

An even cooler idea would be to run both 12VDC and 240VAC throughout the house. A lot of devices people run now days run on low voltage DC. Think battery chargers, computers, LED lighting, routers, flat screen TVs, clocks, radios etc etc. I reckon I run more DC devices than AC ones and I have tens of inefficient AC-DC power supplies to prove it.

Neat

[__aavhli5779]

So soon after the "Bluetooth is Dying" article we get this.

Methinks a conspiracy!

In all honesty, this looks like quite nice tech though I can imagine some of the implementation will be a real pill. Problems like how to manage roaming a device from one cluster to the next will surely require some ingenuity, especially given that backwards compatibility with classic USB devices is a goal (though I presume that those will only be adjuncts to the cluster, sitting at a wirelesswired bridge).

Bluetooth has fulfilled quite well the idea of a truly ad-hoc network among devices, but I assume that will be a much more difficult thing to achieve with WUSB, making some, I'm sure, doubt the point of the project. I think the idea of devices beaming data around to each other at 480 mbits answers that one quite nicely. I look forward to this*

*linux and OS X support for this; until then, I ain't touchin' it :)

Re:Neat

[Have Blue]

Actually, the previous article was really "Bluetooth is dying because WUSB will kill it", so it's not so much a conspiracy as just a glut of news surrounding Intel's announcement.

What about range?

[Limburgher]

Will this have longer range than Bluetooth? If so, it will fly, especially if some sort of OS-transparent USB-WUSB adapter is available. If not, I doubt there's much sure for it. What about security? Will it be encrypted at all? Last thing I need is to be using a WUSB mouse on a plane and having some kid three rows back taking over and h4x0r1n6 my b0x3n.

Re:What about range?

[arazor]

Boxen??? What are you doing with multiple computers on a commercial airline let alone how did you get past security.

Re:What about range?

[Limburgher]

I wear an extremely large coat.

Re:What about range?

[iminplaya]

Last thing I need is to be using a WUSB mouse on a plane and having some kid three rows back taking over and h4x0r1n6 my b0x3n.

I'm pretty sure the kid will be occupied h4x0r1n6 the plane's autopilot. So while the ride might get pretty wild, your computer will be safe. :-)

Power

[Ween]

I really enjoy being able to power most of my devices over USB and not having to have an extra plug and/or wallwart to deal with. I for one would much rather keep wired usb and forgo the power adapter, than wireless usb and have to deal with yet another plug to have to find power for. I know most of you probably are already running fire hazards as it is now.

Re:Power

[Jafafa Hots]

what you mean it doesn't beam the energy to the device? :( rats.

Re:Power

[Crypto Gnome]

Ah the joy of being narrow-minded. I've already got MY needs met, screw the rest of you.

Read the article, it (for example) talks about using WUSB to connect your HomeTheater setup to your PC for streaming HDTV. Personally I'd prefer to keep my PC in one room and my HT setup in another (for acoustics if nothing else) in which case I'd much rather not have to run cables between the two.

Clearly they're positioning this for the in home digital network. Digital Convergence While you *can* sortof achieve these things with WiFi and IP Streaming, the bottom line is that neither WiFi nor IP Addresses are trivial enough for Grandma to connect hreself.

They envision a world where everyone has a computer (for internet and email) and they want to provide "consumer level" (ie plug it in and it just works) connectivity to it for "just about any computing device in the home".

PLUS this spec talks about device-to-device (USB doesn't do this now?) so think along the lines of Digital Camera-to-Television for viewing Photos (or even videos).

A high-bandwidth plug-and-play connectivity spec without wires opens up a Whole World of opportunity. Suddenly your computer in the study becomes a back-end server to the entire home, display on my HomeTheater Widescreen TV, stream HDTV from my computer (recorded from my DTV STB), pull up photos from my camera onto the TV, pick one and then email it to someone. and none of these devices are wired to each other. When I have guests around, all they see is "a normal living room" big TV, nice speakers and a digital camera on the coffee table. A complete lack of messy wires everywhere (without having to wire everything into the walls - which is generally not an option if you're renting). And the best thing (from a business perspective) is that if you have enough 'tech skills' to drive AOL then you can have a digitally-converged household like this (ie just about anyone is a potential customer, the only limit is disposable income - and we're taoking 'consumer level' here, so it's not big bux).

Wireless keyboard loggers, anyone?

[G4from128k]

I can only hope and pray that wireless USB will be very very secure. The thought of someone with a nice high-gain cantenna and a datalogger is none to comforting.

I can also see all many nasty opportunities for system flakyness when a computer gets intermitt-tt-ttant contacts with other wireless USB devices and tries to establish a connection.

Re:Wireless keyboard loggers, anyone?

[kfg]

There are far worse things than spies.

They call them "Divorce Lawyers."

KFG

Re:Wireless keyboard loggers, anyone?

[Doomdark]

This seems bit obvious, but what's so wrong about actual end-points (devices) handling security (encryption, authentication) ABOVE transport layer, end to end, using a standard protocol. Why is everyone assuming there can be no security if the low-level protocol itself doesn't bolt-in everything needed? I mean, TCP/IP doesn't do encryption either. That's why (non-stupid/ignorant) people use ssh instead of classic telnet, and can get decent security against loggers, sniffers, men-in-middle etc.

Of course if so, protocol designers should just define that at lowest protocol level such features are out of scope.. that is, to indicate they had done conscious decision, not that they were ignorant of obvious needs for actual appliances.

Re:Wireless keyboard loggers, anyone?

[Monkeybaister]

How long did it take to convert people from insecure telnet to ssh? There are even systems still that do not have encryption imposed that some twit I have to deal with doesn't see any reason for setting it up. The main problem is that if policy is not dictated people will be lazy. It's easier to not have encryption in the protocol and make devices that don't use encryption, or maybe they do encrypt but it's useless (WEP), or maybe they then require drivers to support it (so no Linux support or some such nonsense).

I know not to run services that don't use encryption over the internet or over wireless, but remember that there are lots of stupid people out there.

Will die like bluetooth

[mnmn]

One of the biggest advantages of USB is the power that flows through it. I just plug in my mouse, webcam etc and no bulky adapters required. Theyve also been around since the days of the Pentium1, and you can be sure a USB drive will work many places.

Now wireless.... you'll need batteries or adapters, wont work just everywhere and you'll have to pay motherboard makers to build it in.

Not too many people need short-range wireless interfaces outside of the 802.11a/b/g, which is different

Re:Bluetooth

[Liselle]

why do we need multiple standards that perform the same function?

Why do we need more than one OS? More than one web browser? Why do we need more than one video card manufacturer? They both do the same thing, right? If my rhetorical questions aren't enough answer, here it is: competition makes for good products, as companies are forced to compete for consumer dollars. This is obvious, though.

Wireless power

[Fragmented_Datagram]

And now if we could just develop wireless power for all these wireless devices... other than batteries, of course. ;-)

Uh...this could be

[iminplaya]

a problem.

Why USB?

[Anonymous Coward]

because USA failed

Obvious

[linux_warp]

"WUSB will offer the same functionality as standard wired USB devices -- but without the cabling" - I moderate this line redunant - I mean really, if it had cables, then it wouldn't be wireless

Basic Specs from the Article:

[G4from128k]

Speed? 480 Mbps (USB 2.0 equivalent)
Security? unknown (better be good)
Power requirements?100-300 mW
Range? 10 meters
Cost? unknown
Number of Devices? 127

Highlights

[the JoshMeister]

Here are some highlights for those too lazy to skim the article (or in case it gets Slashdotted)...

• The Wireless USB Promoter Group consists of (of course) Intel and MS, as well as HP, NEC, Philips Semiconductors, Samsung Electronics, and Agere Systems
• WUSB hosts can connect to as many as 127 WUSB devices at a time
• Targeted bandwidth of 480 Mbps (same as USB 2.0)
• The biggest selling point seems to be that it "will offer the same functionality as standard wired USB devices but without the cabling"

Re:How does this excel existing standards?

[Crypto Gnome]

(sigh) RTFA duude!

• target 480Mbps (ie USB2) expect to hit 1Gbps at some point
• Looks like they're spec'ing minimal "basic security" for the connection itself, as they go on to say "Higher levels of security involving encryption should be implemented at the application level", implying that encryption will not be part of the WUSB spec itself.
• "For example, typical PDAs use 250-400 mW without a radio connection, while typical cellular phones use 200 mW-300 mW with the primary WAN radio. Adding a WUSB radio should not increase power requirements any more than existing wireless technologies already employed today. "
• "connectivity at less than 10 meters"
• Cost is a result of production, not (necessarily) something you can just spec in the design. Although they do say "Low-cost implementation of WUSB will also be important to the successful integration of the technology. Implementation will follow the wired USB connectivity models as closely as possible to reduce development time and to preserve the low-cost, easy-to-use model, which has become pervasive in the PC industry. "

Re:So...

[LostCluster]

which one will the FPS gamer want?

Bluetooth mouse, WUSB mouse, or standard wireless mouse??

They'll want a standard wired mouse, thank you very much. All others risk downtime for battery changes. :)

Re:Ok...

[reidconti]

Wait a second. Has anybody figured out why we need batteries for our wireless keyboards and mice? Is it a conspiracy? I mean, seriously. You can't convince me that wireless mice -- which use all of 1 AA battery that lasts for, well, months I imagine.. couldn't be powered by some kind of capacity setup and a wheel that generated power from the mouse ball. Of course, this is different with optical mice, but there's no reason there couldn't be some kind of ball for generating power, and then optical sensors for the tracking, so as to avoid the traditional problem with conventional mice where the pickups get dirty..

And keyboards? Give me a break! Don't tell me there isn't enough energy coming from my typing, to transmit that information to my computer...

Has anybody worked on this?

I want my patent.

- reid

No, no no...

[commodoresloat]

Bluetooth is dead, remember?

Re:Bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many at Best Buy, However at UPS (as in United Parcel Service) they recently bought scanners using Bluetooth to connect a base station attached to workers by a belt, with a scanner strapped to their hands. The result is soemthing very Sci-Fi'ish and actually quite useful (you can walk the scanner portion long distances away from the base portion and it will still function as intended -- using bluetooth)

I'm certain other large firms have things like this using bluetooth. While I have no personal use for bluetooth, and prefer wired devices anyhow, there are undoubtedly many companies using it to solve tricky issues.
Though since bluetooth is dead I guess nobody will be using it anymore.

What about wireless Firewire?

[Ada95]

Should it be called Firewireless or just Fire?

Re:How does this excel existing standards?

[Monkelectric]

200 mW-300 mW

Is it just me or is anyone else in a perpetual state of battery hell? I'm looking at the devices on my desk right now that I use throught my day -- PDA, Graphing Calculator, Cell Phone, Digital Camera, and two MP3 players (one solid state for jogging, one HD based one for trips).

Between all these things I'm drowning in power transformers, docking stations, and battery chargers! I feel like a fleet manager, its practically a full time job making sure everything has power.

This isn't about bluetooth..

[beldraen]

It doesn't make sense to "kill" bluetooth. The standard is there, although broken in some respects. Plenty of devices have started to use it. For it's purpose of low power use and simple connectivity, it has things going for it. Bluetooth's only real issue has been cost. When I can buy a bluetooth card for $220 or a lan card for $99, which do you think someone will invest in? However, consider the issue of the exploding WAN market. Everyone's battling over who makes 801.11b, g, and whatever new variant that comes along (dual channel, etc.) The single greatest problem with WAN is that you've got the idea of connectivity, but not the bandwidth or the standard for device connection for high bitrate media. I can buy a Wi-Fi DVD/Dixv/MP3 player, but I have to have the company's specific software to use it and I have to have the local network configured correctly. What would happen if you started with USB and added in your own wireless spec? You start with a device model that everyone has already agreed on and can instantly support plug-and-play device detection. They can by-pass the politics of getting an agreed upon standard networking protocal since it is not trying to tie into ethernet. They can just create a virtual networking device driver and route it over USB and we have 480 Mb wireless networking. Intel could easily become the dead center of media-centric, wireless conectivity.

Re:Bluetooth

[Christ-on-a-bike]

(Open) standards are nice because they promote competition. For example, we have many competing email programs because email is a vendor-neutral standard and anyone can write to it. BTW the same goes for the web (HTTP, HTML) and graphics cards (AGP, VESA, OpenGL, DirectX).

Competition between standards makes a lot less sense. With Betamax vs. VHS a lot of people, consumers and manufacturers, wasted a lot of time investing in and supporting the wrong one. (DVD writing is a similar, which was saved in part by the shared form factor). This could easily happen here, though I personally think Bluetooth and WUSB are very different (different topologies, for one thing).

You do have a point though. Some protocols/standards are just better, and there should be competition between groups to get their standard accepted. But this should happen before large-scale adoption of one or the other, to minimise 'damage' to the early adopters. At the moment it looks like Intel is jumping the gun, because its standard is not ratified by the IEEE (the relevant standards agency). Better for everyone if an open standard is agreed by everyone before devices are put on the shelf. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.

Is Intel going to do this with everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they just going to tack some new capability onto USB every time there's a superior competing technology?

USB was fine for what it was originally designed for. Then Intel had to juice it up a little bit to try to convince people it was better than FireWire. Now they've got Bluetooth in their sights.

I would much rather have several different technologies that each do one or two things exceptionally well, rather than one technology that's trying to be all things to all people.

Microsoft is trying to shoehorn Windows into everything, and look what we've got to show for it: PDAs that need more horsepower than a workstation from five years ago had, BMWs that develop a mind of their own, an albatross of a game console, etc...

It's like Intel is slapping a wig and fake tits on some big, burly truck driver and trying to convice people it's just as good or better than a real woman.

Re:Loses main advantages of USB

[|<amikaze]

Doesn't this lose the main advantages of USB: Devices drawing power from the bus, and high speed? Give me Bluetooth over this anyday.

These, of course, being things that Bluetooth brings to the table...

WUSB does actually bring high speed with it, whereas Bluetooth, as far as I know, is relatively low speed. WUSB's target is 480MBit, which is pretty fast for wireless.

And I'd like to hear your suggestions for getting wireless power.

Re:Ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone (Toshiba? Micron?) was working on a power-generating notebook keyboard a couple of years back. I'm not sure if it ever resulted in a product. Each key had a little coil that generated a tiny current over its travel. It wasn't supposed to be enough to actually power the computer, just lengthen battery life, but might be enough for a wireless Bluetooth keyboard. Depending on the type of work, and the typist I suppose. ;)

For the mouse, your best bet would probably be a flywheel or gyro type arrangement similar to a self-winding watch. Kind of like one of those cool gyro-sensing mice in reverse.

There are other sources of energy available, of course, like heat from human hands, ambient light, etc. Anyone can come up with something that barely works for a patent application; making it cheap enough to be ubiquitous is the tricky bit.

Power Requirements

[Featureless]

Let me summarize why Bluetooth is not dead, and wireless USB is not really a competitor for bluetooth:

Wireless USB Power requirements: 300 mw ("with a target of 100 over time")
Bluetooth power requirements: 100 mW, 2.5 mW, 1 mW (the last two are class 2 and 3, the variants widely used.)

Frankly, wireless USB sounds less interesting to me. Well, it's a threat to Wifi, from the sound of it. It's really, really fast and power hungry. It sounds primarily for unwiring our desk-bound, non-mobile computer peripherals from the computer. But then we will have to plug them all into the wall instead. So there are a few that had power anyway and now we've cut the number of cables from 2 to 1 - OK. But quite a few the only cable was USB (and that was providing power) anyway. It wouldn't be a viable solution for things like wireless mouses and keyboards, for instance. And I don't think I'd want that instead of bluetooth for the PDA/phone or PDA/computer link.

There are a lot of applications where very low power (1 mw!) is much more important than bandwidth.

No! Re:Doesn't this already exist?

[samjam]

RS232 is simple as you say although the spec is bigger than two pages.

The Bluetooth specs include shared access to a noisy medium, so theres a lot of pages to the specification just to get that working. Want to see how many pages of specs relating to the various networks there are? Including the actual media, the signal as well as the bottom layer protocols?

Bluetooth also includes a lot of bluetooth profiles. This are roughly equivalent to the HTTP, SMTP, IMAP etc specs as used for internet services. You want to see how many of those can fit on two pages?

The only reason bluetoth has innovation happening at the edges is because the in-between is the ether.

You want something as simple as 2 pages and a bit of soldering? How about morse code and AM modulation, cos thats all you'll get.

Sam