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?

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Unfortunately Bluetooth arose in an age where it was already outdated, as our devices quickly became too powerful for this dismal standard.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

[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?

[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...

"...without the cabling."

[John Hasler]

Or the security.

Re:"...without the cabling."

[Ferretski]

...or the power

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.

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.

Uh...this could be

[iminplaya]

a problem.

Why USB?

[Anonymous Coward]

because USA failed

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: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

What about wireless Firewire?

[Ada95]

Should it be called Firewireless or just Fire?