Intel Takes UWB Standard to ECMA

judgecorp writes "The Intel-backed WiMedia group, unable to get its UWB proposal approved as an IEEE standard, has got it published as a standard, by the ECMA group. ECMA has less of a history in network standards, and is more swayed by commercial issues, say critics." From the article: "ECMA, whose members are manufacturers, has published two standards, ECMA-368 and 369, based directly on the WiMedia UWB proposals. These had previously reached stalemate in the IEEE, where they were blocked by rival proposals from Motorola-backed Freescale in a debate that lasted for years. ECMA, by contrast, approved WiMedia unanimously, in about three months."

Comments

Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

This is an interesting article, and one that shows how multiple standards committees are actually better for consumers than just one.

Intel wasn't able to convince the IEEE to accept their proposal for a standard. The ECMA accepted the standard, but opinions exist (and I agree with them) that the ECMA is more a corporate-shill than a standards committee.

How will this help consumers? By having the IEEE refuse the standard, other manufacturers aren't going to jump on the standard as it isn't widely accepted. Intel is one of the most powerful corporations in the world, yet a standards committee is preventing them from releasing a product that won't help consumers (which could include businesses of course). This will keep the manufacturers returning to the drawing board to try to find a way to convince the IEEE. Yet the ECMA has accepted the product, which means Intel will release it and attempt to gain consumer attention, which could create a de facto standard without IEEE acceptance. Consumer need/desire is met through not just competition between manufacturers but competition between standards committees as well.

I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.

As for the UWB idea, it seems that there are numerous competitive technologies, which is part of IEEE's reasoning for refusing the standard. This lets the consumers decide which standard will win out through market forces. Motorola's Freescale doesn't seem any better or worse than Intel's UWB, so I'm sure I'll see both in action in my customer base. The IEEE version may end up being a combination of both technologies.

This is the free market in action, and this is why technology tends to grow in leaps and bounds, whereas heavily regulated markets take years to wade through the red tape, spending billions in the process.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[otavo]

FDA is a governing body...and while they have issues, it is always a BAD thing when things like this happen. I find when looking at say Certified Organic, by different bodies, it does not instill confidence in the product if there are multiple certification houses.

It takes time to research what the policies of each committee is and then decide if they are pro consumer or just waiting for corporate welfare.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

takes time to research what the policies of each committee is and then decide if they are pro consumer or just waiting for corporate welfare.

And this is a Good Thing. An educated consumer is the only wise consumer. All you need to do is become educated to which committee body is working in YOUR interest, and buy those products (primarily). When we only have one committee, we don't really know in who's interest that body is working in. I'm hoping you see that the FDA doesn't really work in the citizens' interest (especially with recent discoveries as to what drug companies have done that the FDA was too bureaucratic to discover).

Multiple certification houses give everyone the ability to find certifications that mean the most to them. My other half eats mostly organic foods, and she knows which organic stamps are good (for her) and which are just industry logos meaning nothing. Without these multiple certifiers out there, she'd have to research each and every ITEM she buys, not just look for the logo.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[MichaelSmith]

I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug.

...and if you are too poor or stupid to reliably consult a good doctor you just go with the product which "seems to be ok".

Drug marketing is such a huge business that there needs to be solid Government oversight of the products they release.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

...and if you are too poor or stupid to reliably consult a good doctor you just go with the product which "seems to be ok".

Drug marketing is such a huge business that there needs to be solid Government oversight of the products they release.

I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health. These items could emit dangerous wavelengths, have explosion potential and can even electrocute the user if designed improperly. Yet we don't have government oversight of the items we use every day. Just like Target won't sell a UL-listed lamp, your doctor/pharmacist wouldn't sell you a drug that hasn't been certified by a trustworthy organization.

I can go to Chinatown and buy a non-UL listed hairdryer, but I won't. I believe you should be able to get uncertified medications as well, you just have to make that decision yourself. The more decisions that government makes for us, the less choice and control we have over our decision making.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[J. Random Luser]

This is an interesting article, and one that shows how multiple standards committees are actually better for consumers than just one.

Indeed, so long as a consensus results in a useful standard that all can comply with. But there are more than one problem here:

• TFA says WiMedia hope the IEEE will back off UWB standard setting
• ECMA has rubberstamped one company's technology, to the possible exclusion of other worthy efforts
• ECMA's fast track to ISO means international standards may mandate technology protected by US patent law

A similar argument is raging over Microsoft's attempt to use ECMA to steamroller its Office document formats over the OASIS ODF. There's a difference between a free market where I am free to buy off the legislators, and a free and open market where all are free to compete to openly agreed standards.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Skippy_kangaroo]

I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health.

The reason they are less dangerous is because of the FDA - could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market. Don't worry about fatal side-effects, they were approved by the industry body! Sure...

And, just FYI, we do have government oversight of every item you can buy. It is the wonderful world of consumer protection legislation and health and safety standards. You can not sell anything that is harmful - particularly to children. There are regular stories in Australia around Christmas time of kids toys imported from China that are taken off the shelves because they are a choking hazard or whatever. Same thing happens in the US.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

- could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market.

Yes, I could. The FDA can't be sued. Tort law provides more than enough protection from dangerous companies. Cancer patients would have a choice of competitive cannibis products. Pain sufferers and their doctors could choose from safer opiate-based medicines. Alternative therapies would be available for those with little hope.

There are regular stories in Australia around Christmas time of kids toys imported from China that are taken off the shelves because they are a choking hazard or whatever.

You think Target or Wal*Mart pulls product because of government?

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Dynedain]

I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body.

Except that conflicts over wireless communication standards doesn't kill people. Putting an unsafe drug on the market (Viox anyone?) does.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

Actually, consumer electronics are far more dangerous than drugs.

We're lucky to have the UL and other private safety testers. Ovens, hair dryers, irons, lamps, halogen bulbs and other daily use products could be far more dangerous without private testing.

The FDA should shoulder part of the blame in the Vioxx case. They didn't do their job, did they?

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[brontus3927]

With all the fraud in the drug research field, you think that a manufacturer-based certification group is going to help with the problems you noted?

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Ancil]

TFA says WiMedia hope the IEEE will back off UWB standard setting

Not surprising. That doesn't mean the IEEE will abandon their efforts, but I'm sure WiMedia hopes they will.

Instead of crying to the IEEE, Freescale should get their standard published by ECMA, ISO, or whomever is willing.. Then get to work convincing manufacturers that their UWB is better, faster, and/or cheaper than Intel's offering.

ECMA has rubberstamped one company's technology, to the possible exclusion of other worthy efforts

Let the marketplace decide whose efforts are "worthy".

Standards bodies should "rubberstamp" any standard which is unambiguously defined. The goal of a standards body should be interoperation between products which implement their standard. Instead, the IEEE tries to play kingmaker by deciding which proposal is the best, and rejecting all others. Manufacturers have been wanting a UWB technology for years, and they got sick of waiting for it. Go ECMA!

ECMA's fast track to ISO means international standards may mandate technology protected by US patent law

Standards don't "mandate" anything, because consumers are free to pick products which deliver the features they want at a price they can accept. The ECMA approach is the right one: make sure a standard is consistant and unambigous, then publish it. If people don't like the standard, they can ignore it.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[dada21]

Yes, I do.

The FDA fails, every day. They fail to certify drugs that might help millions that might haarm a few. They fail to certify drugs in use elsewhere in the world. They fail to check drug company research. They fail to operate efficiently.

End the FDA. Let drug companies form certification boards that compete with doctors groups and consumer advocate groups. I believe if the FDA didn't have so many hoops to jump through, Merck would have released Vioxx with a warning that there might be the chance of death. This could reduce their responsibility while allowing people in need to balance their risks with their doctors.

Merck lied, that's bad. Did they lie to get past the FDA's ridiculous hoops?

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Aaron_bootiemd]

Chances are they lied so that doctors would write "Vioxx" instead of "Celebrex" on their prescription pads. They didn't withhold information because of fear of the FDA -- they hid it because of fear of bad publicity. Your "efficient" market system would not have stopped it from happening -- they would have gotten creamed in the market if they said it increased deaths.

I can imagine the conversation in the doctor's office:

"Hey, doc, I've got some pain in my back."
"Well, we can treat it two ways, with Vioxx and increased risk of heart attack or with Celebrex, which doesn't."
"Well, I'll take the heart attack one."

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[SeaFox]

I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.

This is an interesting idea, except for the liability of side effects. What happens if the patient gets some horrible disease because of an unexpected effect of the drug on a certain gene. The drug company is going to have the consumer sign a waiver to use the "experimental" drug, as will the insurance company. So when things go south who gets stuck with the costs of medical care for these people? Joe Taxpayer.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[J. Random Luser]

If people don't like the standard, they can ignore it.
Ah, the free market at work. Where I come from standards are recognised as the right way to do things. In some areas of public safety the law requires the standard to be used. Our standards setting bodies are sufficiently educated that their standards don't need ignoring or circumventing until they become obsolete.

Of course the corollary to Moore's Law driving technology forward at exponential rates of progress might mean that standards in some areas are now impossible to set or observe...

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Ancil]

In some areas of public safety the law requires the standard to be used.

Yes, this approach gave us the wonderful OSI networking model. You remember OSI? That standard which was supported by governments across Europe, Asia, and even (in its less enlightened moments) the United States? That standard which was completely unworkable despite 15 years of bickering and pissing away money?

Meanwhile the Internet Engineering Task Force changed the world forever. How? By publishing standards which worked and which companies actually wanted to implement. Not by of begging Momma Government to require compliance.

Yeah, that free market thing is a terrible idea.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[gordo3000]

in y'all's process of arguing economic theory, you are really using a situation without any grounding in truth. Vioxx was on the market before there was any research showing long term harmful effects. There was one study in 2000, well after it hit the market, that could have showed possible long term problems(as recently challenged by some New England Journal).

This means that with a completely honest presentation of the data available, they got certification. It is required that after certification you conduct a long term test to see if htere are long term problems. It was in this set of tests they found what happened. Under your system, Vioxx would still be on the market and the warning would have been added after proof came out(of course, that is just an assumption, no one will ever know). Merck lying is one hell of a thing to say as there is no solid evidence yet of that. They deffinitely didn't lie to get past the FDA's hoops though. that is obvious because they voluntarily pulled the drug and opened themselves up to basically a possible bankruptcy. If they were already lying, it would have been better to just keep lying and not increase the possibility of losing money.

proof of purposeful lying ot the FDA for approval basically is a sign that you will be shut down(especially when there are several possible deaths that can be attributed to your product). One can argue it is in the benefit of management, but then lying under any system would equally be to the benefit of management(limited liability, cashing of options with higher prices, etc).

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[gordo3000]

for experimental drugs, they already do exactly that. Drugs that have reached human testing phases are usually done on terminally ill patients because they will die anyway and this gives them a chance to try the drug. but besides that, they do this same thing will all kinds of drugs. There was an attempt at an HIV vaccine a while back, all the participants got HIV and had no recourse.

but of course, once you have FDA approval, you can't do that. you are completely liable for the effects of your drugs and cannot make people sign waivers(unless, of course, it is for treatment of a different disease than was originally created, but this is questionable and I'm not sure on how such a case would work out).

and of course, with those experimental drugs, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill once the person goes broke(if that does happen). but then again, with out human trials, we wouldn't have any proof as to the efficacy of hte drug so it is the burden we bear to get the drugs we use.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Rich0]

One problem with the tort approach is that ALL drugs have side-effects. How do you determine whether they are tolerable? If it is whatever a jury thinks, then even the cure for cancer would probably land a company in bankrupcy court if it caused patients to break out in pimples or if 1 in 10,000 keel over from a heart attack.

The FDA review process at least gives companies some kind of standard to point at in court. "If the FDA reviewed it, and thought it was safe, then why are companies being punished" - so the argument goes.

There are really two approaches - unregulated and regulated. If you want to regulate drugs, just have one standards body. If you don't want to regulate, than don't make companies jump through hoops to create meaningless bodies to rubber-stamp their drugs. Just let them sell them to whoever will buy them.

The problem is that drug quality controls are VERY expensive. I doubt anybody would bother with them if there weren't regulations. Imagine if you had 100 companies - of which 1 was shoddy in quality. Right now the other 99 would sick the FDA on them. If there were no FDA, instead everybody has to compete on price with a company that cuts corners, and soon everybody is cutting corners. Consumers won't pass up huge cost savings just because a drug probably doesn't work. Why do you think the herbal supplement industry is doing so well? No FDA regulations regarding quality of manufacturing, and generally no scientific evidence of efficacy or safety - and yet the stuff sells like crazy. The reason is simple - a $10 bottle contains a 3 month supply that promises to be equivalent to some branded drug that costs $80/month - and the branded drug advertises side effects while the supplement does not.

My guess is that if there were no FDA, we'd be treating cancer with ginko leaves...

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Rich0]

Actually, at the time of FDA review, there really wasn't any data suggesting Vioxx was dangerous, was there?

The heart problems really only started turning up a year or two after the drug was on the market, but even then the data wasn't really clear cut - studies showed that Vioxx was more dangerous than Alleve, but no more dangerous than sugar pills - hardly conclusive clear-cut evidence. Certainly cause for concern though, and the FDA was concerned. However, there really wasn't anything all that solid and so not much was done other than to add warnings to the drug label.

It turns out the drug was in fact shown to be more dangerous than placebo, but not until much later. Of course, there were a long line of folks saying "I told you so," but the fact is that if tomorrow aliens landed in front of the White House there would be a long line of folks saying "I told you so" as well - that doesn't mean there is any proof that aliens exist currently.

The actual cause of the Vioxx heart attacks hasn't been worked out fully either. Currently the FDA officially suspects that all non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs other than aspirin probably have the same problem (aspirin is a bit unusual since it is cardio-protective - so even if it causes the problem this is probably offset by the benefits). That means that drugs in every household in America are potentially just as dangerous. However, we don't see lawyers lining up to sue the makers of Tylenol and Motrin - and this is because these companies aren't about to do the expensive trials that could prove that their drugs are dangerous.

What the FDA needs to do is just outline some standards for acceptable levels of safety for painkillers. How many people can a painkiller kill before it is deemed unsafe? In other drug classes you can see how many people are saved and how many people are killed and weigh things out. On the other hand, cosmetic drugs or painkillers don't save any lives - does that mean that they should all be banned? After all, all drugs have side effect, and if we don't consider pain relief of sufficient importance to risk such side effects we shouldn't develop these kinds of drugs. Of course, most people would rather take a 1/1,000,000 chance of dying over living with chronic arthritis pain. If Vioxx is in fact no more dangerous than the other drugs still on the market, then there really isn't any reason to ban it at all. Of course, you won't hear that from plaintiff lawyers.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[Rich0]

Of course, even experimental drugs have rules. First, they must be free (so no profit motive to delay applying for a marketing license). Second, almost all countries require safety standards and an application demonstrating animal safety.

You couldn't make a profit off of "experimental" drugs under the current regime. Maybe if you totally deregulated things companies would make patients sign waviers. Somehow, I can't see all that leading to a drug utopia. If the main goal is tort reform then congress can fix that in 30 seconds - just exempt any FDA-regulated company from civil suits and make the FDA do all the policing.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[TheRaven64]

Actually, I think the IETF won by creating a BSD-licensed implementation of their protocol stack that any vendor could just drop in to their offering. It cost a few days of coding time to hack the BSD TCP/IP stack into most existing systems, and then they had a working implementation. In contrast, modifying a network stack to support the OSI model took more effort. The IETF didn't win because of technical superiority, they won because of laziness.

Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers

[quarkscat]

I would agree with the parent poster's remarks, up to the point that government should have no part in the consumers' decision making process.

One of the most insidious business organizations, the American Medical Association, has gone out of its way to help protect the reputation of bad, even dangerous, medical professionals. They are like the Mafia in that no one outside the organization can or will speak out against the bad doctors or medical professionals. There are only a handful of states in which malpractice suits and medical board reviews are available to the public, via publically accessible websites. The result is that a small fraction of medical institutions and professionals that have absolutely no business being in the medical profession are driving up the liability insurance for all doctors. A doctor whose license to practice is stripped away in one state due to malfeasance/manslaughter can easily move to another state to victimize even more unwitting patients.

"Death by misadventure" (, to borrow a British witticism), covers a lot of patient deaths in the USA, and most of those doctors and hospitals keep getting away with it, largely due to the AMA mafia.

For those not so well versed

[Cherita Chen]

For those of you who are not so well versed - here is a link to some very interesting information regarding UWB, it's uses, etc...

http://www.sss-mag.com/uwbp3.html

Re:For those not so well versed

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! 1995 called, and they want their web page design back

Hint: It's about wireless internets

[c0dedude]

In short, the international (read: US-Dominated) world standards group (IEEE) refused to support Intel's standard. Europe's standards group passed Intel's standard.

Re:Hint: It's about wireless internets

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe's? ECMA is just a "standards" group that passes any standard money is paid for. Case in point: Microsoft's next version of .doc is pre-approved by ECMA and it hasn't even been completed yet. There's a reason IEEE didn't approve Intel's commercial standard.

Re:Hint: It's about wireless internets

[Swave An deBwoner]

An interesting snippet from TFA: "This is the first international standard in the world, for UWB," said Stephen Wood, president of the WiMedia Alliance, at an ECMA meeting in Nice. Although ECMA is historically European (its name originally stood for European Computer Manufacturers' Association), it now sees itself as an international body. This standard will be only applicable in the US for now, however, since that is the only country where wireless regulators allow UWB products. So a European manufacturing group has approved an "international" standard that only the US permits to actually be used. Right.

Re:Hint: It's about wireless internets

[pchan-]

ECMA standards are worthless. Intel took UWB to ECMA because they knew they would easily pass it regardless of any outstanding issues. ECMA is hardly experienced in network standards as it is, as compared to IEEE which does nearly all telecom standards. If they had been a real standards body, why would they have not started there?

The ECMA is a rubber stamp factory for its members, and can hardly be considered a respectable standards body these days. For example, one of its most well known standards is Microsoft's ECMA script (nee Jscript, MS's version of Javascript). This was passed without the involvement of the creator of Javascript (Netscape), any community or interested party feedback, and with numerous incompatibilities with existing implementations.

If only they could do this for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD

[DiGG3r]

Interesting how different industries resolve non-compatible standard issues.

Re:If only they could do this for Blu-Ray and HD-D

[dada21]

These issues WILL resolve themselves, though.

Look at the videotape industry. Most slashdotters would say "Beta versus VHS" but this is a wrong response. You had Beta, VHS, VERA, quadruplex, U-matic, C-format, betacam, M3, S-VHS, DVC, HDC, D5, 8, Hi8, and DVCAM. I probably missed a few.

All that choice led us to what we have today, and continues to lead us to new options. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD might be a hassle for early adopters, but formats MUST continually change, combine, and fall apart over time for consumers to get the best choice in meeting THEIR needs.

A different perspective....

[Cherita Chen]

It is important to note that some of the lesser advertised properties of UWB are particularly disturbing for the intelligence/defense community. For those of you familiar, UWB is in itself not succeptable to Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) because this technoly is essentially based on frequency hopping, which does not allow for spectrum saturation on the battlefield... So if you think about it, UWB could give foreign adversaries a technological edge on the battlefield - Right off the shelf.

Re:A different perspective....

[dbateman]

Bzzz, sorry you don't know what you are talking about. UWB systems we are talking about here are typically very sensitive to other sources of interference. The reason is that they are NOT frequency hopping as you assume, but systems with either 25% BW for greater than 500MHz bandwidth (the definition of UWB of the FCC). They transmit in all of this bandwidth at the same time. The result is that the low noise amplifier in the receiver is very wideband and very open to interference. A typical UWB communications systems will fail in the presence of an interferer long before the interefering source has any effect from the UWB system. Upshot, It'll be easier to jam this WiMedia device than most other technologies. If you don't believe me go at look at the 802.15.3a documents (they are public) and consider why the IEEE avoided the 5 to 6GHz band for UWB in the US. (I'll give you a hint, 802.11a has a similar deployment pattern).

The military applications of UWB are in two areas. Firstly the wideband signals give extremely good time of arrival information that can be used in ranging or for radar (think through wall radar for looking for that terrorist you US critters are so worried about), and the second is in chaotic UWB where the emitted UWB signal is a train of UWB psuedo random pulse shapes, that is effectively noise like and unless you are capable of reproducing the same psuedo random pulse shapes impossible to recognize as a communications signal (thick lovely devices to bug that terrorist with). Sorry, the game is very firmly in the court of the existing miltary as you can be sure that the above is not available to just anyone.

Re:A different perspective....

[Anonymous Coward]

As a part of a contributing company to the WiMedia Group im really dissapointed that people slander others and then propergate false information. While im not expert when it comes to UWB one of the other engineers is a the main contributor i can say our solution uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) or DMT for those xDSL fans.

Today OFDM is regarded as one of the best modulation schemes available. The bandwidth available for UWB is of the order of 3.1GHz to 10Ghz. WiMedia has decided to use three channels from 3.1Ghz to 4.8Ghz (i believe) where each channel has multiple sub-carries (OFDM) principle. This allows each channel to provide a throughput of 480Mbps @ 3m, 110Mbps @1m and so forth. The extra bandwidth that you say is not useable has been slated for the future to allow high bandwidths, effectivly making 9 channels available and each device will use three.

If a channel is in use or has to much interference the device will not be unusable as you say it will switch channel, furthermore if interference still is a concern the devices reduce the modulation of a subcarrier (eg QAM-16 to QPSK) or completly turn it off.

Also we in negogations with alot of governments around the world due to the interference issue is a new algorithm called Detect and Avoid. Here is an snippet taken from one of the main WiMedia contributors, Wisiar (www.wisair.com)

"Detect and avoid (DAA) interference avoidance technology will allow Ultrawideband to coexist peacefully with current and future wireless technologies sharing the same spectrum, such as WiMAX or 3G/4G cellular networks.

Detect and avoid techniques mitigate interference potential by searching for broadband wireless signals and then automatically switching UWB devices to another frequency to prevent any conflict."

What is it with EMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they such a tier 2 player that they will accept anything. First Microsoft and then Intel; sounds like a junior league of technology.

Does this mean the spec will be free?

[bigtrike]

Does ECMA release its specifications to the public for free? IEEE's are all copyrighted and must be purchased.

Re:Does this mean the spec will be free?

[brontus3927]

In my opinion, if something is a de jure standard, its specifications should be released into the public domain.

Re:Does this mean the spec will be free?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Correction: Most IEEE standards must be purchased. IEEE 802 does not.

Re:breaking news

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly an American icon.

I LOVE Standards....

[Anonymous Coward]

There's so MANY of them!!!

Re:The right perspective...

[heinousjay]

Arrogance gets me hot. Can I get a blowjob? I promise to tap you on the top of the head before I shoot.

Detect and avoid is too slow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already knocked bits out of what you detected by the time you avoid it.

preventing them ...

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

... a standards committee is preventing them from releasing a product that won't help consumers ...

Yes. That is correct.

ECMA has no knowledge of the subject.

Fine but do we know why it was rejected?

[RobiOne]

UWB sounds great until you talk to users of other technologies, and how UWB raises the noise floor level for all other communication devices within the band covered. Not something anyone else wants.

So do we know why exactly did the IEEE decline to make it a standard? I haven't read the papers, so someone please summarize.