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

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

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: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: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: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).