Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Takes UWB Standard to ECMA

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fighting-to-be-heard dept.

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."

4 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Multiple committees = good for consumers by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers by Ancil · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  2. Re:Hint: It's about wireless internets by pchan- · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.