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

[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

[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

[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).

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: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.

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.

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.