Bluetooth Gets a Speed Boost

Tom Keating writes to tell us that the Bluetooth SIG has announced the adoption of WiMedia's version of ultra-wideband technology for integration into current Bluetooth technology. This move hopes to push the popularity of Bluetooth by providing a new high speed option that can transmit high quality sound and video. WiMedia also has a copy of the announcement [PDF] on their site with a few additional details.

Comments

Throw out your old devices!

[electronerdz]

Now we can all throw out our old Bluetooth devices, so we can upgrade. I can't wait to take a video of my friend on my phone, then show it to him on my phone, then send it to his phone, then watch it on his phone too! I hope they come out with a newer, faster one right after I get this one.

Re:Throw out your old devices!

[Threni]

Also, I hope they make it more of a challenge to use. It's just too easy only reinstalling the software 4 times, making sure you have both the widcomm AND MS stacks. And installing the software before you attach the device for the first time AND then again once you plug it into your USB port? Too easy! Who wants to just be able to plug it in like a flash memory dongle and use it straight away on whatever device claims to be bluetooth compatible? Where's the fun in that?

Re:Throw out your old devices!

[planetmn]

UWB: 480mbps WiFi: 54mbps (well, I guess you can get the hybrid 108mbps) UWB: Short range WiFi: Medium range Totally different uses. Think of it this way. All of those cables connecting your TV and other video/audio components together, can go away with UWB. HD quality connections, wirelessly. Can't do that with WiFi. -dave

Re:Throw out your old devices!

[Trurl's Machine]

No kidding, what the hell is the use of this? If you're looking for speed, use WiFi. Bluetooth is for wireless keyboards and shit.

Mobile phones. I use BT on a regular basis to transfer files to and from my mobile. My mobile plays unprotected AAC files from my iTunes Music Library, so it's not uncommon for me to upload a few mega file to my phone - and backwards goes a few mega video file shot by the built in camera. And yes, I would appreciate if the progress bar could move slightly faster.

Re:Throw out your old devices!

[qazwart]

I use BlueTooth for quite a few things. I started with simply keeping my phone's addressbook with my computers, then moved to the keyboard and mouse combo. I also use it to stream MP3s on my computer to my earphones.

Yes, I use a Mac. I'd like to do the same with my Windows PC, but Microsoft implementation is pretty bad. It doesn't have to be, but MS so far hasn't designated it as a built in Windows service. If they did, all PCs would have Bluetooth capability and the connections would be seemless.

Why not simply use WiFi? WiFi has too much overhead. It's designed to connect many to many. Great for mesh networking or for a basestation to connect to multiple computers. It has built in IP capabilities. Bluetooth is for one to one connectivity and has built in encryption which doesn't require password passing and is fairly secure. (The Bluetooth security holes have to do with unauthorized pairing due to poor Bluetooth implementation. Basically it's cellphones that tried to make it easy for users to connect their earphones by making pairing automated.)

Faster Bluetooth connectivity would allow such things as disk drives to connect to systems without having to be physically connected to the computer. In data farms, it isn't always practical to have the external drives physically next to the machines, and snaking thick cables across the floor is a pain. Imagine transfering data realtime from video cameras and digital cameras without having to plug them in.

Like USB, making it faster doesn't necessarily make everything incompatible. I have no problems using USB 2.0 devices on my USB 1.1 port (although I'd love to have the USB 2.0 speed). However, by making Bluetooth faster, you make it much more useful.

Too bad Microsoft hasn't gotten behind Bluetooth yet. I remember hearing the same complaints about USB and WiFi when they first came out -- it doesn't work and only Mac people use it. Maybe with the faster implementation, Microsoft might feel the need to redefine it as a required Windows service. Then you could have wireless game controllers, wireless connectivity to your Windows based Home Entertainment center, and sync'ing Windows based PDAs to your computer.

Re:Throw out your old devices!

[Red Flayer]

"All of those cables connecting your TV and other video/audio components together, can go away with UWB. "

As long as the analog hole remains open, those cables aren't going anywhere for tons of slashdotters.

FTFA

[lisaparratt]

It is critical that the UWB technology be compatible with Bluetooth radios and maintain the core attributes of Bluetooth wireless technology - low power, low cost, ad-hoc networking, built-in security features, and ability to integrate into mobile devices. Backwards compatibility with the over 500 million Bluetooth devices currently on the market is also an important consideration. The Bluetooth SIG is satisfied that MB-OFDM UWB technology, offered by the WiMedia Alliance, is capable of meeting all of these requirements.

Roaming p2p mesh networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

With its current market penetration this will make Bluetooth the ideal choice for a Linux HTPC remote control with VOIP capability.

But will it be good enough for instant roaming networks? I would love alert fellow road users that my bike is coming out of the ally and know that someone want in at almost the same time so that we can slow down or speed up without having to brake hard when we meet face to face at the corner.

Not realy a big aftersales market like car navigation so Linux using a mass sold protocol would be ideal. Will blutooth become good enough for such applications?

Re:Roaming p2p mesh networks?

[somersault]

Err.. I wouldnt rely on a technology like this for telling you where other road users are:

1) most people would not have such a device unless it was made compulsory to have one on your car

2) it could break, and then you'd be screwed

3) if you're in a city, you should pretty much always slow down at blind corners.. even if it's at night and you can see other vehicle's headlights, what about pedestrians? And besides that, would you want someone being able to track your bike going around town, making it even easier to steal? By bike I assumed you meant motorbike for some reason, mine was stolen a couple of years ago, and I've also had a pushbike stolen. They're really easy targets - I wouldnt want to make things any easier for people.

Re:Is this really needed ?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there really a need for it when we now have WiFi which has a better range ?

You're missing the point of Bluetooth, it's all about cheap low powered comms. Range is not an issue for most apps that utilize BT, for things like transferring data, performance was really the main sticking point. If they can come out with a wifi spec that used significantly less power and was cost effective for the type of devices that they wish to integrate into, then perhaps something like wifi will supplant BT.

Re:Is this really needed ?

[NekoXP]

UWB has signal range like wireless - in the tens to hundreds of feet. Easily across the house. Freescale have demonstrated the OTHER UWB standard (UWB Forum) streaming MPEG2 video from one device (a home theater box) to a UWB TV. It was really quite neat.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/Haie rWirelessUWLCDTV.php

Hopefully adopting the WiMedia version and using Bluetooth as the remote control method of choice (why not control your TV and media center from your mobile phone, even? :) won't be too hard for them.

Ladies and Gents, bluetooth has jumped the shark!

[way2trivial]

the point of bluetooth is to be LOW POWER so it can be REALLY SMALL and you can't have video capable bandwidth in a micropowered device.

Re:Ladies and Gents, bluetooth has jumped the shar

[astralbat]

the point of bluetooth is to be LOW POWER so it can be REALLY SMALL and you can't have video capable bandwidth in a micropowered device.

If you RTFA, you'd have noticed that they are trying to keep the same power requirements by making efficiencies in the design. But you do make a valid point - how much power could they save without this high bandwidth?

Oh yeah, great...

[grahamlee]

...so now we've got ultra-wide bandwidth combined with rapid frequency shifts. That's going to suck up big chunks of the unlicensed broadcast band at a time - I hope no-one's using a microwave (or a wireless router, especially a pre-N one) when I'm transferring my pr0n from my phone to my portable video player...

Speed isn't an issue

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

The licensing costs of Bluetooth are the reason for its slow adoption.

There is no reason for a Bluetooth wireless headphones to cost $200 or more, other good quality wireless headphones with proprietary wireless technology could be purchased for $80.

Bluetooth mice and keyboards are like 50% - 100% more expensive then those wireless mice and keyboards with proprietary wireless technology. In fact, I heard it was cheaper for a company to developer their own wireless technology rather then licence Bluetooth for their products.

With wireless USB entering the market this year, I would be reluctant to buy anything Bluetooth until we see how Wireless USB will handle and how inexpensive it will be to license and use the product. My guess is that most companies using a proprietary wireless connection will adopt Wireless USB quickly.

For now, the only niche market that Bluetooth is succeeding in is in cell phone headsets. When it comes to general computing, Bluetooth's days are numbered.

Re:Speed isn't an issue

[241comp]

Actually, there is a good discussion about Bluetooth available here and basically what it has to say about licensing costs is that there are reasonable licensing plans for virtually any size production (from just a few to millions of products).

Bluetooth

[DarthChris]

As I understand it, bluetooth (like most wireless) isn't very secure. If that's the case, wouldn't it be prudent to fix this before giving it a speed boost?

Re:Bluetooth

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You assume general joe average gives a danm about security when he transmits pictures from mobile to mobile, or presses the buttons on his BT remote control.

Personally...

[dbucowboy]

I prefer using wired connections... it gives me the security of knowing that if I fall off a cliff while talking on the phone I will at least have a tether.

Re:Ladies and Gents, bluetooth has jumped the shar

[NanoWit]

Another thing to keep in mind is that higher speed doesn't always mean more battery consumption. Compared to Bluetooth 1.2, Bluetooth 2.0's higher data rate means a shorter time where you have to have the transmitter powered on and therefore an overall power savings.

Re:Ladies and Gents, bluetooth has jumped the shar

[XMilkProject]

That's just being ignorant.

In 1951 Remington Rand was selling UNIVAC1 computers to the government. The thing could do about 1,900 operations per second and had I think about 72kilobits of ram.
It drew 125 Kwatts of electricity.

The laptop sitting in front of me now is about 300,000 times faster and draws 25 watts during peak usage.

What on earth makes you think that just becuase something is faster/better, it therefore must (by some magical law of physics I'm sure) draw more power?

With advances in chip fabrication alone, it is possible to massively reduce power usage. Not to mention any progress they make in the actual protocol being used by the system that may reduce transmission.
Also, you seem to be mistaken on the work the chip actually does. It is not processing any audio or video streams, it could care less if it was transmitting HD video or text, it'd just passing on the packets.

Does it even really matter?

[Jtheletter]

Does anyone seriously think that this would even be put into cellphones and not horribly crippled by the major providers? Time and again we've seen artifical restrictions put on cellphones in an attempt to charge exorbitant fees for things as simple as moving cameraphone pictures to your computer. We're no longer being nickle-and-dimed to death, now it's a dollar or five at a time. Want to transfer video to your phone for viewing on the train using this new bluetooth high speed feature? No problem, you just need to sign up for our BlueVideo plan at a scant $9.99 per month, and expect download speeds to be about the same as regular bluetooth since we've totally crippled the standard to prevent all you hax0rs from trying to put data you own on the phone you own in the manner of your choosing. And don't forget our soul-sucking DRM for that video format! Why have 15fps when you can get 6fps in twice the memory space?