Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ultrawideband Signal Passes Data Through Walls

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wireless-fight-out dept.

writertype writes "You may already be familiar with ultrawideband; UWB technology has been specifically talked about and designed to replace wired USB connections for over a year. Due to its high bandwidth, it's also been considered as an A/V cable replacement. The problem is that UWB radio performance degrades precipitously, effectively confining it to a single room. Until now, that is. Startup TZero says its UWB implementation provides high throughput through walls. Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?"

107 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. 3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by IntelliAdmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The speed increases are nice with this technology. The problem is physics. As it stands UWB runs from 3.1GHZ to 10.6GHZ. Radio in this band operates much like visible light - it is easily blocked by walls and other obstacles. Because of this I think that 802.11b/a/c/n are going to be around for a long time

    Windows Admin Tools

    1. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Is the difference between 2.4 and 3.1GHz matters that much?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by Anon-Admin · · Score: 3, Funny

      As it stands UWB runs from 3.1GHZ to 10.6GHZ. Radio in this band operates much like visible light

      Oh Microwave. Now your usb harddrive will save your data and cook your eggs all at once :)

    3. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by w33t · · Score: 1

      I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.

      I don't know enough about UWB yet for this to be more than fantastical speculation - but if this range of frequency can be reflected and refracted like light it would seem to me that this is at least a possibility.

      After all, fiber optics are used for routing ordinary lighting - could the uwb signal be captured and transmitted along an element of some sort without the need to use active electronics?

      --
      My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
    4. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.

      What? Like an antenna

    5. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by bibi-pov · · Score: 2, Funny
      I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.
      So basically what your suggesting is that in order to have a working wireless connection you need a wire ?
    6. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by w33t · · Score: 1

      hehe, nice.

      yes, somewhat. However in this case it would be an antenna between two rooms without anything being used to boost the signal. No power, completely passive, but allowing the UWB to flow freely between the rooms (where the wall would otherwise block the signal).

      --
      My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
    7. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by barawn · · Score: 1

      However in this case it would be an antenna between two rooms without anything being used to boost the signal.

      Yeah. Two antennas.

    8. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by w33t · · Score: 1

      Ha!

      When you put it that way I guess so :) - of course I'm thinking of it more as a hybrid wired/wireless approach. Because you essentially need line of sight for UWB to work properly (excepting the article's apparent breakthrough) you would place a trancieving element in every room of a building. However, within the room you would have the wireless access.

      It would be somewhat like running antennas around - but these elements could be completely passive, requiring no power to propagate the signal between rooms.

      You would have some of the benifits and some of the drawbacks of both wired and wireless. But as I conceded - I am just spouting ill-informed speculation here. I'm not as familiar with UWB as I will be in a few hours.

      --
      My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
    9. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      3.1GHz - 2.4GHz = 700 MHz

      Hmm not much difference at all in the propagation between 5 MHz signals and 705 MHz signals.

    10. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by deficite · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or you could pull out a hammer drill and punch a whole through the walls of every room. I'm a genius. Pay me $50 billion dollars for my great idea.

    11. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by radix99 · · Score: 1

      Don't be too quick to point out an error--what would be a better description is the ratio between the frequencies--comparing 5MHz to 705MHz (a ratio of 141) when he compared 3.1 and 2.4GHz (a ratio of 1.2).

    12. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by pe1chl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material?

      Yes. That is commonly called "waveguide". It operates exacty like a fiber-optic cable, but at the wavelength of these signals.
      Of course, the wavelength being 3-10cm it needs to be physically larger than the fiber for 800nm wavelength "light".

      Waveguide often has an air dielectricum, and the dimensions for this wavelength would be slightly smaller than the wavelength. This makes it a bit less practical.
      But you could have a waveguide with some other core, and it would be smaller.

    13. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by bgoody · · Score: 1

      There is virtually no difference between those two frequencies in terms of ability to penetrate objects. 2.4GHz would be superior but a much more important factor would be the amount of power used... or more specifically EIRP.

    14. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by pe1chl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try 802.11g and 802.11a equipment side-by-side. You will find that the 802.11a (5.5 GHz) equipment has considerably more difficulty over non-line-of-sight paths than 802.11g (2.4 GHz) has.

    15. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by bgoody · · Score: 1

      Yes but you are free to use more power with 11a than 11g which balances out its weakness in solid object penetration. And the greater power enables better LOS distances which makes it superior for point-to-point fixed wireless usage. Overall 11a is better unless there happens to be a ton of inband interferrence or a PCS cell tower in the region which hits the 5.8GHz frequency range with a third harmonic.

    16. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Informative

      One major issue with UWB is the antenna design. Its proving very hard to built antennas that have constant gain over the whole BW. As a result, the antenna essentially induces a transfer function on the transmitted (or recieved) signal. It could be possible to compensate using DSP in the Tx or Rx circuits, however the transfer function is different for differing RF environments. That is, move the metal legged table in your living room and the compensation algorithms are no longer valid. There are a few new antenna designs being proposed that focus on ensuring the s21 values are constant over the whole UWB spectrum, but its still early days with those.

      The 'going through walls' part is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That will come when the RF aspects of UWB are better designed.

    17. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by general_re · · Score: 2, Funny
      Or you could pull out a hammer drill and punch a whole through the walls of every room.

      Punch a whole what?

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    18. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by pe1chl · · Score: 3, Informative

      I recently built a 400m (a quarter mile) link using 802.11a pointtopoint equipment (1W ERP, max legal power here).
      It is line-of-sight w.r.t. buildings, but there was a group of trees inbetween. The signal had to pass trough maybe 20 meters of foilage.

      The link barely worked. Sometimes 6 Mbps, sometimes 12 Mbps.
      Relocating one of the endpoints so that those trees were out of the way (actual position lower than it was, now just skimming a building) improved the signal by about 20dB.

      Result: 54Mbps link and power output decreased by 5-6dB (by TPC). Could probably gain another 6dB by having more clearance above the building.

      I really did not expect this, comparing with results on 2.4 GHz.
      You are right that allowed ERP on 2.4 is lower, but I think there would have been a big difference in path loss in this case.

    19. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by bgoody · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's extremely difficult to gauge foliage attenuation. It literally varies as the wind blows. Because of the wavelength, 5.8GHz also requires less fresnel zone clearance compared to 2.4GHz so if you were skimming the top of the trees on a marginal link, the blockage at 2.4GHz would be more severe, perhaps enough to dip you below the required signal-to-noise ratio.

      If the trees were dense and the power ouput the same then 2.4GHz would win out.

    20. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by sootman · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Because of this I think that 802.11b/a/c/n are going to be around for a long time.

      Well, we can always hope for a breakthrough with 802.11d, e, i, k, l, m, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, or z. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    21. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by trentblase · · Score: 1

      So, like... a window?

    22. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      You will find that signals at this frequency have surprising difficulty getting through (office-building) windows!
      The thin metalization used to block infrared is also very effective at blocking radio signals.

    23. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by salec · · Score: 2, Informative
      Its proving very hard to built antennas that have constant gain over the whole BW
      Uhh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_periodic_antenna ... T&M gear uses that type. They are not so much of a high directional gain, but they offer very flat frequency/gain characteristic. For GHz range it would be couple of inches for the largest dipole in the set. All in all, resonably good antena for this could be etched on a small PCB.
    24. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by Moby+Cock · · Score: 1

      It could be used in some applications. However, it is unidirectional and narrowbeam, which excludes it from many broadcast-type applications. Vivaldi Antennas are making inraods in broadcast however they have limitations in gain profiles. Also, bot Log-Periodic and Vivaldi antennas are big.

    25. Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Oh Microwave. Now your usb harddrive will save your data and cook your eggs all at once :)
       
      And your testes if you are a man :(

  2. Getting Crowded by Ignignot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, so now my idiot neighbors can make even more interference, and this time whenever they tune in to see Lost, I'll lose my internet connection. Will I at least be able to see what they are seeing?

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    1. Re:Getting Crowded by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      It almost seems like this tech would be better limited to within a room. I mean, does anyone really run A/V signals between rooms as it is (except, of course, cable or satellite runs from a dish or the street)?

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Getting Crowded by christopherfinke · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I mean, does anyone really run A/V signals between rooms as it is (except, of course, cable or satellite runs from a dish or the street)?
      Perhaps no one is running A/V signals between rooms because it hasn't been easily doable, and this technology will greatly increase the number of people doing so.

      All I know is that this would have been great to have when I was retrofitting my home for cable last year. That was a pain...
    3. Re:Getting Crowded by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Actually lots of people do it - A/V disribution over cat5 is a huge business.

    4. Re:Getting Crowded by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      You're talking about BPL in the past tense as if it is no longer a problem for the amateur radio service.

    5. Re:Getting Crowded by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do not worry. They will not.

      The only reason UWB has even started being considered by regulators in most countries was the assumption that it will be limited to a line of sight.

      UWB that goes through walls will make all the early fears resurface once more and delay regulatory approval for UWB where necessary.

      Frankly some of the pushers of competing tech like 802.11n should invest into this technology ASAP.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Getting Crowded by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks like in the more developed areas of the world it has largely been abandoned by now.

    7. Re:Getting Crowded by trentblase · · Score: 1

      I thought the reason UWB was being considered was that it spreads out interference over a such a wide part of the spectrum that any narrow frequency band could easily reject that interference. Maybe I'm thinking UWB as general concept instead of UWB as a product name?

  3. Quick response... by JPamplin · · Score: 5, Informative
    Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?

    Um, no. 802.11n has significantly greater range (as a spec, at least). Plus, if this company is claiming to have developed it, I don't think they will just give it up for free. 802.11n is a public standard.

    So, no. ;-)

    --
    Stiny! Get me a danish!
    1. Re:Quick response... by Moby+Cock · · Score: 2, Informative

      802.11n uses MIMO, whereas UWB does not (as yet).
      UWB is not designed for long range, it is meant for very low power rich message passing
      Neither are proprietary


      I agree that 802.11n and UWB will not dethrone one another, because they are not really equivalent or competeting.

  4. What's the security by daniel422 · · Score: 1

    on UWB? How do you keep these things on seperate networks? What's the max number of connections? Anybody know this yet? I can't find it on wikipedia...

  5. Other uses by loraksus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These folks didn't seem to have too much trouble trying to get the signal through walls ;)

    http://www.uwb.org/RadarVision2i/rv2iperf.htm
    That is a pretty primitive picture, some of the stuff in labs is quite a bit more advanced.

    BTW, is anyone noticing font corruption on that page in Firefox?

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    1. Re:Other uses by rxrx · · Score: 1

      I want that.

    2. Re:Other uses by mk_is_here · · Score: 1

      Oh yes! Hudson's motion dector!

  6. Sorry. by fuzzyfozzie · · Score: 1

    "Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?" No.

    1. Re:Sorry. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The answer could be "yes" if it's in regards to frequency ranges. Sorta how cordless phones running at 2.4Ghz causes hell with wireless 802.11 b/g devices.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  7. I don't know about you chaps by also-rr · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I find that for the best data rate through walls all that one requires is a sledge hammer and a fibre optic cable.

    --
    Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
    1. Re:I don't know about you chaps by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What about going through a wall with a Station Wagon full of backup tapes?

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. Re:I don't know about you chaps by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      You hammer your fiberobtic cable through walls?

    3. Re:I don't know about you chaps by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      He has fibreoptic 2.0 - better, stronger, faster, and able to be hammered through walls. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. PHB's are going to LOVE this stuff. ;)

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
    4. Re:I don't know about you chaps by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

      That only gives you a massive BURST transfer rate. Usually, the important figure is the SUSTAINED transfer rate, so unless you have a very long convoy of station wagons...

    5. Re:I don't know about you chaps by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

      I hear ping is pretty high on station wagons.

    6. Re:I don't know about you chaps by mgblst · · Score: 1

      What about a 747 full of cds??

      Too early...come on, its been almost 5 years.

  8. Yea yea yea... by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    UWB technology has been specifically talked about and designed to replace wired USB connections for over a year. Due to its high bandwidth, it's also been considered as an A/V cable replacement.

    Yea, yea, yea... That sounds so desperately trying to hype it up. Just a month ago we were discussing that current digital A/V *cables* can't handle high enough resolutions for some larger (resolution) monitors out there, which requires two or even four DVI cables.

    We've discussed also how the new standard introduced, is just as bad (despite claims to "scale indefinitely", in theory, with other equipment and all that..).

    Now this is of course gonna replace everything, including food and water in one year. Therefore buy our shares and give us venture capital. Screw it.

    The problem is that UWB radio performance degrades precipitously, effectively confining it to a single room. Until now, that is. Startup TZero says its UWB implementation provides high throughput through walls. Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?

    I don't get it: we have enough problems with people logging into our wifi networks because it passes through walls already (even if it's password protected and so on, it can be hacked into), and now they found a way to do the same with UWB? I kinda like it in my room only, neighbours will have to buy theirs.

  9. Re:Radio through walls???!?!?!?!!!! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always knew the government was sending me secret signals through walls. UWB proves the CIA really does give me those disturbing dreams about hot dogs chasing donuts and packets from hell in my network. I'm not paranoid. Hey. Why are you pointing a Pringles can at me? Help!!

  10. Re:What about bluetooth? by MountainMan101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes. Bluetooth was designed to replace IR, which in turn replaced short wires. It was purely a personal wireless protocol, short range between paired objects. Wireless USB is designed for higher bandwith, although I don't see it being a competitor to WiFi - mainly because they can exist in the same way that wired USB and Ethernet do.

    You may ask why we can't have one all encompassing protocol - the answer, cost. Bluetooth is the cheapest, GPRS and WiFi cost more. So for a BT headset the cost would rocket up if it had to do be fully compliant with a new protocol.

    Anyway, in the grand scheme it's all a bit pointless. There's more interesting things in life, like mountains, women and fast cars. Who cares about wireless!

  11. Of course not. by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not when UWB's output power is limited so that its range is only 30 feet.

  12. Damn, time to upgrade by jhines · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to upgrade the ol' tin foil hat. Maybe some shiny stickers...

    1. Re:Damn, time to upgrade by SpinJaunt · · Score: 1

      Ditto, although so glad you didn't say bumper stickers.

      --
      /. is good for you.
    2. Re:Damn, time to upgrade by Firehed · · Score: 1

      You've never put metal in a microwave before? You might want to try that before making too many upgrades, unless one of the upgrades would be some sort of liquid lead.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  13. Why aren't I using it yet? by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    Due to its high bandwidth, it's also been considered as an A/V cable replacement. The problem is that UWB radio performance degrades precipitously, effectively confining it to a single room.

    I'd love to have all of my A/V electronics connected wirelessly. I don't care if it would only work within one room for now cause all of my stuff's in one room, probably like most people. So why isn't this commonplace yet? I hate all the wires running around my living room.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
    1. Re:Why aren't I using it yet? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to have all of my A/V electronics connected wirelessly. I don't care if it would only work within one room for now cause all of my stuff's in one room, probably like most people.

      Go on do it. Reminds me of the inventors of X-Rays. They wanted to scan everything and make X-Ray movies from it, since it's so neat to see inside of a living creature: mice, cats, dogs... themselves too. There's hours and hours of movie material of them trying it when their wear rings, watches and all sort of non-sense.

      Most of them of course died of cancer later.

  14. Re:What about bluetooth? by Clazzy · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, it doesn't affect me anyway, I have the sanity to stick with wires instead!

    --
    If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
  15. building construction by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as anyone knows reading my coments knows i am no IT guy, but i do work construction and done it for years, most commercial office buildings are built not with lumber and a lot of what is called sheetmetal stud and track, also there is sheetmetal HVAC ducts & etc.; lots of metal, well anyhow metal always blocks radio signals so within a large building with enough walls to go through i can see why wireless will have limitations...

    i would imagine a large enough office building would benefit from a repeater system like some ham and commercial radio systems already use...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:building construction by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      i would imagine a large enough office building would benefit from a repeater system like some ham and commercial radio systems already use...
      Funny you mention that.

      Repeaters were part of the "big picture" when it came to cellular phone service & buildings. Guess what never happened?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  16. Hammer by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    If your data won't pass through walls, then you just need a bigger hammer... ;)

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  17. n is still better by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    802.11n makes many improvements over 11.g. It provides for greater redundancy(MIMO), security, speed(400MBPS+), and more distant coverage. It is also an open standard so anyone can use it without worring about paying someone license fees today, tomorrow, or 3 years from now when it is commonplace. Since its speed can allow multiple hdtv connections to stream at once and the costs should not be any greater than 11b or 11g devices, the n standard will soon dominate wireless networking and connections.

    --
    Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
  18. Why do you need it? by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From my understanding of the article, this is intended as a wireless protocol for USB devices. That being so, why would you need it to go through walls, or better yet, why would you want it to?

    Personally, in 99% of the cases, I'd be more than happy to have my USB signals stay put where nobody but me can read them... despite the assurance about "security being mandatory" we all know that in most cases if a signal can be picked up, it can be hacked.

    The only reason I might want something that passes through walls is if I decided to stick a media server, etc in the closet, and have it controlled by a local device connected by UWB... and either a wireless or hardwired connection for the video.

  19. No Data by thePig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article (press release ??) has NO data whatsoever on how they solved this issue?
    Since the high frequency makes it *very* less able to go around objects, how did they do it indeed?
    Were they able to use EIT ?

    BTW, they did not speak about the degradation pattens in the article.
    Any ideas on the same?

    --
    rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    1. Re:No Data by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2, Funny

      To get the wireless to work through walls, you have to use their patented Universal Wall Hole(tm) technology to prep each wall for optimum wireless performance.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  20. Fix the drawback by MoogMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing I never liked about USB, is that you can't use the connector "upside-down" (I'm sure there's probably a technical word for this... symmetrical or something).

    I hope this UWB - being a successor of USB - has connectors that work "upside-down". Oh wait...

    1. Re:Fix the drawback by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      Or you could just plug it in correctly. I can't think of a single computer connector, other than the power adapter on my laptop, where there isn't a wrong way to plug it in.

    2. Re:Fix the drawback by Russellkhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the thing that makes it annoying with USB is that there's no simple visual cue (e.g. shape of the plug) to tell you which way to plug it. There is that little plastic bit on one side, but for some reason I have a harder time remembering which side of the USB socket has the plastic bit than I do remembering for example which way the wider side of a VGA socket faces.

      --
      Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
    3. Re:Fix the drawback by Ksevio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's typically a crack in the metal on the bottom, and a usb symbol on the top.

    4. Re:Fix the drawback by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded him as 'Insightful' needs to RTFA, or even RTFS. Or buy a clue. Seriously, you kids these days... ;-)

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    5. Re:Fix the drawback by Compuser · · Score: 1

      Looking at my usb key - it only has four pins and a metal outside, so five total.
      This should be easy to make into a concentric design, like audio plugs. That way
      you just plug it in, no orientation required. You could even, you know, rotate the
      connector in the socket [gasp]. I did not moderate but I also think the gp is
      insightful.

    6. Re:Fix the drawback by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Well, they'd have to include a small pan to collect all the bits that fall out when you do that. Otherwise, I think it's a great idea.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re:Fix the drawback by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Part of the problem is that the port you are plugging into is sometimes itself inverted or even vertical. Then there is no way to be sure, it's literally a 50/50 shot every time unless you have a very good memory or only interact with a few machines. I've got three with vertical sockets that I regularly swap devices on and it took a while to get it right most of the time.

      On the other hand, I can't think of a better alternative, other than basic audio jacks that are rotationally symetrical. But that design usually has issues with leaving contacts exposed when the wire is unplugged, something USB is pretty good at dealing with.

    8. Re:Fix the drawback by Russellkhan · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, I can't think of a better alternative, other than basic audio jacks that are rotationally symetrical. But that design usually has issues with leaving contacts exposed when the wire is unplugged, something USB is pretty good at dealing with."

      I can. Something with a plug whose shape indicates which direction it needs to be plugged and with a fairly standard pattern to the direction that the socket is mounted. Examples include Firewire, VGA, old fashioned serial/parallel, SCSI...even PS2 (and AT!) plugs usually have a flat side to indicate which is the 'top' - I can plug a PS2 keyboard into the back of most ATX cases on the first try without needing to see the socket (or even the plug, I can feel the top).

      --
      Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
  21. Great! by git68 · · Score: 1
    If this works as advertised I will be able to use my wireless keyboard and mouse in a different room to my PC.

    Oh wait!

    --
    sigpending(2)
  22. Re:Radio through walls???!?!?!?!!!! by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    What next? Movies via Television? What a wondrous, brave new age we live in.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  23. UWB could be quite simple to implement but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For short range communication, uwb could be quite simple to implement. It could indeed be a replacement for cables for all kinds of things. Once you try to push the range, things get more miserable. The question is then, what benefit you expect to gain and what costs might you face.

    Any kind of wireless communication pushes up the general noise level. If the communication is restricted to a certain bandwidth, the noise affects other users of the same bandwidth. On the other hand, uwb will affect people in bands that are supposed to be clear. We have the specter of satellite links degrading because ten million people are using uwb for their cordless phones. My wag is that the FCC will eventually have to put its foot down if uwb becomes too successful.

  24. Re:What about bluetooth? by vux984 · · Score: 1

    The article refers to replacing USB, and A/V cables.

    You describe bluetooth as:

    It was purely a personal wireless protocol, short range between paired objects.

    The average usb cable is 5 feet. The average A/V cable is 3 feet. Short range: check.
    Cables go from one object to another object. Paired: check.

    The only spot BT can come up short is throughput -- but then why not a "Bluetooth 2" a faster backwards compatible spec that is to Bluetooth what USB2 is to USB?

    Not that I have any dislike of UWB or anything, but really, Bluetooth was designed as a short range cable replacement. USB and A/V cables certainly fit into that world. For longer range connections wireless wifi seems like a better approach, even it uses a protocol that sits on top of ethernet to provide "virtual pairing" or something.

    For example, I routinely use serial devices. A long time ago I stopped having them connected directly to my PC, and instead setup virtual serial ports connected over ethernet to connect to serial devices plugged into a LAN. It works great.

    Now if I wanted to go wireless the logical step would be to simply make the LAN wireless; not invent some entirely new long range pairing wireless serial cable replacement prototcol.

  25. Re:What about bluetooth? by eldepeche · · Score: 1

    mini nuclear reactors to power our laptops

    Wow, and I thought it was bad when my computer just made my thighs hot!

  26. "10-4 Good Buddy" by LM741N · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It will work great until your neighbor on CB running 10kW speaks into the mic.
    (same for BPL Internet)

    1. Re:"10-4 Good Buddy" by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      My father is actually a HAM radio operator with shitloads of radios and antennas. Not sure if he operates in those frequencies, though. He did dick around with the 3m sideband one night, and it was killing our phone line.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  27. Different markets by VoiceOfDog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ultrawideband is being developed as a WPAN standard for IEEE 802.15.3a, which aims to provide a high (~20Mbps) alternative to Bluetooth. .15.3a is being called "WiMedia" and is intended for use in the Wireless USB (WUSB) standard. This is clearly the market this company is trying to address.
    WPAN (Personal Area Networks), like Bluetooth or ZigBee, aim at a different market than WLAN (WiFi). For a WPAN, it may be advantageous to have a shorter range to reduce interference.
    Extending the range to blur the line between WPAN and WLAN is an interesting business plan. There are numberous competing technolgies in the WPAN arena, and history tells that not all will survive. Time will tell if this one is viable.

  28. Dish Subscribers by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about DTV, but the recievers that Dish is shipping now have two tuners, and come with one IR and one RF remote. I think it is safe to say that a huge number of people send their signals between rooms. And the numbers are only likely to grow.

  29. Re:Radio through walls???!?!?!?!!!! by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    You sounds just like my brother,except he blames ME for the signals.

  30. Font corruption by Adelec+Bakkal · · Score: 1

    It seems alright here.

  31. mommy! by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mommy, I feel all tingly inside!

    Oh, sweety - thats just the Ultawideband USB, now with extra radiation!

    Oooo, it feels like progress! But my hair is falling out!

    Thats ok honey, thats how you know it's working!

    --
    meh
  32. Wikipedia??!? by sczimme · · Score: 1


    Anybody know this yet? I can't find it on wikipedia...

    Why do people insist on treating Wikipedia as a reliable source of information?? Use your favorite search engine, find an authoritative source, and be on your way.

    A quick Google search for "UWB" && "ultra wide band" reveals a number of good sources, including Intel and the UWB Forum. But hey, since those apparently aren't good enough, Wikipedia is the second link on the first page of results. Go nuts.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  33. Can't we just... by douglips · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't Geordi just reverse the tacyon polarization?

    --
    My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
    1. Re:Can't we just... by Moby+Cock · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. Battery died in his visor.

  34. Re:What about bluetooth? by modecx · · Score: 1

    Hmmm! To use my laptop you'll need asbestos trousers!

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  35. TZero name already taken by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The TZero name is already taken. Anyway, I'd much rather have this TZero.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  36. Re:Radio through walls???!?!?!?!!!! by emjoi_gently · · Score: 1

    Right up there with Live Streaming of Radio.

    "You can now listen to this Station Live on the Internet!" they proudly proclaim, as I listen to the radio station, live, while I drive my car.

  37. UWB not so scalable... by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11?

    Ye Gods, I hope not. UWB is absolutely terrific so long as a limited number of people use it -- but it's one of those solutions that sound great until you multiply by 10,000,000 installed devices -- then everyone's radio noise floor goes up, stealing bandwidth (range, really) from things like FM music, shortwave, air traffic control, and emergency services. By that time it's too late, because you can't track down and eliminate 10^7 devices -- short of nuking the city centers.

  38. Surround sound without the wires? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    I have been looking around for this kind of implementation for a while now but haven't found anything either available or affordable. My current living situation just doesn't allow for the wiring needed to enjoy surround sound properly, if they could do this with a wireless UWB receiver broadcasting to mini receptors in the speakers it would be perfect... right?

  39. Great! by barry_the_bogan · · Score: 1

    Now I can download ISO's using my neighbours wireless, then burn it to a disc using his external UWD drive. Any advice for how to get the CD's without raising his suspicion?

  40. Re:Health Hazards? by FathomIT · · Score: 1

    Yeah not all of the waves simply pass through your head. Just like not all of the waves pass through the walls. Absorbtion must take place. The good thing is we've adapted to cosmic rays pouring down since the dawn of time. The bad new is we are a test generation for this new wireless revolution. We will not know for sure what effect the wireless revolution will have.

  41. Re:China already uses this technology! by aphaenogaster · · Score: 1

    How is this off topic? My god is there no humor left in the world!!!!!

  42. Re:China already uses this technology! by aphaenogaster · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the tingly bit just a couple hours after this got did not get off topic. I am sooooooo disappointed. Maybe I will start voting republican. Look what you silly moderators did...

  43. Re:Wikipedia??!? -- Uh...why not..? by daniel422 · · Score: 1

    Mostly because it IS a reliable source of information. I could easily comb through the 500+ pages of UWB security standards, but I ask here on /. because I like the push-pull of human interaction and info and every once in a while you find someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
    And then soemtimes I don't. Like your useless post. You are the chief.

  44. Re:What about bluetooth? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    There's more interesting things in life, like mountains, women and fast cars.

    Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  45. Re:What about bluetooth? by elvum · · Score: 1

    Google for "bluetooth UWB".

  46. MIMO Myth by katharsis83 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a common myth that MIMO - sticking on multiple antennas - is for redundancy purposes.

    If you actually crunch through the math, increasing the number of antennas basically increases the theoretical capacity of the wireless channel, meaning faster transmission speeds over the same distance/attenuation/power. So the extra antennas aren't in case one antenna fails, it's to increase transmission speeds.

  47. You fail Reading Comprehension 101 by sczimme · · Score: 1


    Mostly because it IS a reliable source of information.

    It will not be a reliable source until there is some sort of thorough vetting process to ensure people who write about topic X actually have some background in topic X.

    but I ask here on /. because I like the push-pull of human interaction and info

    No, you ask on /. because you are too lazy and/or ignorant to do the modicum of work required to find info on your own.

    Like your useless post.

    You mean the post that told you exactly how to find UWB info in your precious Wikipedia (when you were obviously stumped)? The post that you completely failed to comprehend even though it directly answered your question? Wow.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:You fail Reading Comprehension 101 by daniel422 · · Score: 1

      "You mean the post that told you exactly how to find UWB info in your precious Wikipedia (when you were obviously stumped)? The post that you completely failed to comprehend even though it directly answered your question? Wow."

      Original question(s):

      "What's the security on UWB? How do you keep these things on seperate networks? What's the max number of connections?"

      Really, I just cared about the security -- that was my point -- but regardless, here is your answer:

      "A quick Google search for "UWB" && "ultra wide band" reveals a number of good sources, including Intel and the UWB Forum. But hey, since those apparently aren't good enough, Wikipedia is the second link on the first page of results. Go nuts."

      Nowhere did you answer my question. You simply referred me to other sources of information (one of which I'd already referred) that anyone would use. Not the valuable sources I hope to discourse with here on /. Who's failing reading comprehension?!? You must make lots of friends this way. Thanks again.
      Karma, sir. Karma.

  48. font corruption -- bugs by DJK · · Score: 1

    No problem here
    (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7)

    But my guess is that you're running a trunk version with Cairo turned on. There are at least a few bugs with font display. I found the following issues listed at the burning edge (http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/)
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33071 5
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32470 6
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32456 0

    david

  49. Re:Power? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    Well I have outlets around the room for power, but there is a front door on one side of the room and the passge way to the kitchen/rest of the house on the other... so cables would constantly be tripped upon and I am too lazy/unskilled to rip up the carpeting to lay cable underneath it...