Next-Gen Wi-Fi: Will Startups Get Steamrolled And Standards Bodies Short-Circuited...

…and if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?

This is a writeup that was originally supposed to appear tomorrow morning at 8AM ET, the initial embargo date. But then one of the upstart ‘news’ alternatives I talked about earlier today decided it didn’t feel like playing by the same rules as everyone else…sigh, I digress..

As recent online editorial writeups from me have hopefully made clear, I’m skeptical that video-centric high speed wireless links, especially ones championed by small, under-funded startups, will amount to much going forward (ironically Staccato, who I needled in this particular piece, published a guest opinion writeup in EDN this morning). More function-versatile IP-based counterparts are superior in my mind, at least on a conceptual basis.

But hands-on analysis suggests that today’s 802.11n draft technology is incapable of routing even one high-def video stream within a LAN using a single channel, in spite of interference-free spectrum, an open-air and short-distance source-to-destination span, and technologies such as MIMO antennas and bonded 20 MHz links. Even two distinct channels aren’t enough for sustained success, although evidence suggests that Wi-Fi in and of itself isn’t to blame in this particular case. And from past experience, both as an observer and as a participant,, I’m not confident that industry standards bodies will be able to either address issues with today’s technology or advance it to the next necessary performance and feature threshold in a timely and robust manner.

Enter the WiGig (Wireless Gigabit) Alliance, an imposing collection of building block and systems manufacturers:

spearheaded by Intel and chartered with advancing wireless communications beyond 802.11n by the end of this decade. From my conversation with Dr. Ali Sadri (chairman and president of the WiGig Alliance, from Intel) and Bill McFarland (WiGig Alliance board member, and Atheros’ CTO) yesterday afternoon, I got the strong sense that the Alliance plans to model itself after successful past de-facto industry standards such as USB, PCI and PCI Express:

• Intel as technology champion, thereby largely insuring WiGig’s timely presence in the high-volume PC market (like USB, and unlike FireWire), joined by
• Other big-name silicon, software and systems suppliers, with implementation robustness assured by
• A comprehensive rev. 0 specification, coupled with vigorous and ongoing ‘plug-and-play’ interoperability testing

WiGig plans to migrate from today’s 2.4 and 5 GHz technologies to the 60 GHz ISM band, currently in notable use by the SiBEAM-developed WirelessHD technology and by point-to-point microwave gear. Bandwidth capabilities for first-generation WiGig gear will start out at 1 Gbps for power consumption-sensitive equipment and span a range up to 6.7 Gbps (raw..5 Gbps effective). Numerous protocol adaptation layers will encompass functions such as HDMI, DisplayPort, and generic TCP and UDP transfers.

Public specification publication is slated for the fourth quarter of this year, and in advance, parties interested in joining the Alliance are encouraged to contact it. The current board of directors is comprised of Atheros Communications, Broadcom, Dell, Intel, LG Electronics, Marvell, MediaTek, Microsoft, NEC, Nokia, Panasonic (weren’t they also a WirelessHD consortium member, with supportive gear already available in Japan? Oh, oh, SiBEAM…), Samsung Electronics and Wilocity. Contributor companies include NXP, Realtek, STMicroelectronics and Tensorcom. Neither Atheros nor Intel was willing to disclose specific product availability schedules at this particular time.

Below are some of the questions I asked Sadri and McFarland yesterday, with abridged, paraphrased versions of their responses to me:

Why not just further bond channels in the 5 GHz spectrum beyond the two supported in 802.11n, versus jumping to 60 GHz?
In order to get the bandwidth we feel we need for envisioned applications serviced through WiGig’s life, we’d need to bond dozens of 5 GHz channels. This isn’t even feasible today, given the number of non-overlapping 5 GHz channels available, and the 5 GHz spectrum will be increasingly crowded over time. Conversely 7 GHz of relatively clear 60 GHz-band spectrum is currently available unlicensed in the US, even more in other geographic regions.

What about technologies such as ultrawideband, Amimon’s 5 GHz-based WHDI approach, and SiBEAM’s 60 GHz WirelessHD technology? Wasn’t Intel once a heavy investor in UWB?
They are heavily focused on transporting video to the exclusion of other data types. Our approach, acting as a sort of next-generation Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, is intended to be more function-diverse. The companies represented in our Alliance are also more established (financially and otherwise) than the small startups advocating the alternative approaches you mention. UWB, while showing great theoretical promise, has to date never been able to achieve necessary cost, power consumption and performance targets in real-world deployments.

Although SiBEAM’s market success has to date been modest at best, the company has undoubtedly filed numerous patents on its 60 GHz approach. How do you plan to navigate this particular landmine? And what about potential RF interference with other 60 GHz signals?
The fundamentals of 60 GHz millimeter-wave radio technology date back at least two decades, maybe even further. We don’t anticipate there’ll be any legal issues with SiBEAM, either with respect to either standards or implementations. As with point-to-point microwave deployments in the 60 GHz band, we plan to be a ‘good neighbor’ to any operating WirelessHD equipment, adaptively adjusting ourselves so as to not interfere with its signals.

Why not work through the 802.11ad standards-development body instead?
Many of us are also members of that standards body, along with Bluetooth and others. Our intention is to expedite 802.11ad’s efforts, not necessarily to circumvent them.

Speaking of Bluetooth, is WiGig at all envisioned to be a ‘Bluetooth killer’?
Not at all. Bluetooth is a mature and function-diverse technology; Atheros, for example, is a major supplier of Bluetooth silicon and plans to be so far into the future. However, just as recently unveiled Bluetooth 3.0 adopted Wi-Fi’s radio technology, there’s a possibility that a future Bluetooth iteration might similarly leverage WiGig as its transport layer.

All this talk about Bluetooth makes me think of battery-operated devices such as PDAs and cellphones, therefore of power consumption. 60 GHz-based transmission and reception gear must suck a lot of current, right?
As we previously discussed, entry-level WiGig bandwidth will be 1 Gbps, precisely intended as a speed-vs-power consumption optimization threshold. Additionally, power consumption- and cost-sensitive gear can use simpler protocols and coding schemes supported by the WiGig standard currently under development.

And what about range? My experience correlates with the common claim that 5 Ghz Wi-Fi has decreased operating range compared to 2.4 GHz gear. Won’t 60 GHz be even worse in this regard?
In fact, 60 GHz energy is notably absorbed by oxygen. WiGig equipment is intended for use within a room, no further. And again, there’s a range-versus-power consumption tradeoff at a given performance target, allowing for equipment with different functional characteristics, battery life expectations and price projections. Keep in mind that reduced range is both a potential negative and a potential positive; it reduces the probability of unwanted interference between otherwise contending broadcasters.

So one could imagine, for example, a series of WiGig nodes within a home, interconnected via a ‘backbone’ wired technology like CAT5, MoCA, or one of the contenting powerline networking approaches?
Yes, and in fact those interconnections could also be via 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz Wi-Fi links. The ability to produce a single-chip radio capable of handling both 802.11 and WiGig is something we’re definitely shooting for with modern advanced lithographies.