Subscribe to EDN

Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor

February 17, 2005

It’s no secret that the MBOA (Multiband OFDM Alliance) and the UWB Forum are engaged in a stalemate over standards for UWB (Ultra Wideband) communications. Matthew Miller described the battle in “Ultra-wide division: Rival UWB groups tout support” last summer and nothing has really changed. Now upstart Pulse~Link is out promoting a third alternative that it calls CWave UWB (Continuous Wave UWB). Pulse-Link claims that its technology will offer significantly higher data rates than MBOA or UWB Forum technologies at PAN (personal Area network) ranges while supporting the transmission of HDTV streams at WLAN (wireless LAN) ranges.

The UWB space has generally been disappointing both in terms of the inability of the industry to adopt a standard and the relatively short range that appears feasible. Both the MBOA and UWB Forum members are going ahead with product plans despite the lack of a single standard. And Motorola, from the UWB Forum camp, has a huge head start in terms of chip development. I believe that the MBOA will at best deliver on what Intel is calling Wireless USB with range covering an office at best. I believe that the UWB Forum will deliver technology that can move HDTV streams around a living room.

The Holy Grail of wireless in the home, however, remains the ability to move multimedia streams around a home – a goal long targeted by 802.11 players. Pulse~Link could prove to be a live long shot if they can substantiate their claims. The company claims that the technology will deliver 800-Mbps or even 1-Gbps rates in the PAN environment. Such performance would enable wireless DVI or HDMI to connect HDTV receivers to monitors. Of potentially greater importance, the company claims line-of-sight transmission of 1-Mbps streams at a range of 100m.

Of course the CWave UWB announcement was accompanied by the requisite industry association – the Consumer Wireless Audio-Video Entertainment Alliance (CWAVE Alliance). As of now, Pulse~Link has not announced CWAVE members.

You may think that there’s no room for a third UWB technology, and that’s a fair concern. On the other hand, Pulse~Link is claming a wireless capability that competes more with WLAN than with UWB technologies – and it’s not like the UWB players are entrenched in any case. While I’d pretty much written off 802.11 WLANs as an option for whole house media distribution, the MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) technology developed by Airgo Networks has me rethinking that position. Moreover, other wired options exits such as Entropic Communications’ plans to distribute HDTV over existing coax plants.

On its side, Pulse~Link’s existence doesn’t immediately depend on widespread adoption of its technology by consumer electronics vendors. The company is also pushing its technology into secure WLAN applications where 802.11 simply can never be secure enough for uses such as homeland security. Pulse-Link has also been outspoken about the need to develop time-spectrum allocation mechanisms so that all UWB systems can work without interference (see “Regulating time”).

As for CWave UWB, Pulse~Link has developed an evaluation kit and will be demonstrating the technology in the coming months. The company just announced the PLK23300-EVK Evaluation Kit that includes four UWB radios, diagnostic software, and a GUI. Alas the kit isn’t really for sale but rather will be provided to partners that join CWAVE. The company will publicly demonstrate CWave UWB at the 2005 Homeland and Global Security Summit in Washington, DC, (March 1 - 3).

Posted by Maury Wright on February 17, 2005 | Comments (12)

March 2, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Someone taking the stand of User commented:

Regardless of which one has better intrinsic properties, I believe that either the pulse-mode or MBOA is fine for UWB. Good example is 802.3 Ethernet. Recall the iso-ethernet, and the AnyVG Ethernet? They fail because they did not get enough industry support, not because they are inferior to the then Ethernet choices. There is no perfect UWB scheme. So, what's wrong to pick the one that came out first, then make an effort to keep improving it. Haven't we seen two great examples in networking and interface standards: Ethernet, and USB? I believe that we have a whole bunch of technology pushers who perhaps disguise themselves as speaking for the users :)


March 2, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Someone taking the stand of User commented:

Regardless of which one has better intrinsic properties, I believe that either the pulse-mode or MBOA is fine for UWB. Good example is 802.3 Ethernet. Recall the iso-ethernet, and the AnyVG Ethernet? They fail because they did not get enough industry support, not because they are inferior to the then Ethernet choices. There is no perfect UWB scheme. So, what's wrong to pick the one that came out first, then make an effort to keep improving it. Haven't we seen two great examples in networking and interface standards: Ethernet, and USB? I believe that we have a whole bunch of technology pushers who perhaps disguise themselves as speaking for the users :)


March 2, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Some in search of the truth commented:

Regardless of which one has better intrinsic properties, I believe that either the pulse-mode or MBOA is fine for UWB. Good example is 802.3 Ethernet. Recall the iso-ethernet, and the AnyVG Ethernet? They fail because they did not get enough industry support, not because they are inferior to the then Ethernet choices. There is no perfect UWB scheme. So, what's wrong to pick the one that came out first, then make an effort to keep improving it. Haven't we seen two great examples in networking and interface standards: Ethernet, and USB?


March 2, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Some in search of the truth commented:

Regardless of which one has better intrinsic properties, I believe that either the pulse-mode or MBOA is fine for UWB. Good example is 802.3 Ethernet. Recall the iso-ethernet, and the AnyVG Ethernet? They fail because they did not get enough industry support, not because they are inferior to the then Ethernet choices. There is no perfect UWB scheme. So, what's wrong to pick the one that came out first, then make an effort to keep improving it. Haven't we seen two great examples in networking and interface standards: Ethernet, and USB?


February 22, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Stephen Ellwood commented:

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the Laws of Physics that makes OFDM more tolerant to indirect propogation than pulse based systems. This is part of the reason why the deadlock exists in the IEEE. To say its hard is true, there are many things about UWB that are hard and I've seen OFDM systems that die when the line of sight is broken too. Facts are good, opinion less good.


February 22, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Stephen Ellwood commented:

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the Laws of Physics that makes OFDM more tolerant to indirect propogation than pulse based systems. This is part of the reason why the deadlock exists in the IEEE. To say its hard is true, there are many things about UWB that are hard and I've seen OFDM systems that die when the line of sight is broken too. Facts are good, opinion less good.


February 21, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
UWB Insider commented:

That is the beauty of OFDM: it does capture all of the multi-path energy. Pulse based systems have a real hard time capturing energy. That is why their systems do not work when there is no line of sight path for the signal. My comments are not part of a religious war, but are in fact statements of fact.


February 21, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
UWB Insider commented:

That is the beauty of OFDM: it does capture all of the multi-path energy. Pulse based systems have a real hard time capturing energy. That is why their systems do not work when there is no line of sight path for the signal. My comments are not part of a religious war, but are in fact statements of fact.


February 21, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Stephen Ellwood commented:

I dont believe the author was inviting a religious war so I am amazed at the outburst from "UWB Insider". It is true that any radio system that does not properly capture multipath energy will fail when the line of sight is broken. This applies equally to OFDM systems and Pulse based systems. Indeed MBOA is designed primarily for short range, line of sight communications - which is fine!


February 21, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
Stephen Ellwood commented:

I dont believe the author was inviting a religious war so I am amazed at the outburst from "UWB Insider". It is true that any radio system that does not properly capture multipath energy will fail when the line of sight is broken. This applies equally to OFDM systems and Pulse based systems. Indeed MBOA is designed primarily for short range, line of sight communications - which is fine!


February 19, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
UWB Insider commented:

The author is an idiot. Don't believe the UWB Forum. Believe in what their silicon does; which is fail when someone walks between the antennas. Sad really that the author does not due his diligence before writing an article.


February 19, 2005
In response to: Another UWB scheme – but in a WLAN flavor
UWB Insider commented:

The author is an idiot. Don't believe the UWB Forum. Believe in what their silicon does; which is fail when someone walks between the antennas. Sad really that the author does not due his diligence before writing an article.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2011 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows