Broadcom Crams 802.11n, Bluetooth, and FM Onto a Single Chip

Broadcom has managed to cram 802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, and FM reception/transmission all into a single "combo wireless chip." Designed to be a better wireless implementation for portable devices, the chip seeks to lower chip counts and integration costs. "Broadcom is the second firm — following Atheros in a single-function chip — to announce a single-stream 802.11n product, in which one of 802.11n's advantages is shaved off in favor of a faster baseline performance and lower battery consumption. This move is meant to replace 802.11g in portable devices without draining a battery faster and providing other advantages that make up for what's become a slight cost difference."

The real winner is the retailers

[utahraptor (703433)]

They can sell the same hardware in 3 versions charging more for each one depending which features are enabled.

Re:The real winner is the retailers

[noidentity (188756)]

They can sell the same hardware in 3 versions [802.11n, Bluetooth, and FM] charging more for each one depending which features are enabled.

So that's why my portable FM radio has two detachable antennas, four ethernet ports that don't seem to do anything, and flashable firmware!

Re:

[p0tat03 (985078)]

To their credit it wasn't *that* evil. Pipelines and clocks were turned off/down based on manufacturing defects, so it's not as if they placed some arbitrary restriction on your hardware for no good reason, although most would run quite well at boosted specs.

I don't think you have the quite the right mindest

[Arthur Grumbine (1086397)]

1) Broadcom Bluetooth 2.0+EDR adapter
2) Broadcom 802.11n adapter
3) Broadcom FM receiver/transmitter
4) Broadcom Office Pro:
802.11n with BONUS Bluetooth!! Let's you stay connected and productive WHEREVER you go!11!
5) Broadcom Mobile:
802.11n with BONUS FM radio!! Great for connecting to your friend's Wifi AND playing tunes through your car radio!!11!
6) Broadcom Media Pro:
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR with BONUS FM radio!! Play radio directly to your Bluetooth headset ZOMG!!11!
7) Broadcom Ultimate*:
802.11n with BONUS Bluetooth AND FM radio!!11! For the person who has EVERYTHING!1!11!!

* - requires 4GB of RAM for all features

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck soldering the pins they removed and coding the drivers they didn't include.

Whats new with that?

[aywwts4 (610966)]

We have to code the effing drivers anyways.

Re:

[theaveng (1243528)]

How come none of these chips ever come with an AM receiver? FM is just filled with a bunch of teeny-bopper music, but AM has all the cool talk shows like "Rush Windbaugh" and "The Corn Outlook". ;-)

Broadcom is crap

[rewter (189441)]

Broadcom wireless chipsets are crap. And I am speaking out of real embedded system design experience here.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[Hordeking (1237940)]

Broadcom wireless chipsets are crap. And I am speaking out of real embedded system design experience here.

Agreed, but from a different perspective. Their support for users running Linux is atrocious. I absolutely hate purchasing a wireless PCI card from a major maker only to find they've changed chips between revisions, and the new chip doesn't have drivers. Of course, the makers are just as guilty, since they don't mark the packaging in any way.

Re:Broadcom is crap

[fishbowl (7759)]

A significant linux deployment project was once abandoned by a client of mine because it was impossible to spec a PCI 802.11/g card.
There's no way to identify a product meaningfully, and no way to make the order repeatable. The few vendors who will guarantee linux support for a device, would only do so at an unacceptable price, and it was clear that they had no better way of guaranteeing it than the consumer did.

I know there have been a few cards that have stable chipsets (e.g., certain 3COM models). This doesn't really help the situation.

The wireless-compatability HOWTO is good for a laugh. There are devices listed that were only available for a short time, only in certain countries, and many devices that, given the same part number, get you several completely different cards.

I lost count of the number of times I was referred to that list when shopping for a vendor that would guarantee delivery and repeatable support of a card that would work.

What really stunk about the whole thing was that wireless internet was fast becoming "the killer app" for computing in many sectors, and Linux missed the boat. You can say it's not "linux's fault" but, why in the hell aren't the people who got rich off Linux, also sitting on the boards of some of these companies? Or at least, competing with them so that it's not possible, business-wise, to be openly hostile to Linux developers? Not "supportive", mind you, just not flatly hostile please. It's as if the directors of Broadcom used their leverage in an active campaign to keep Linux off portable computers.

Re:

[davolfman (1245316)]

Arguably it might be Broadcom given all the linux firmware that used to go into the routers that used their chips.

Re:

[Klaus_1250 (987230)]

Which ones aren't? Ralink has that famous will-randomly-disconnect-wpa-connections bug. Broadcom has the issue with not having open drivers. Which leaves Atheros? Marvell? ...

Re:Broadcom is crap

[phantomcircuit (938963)]

Intel wireless chipsets work essentially flawlessly and are opensource

Re:

[PitaBred (632671)]

Get an updated kernel. But I smell a troll... I have yet to find a single wired ethernet card that won't work with Linux. Are there some drivers not built by your distro for the kernel you're using or something?

Re:

[Chirs (87576)]

Broadcom makes some 1GB and 10GB devices that require closed-source drivers on Linux because they won't give out the specs.

So little room...

[Jonah Bomber (535788)]

So many ways to spy on you.

Broadcom?

[some_guy_88 (1306769)]

Awww, that'll never work on linux..

Re:

[Abreu (173023)]

Sad but true... NDISwrapper anyone?

Re:Broadcom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Broadcom recently released a Linux STA hybrid driver for some of their wireless chipsets. It works very nicely, even if it is a closed-source blob.

I believe this was a result of cooperation between Broadcom, Canonical and Dell.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant to include this link: http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php [broadcom.com]

Re:

[Culture20 (968837)]

Sure it will, after some diligent hackers create the drivers and a firmware loader. Assuming, of course, that Broadcom hasn't spent their research dollars purposefully obfuscating the thing.

Re:Broadcom?

[Chirs (87576)]

Broadcom is one of the last remaining holdouts that doesn't give out chip specs for their networking devices. Because of this, it's *very* difficult to create decent linux drivers for their chips.

Re:Broadcom?

[Firehed (942385)]

Meanwhile, the manufacturers who play nice with Linux are reaping the benefits of the Linux-running hardware tinkerer's credit cards.

This isn't rocket science... the more places your device can work, the bigger your market. Their spec obfuscation is akin to DRM - it only needs to be broken once for it to become globally worthless, yet if you don't use it in the first place then your loudest users will praise you.

What's there for Broadcom to gain by making it harder to write drivers? Surely it's in their best interest to have Linux support, especially given it's massively widespread use in the embedded devices market.

Re:Broadcom?

[IorDMUX (870522)]

What's there for Broadcom to gain by making it harder to write drivers?

Now, I work for a competitor, so take what I say with a grain (or more) of salt.

...That said, Broadcom is one of the most patent/trade-secret paranoid companies I know of. Their shotgun approach to patent lawsuits and insistence on playing their cards as close as possible to their chest is famous in the wireless industry. If they haven't released the specs on their networking devices, it's likely because they are terrified of *something* leaking out.

On another note, (and this is a beef I have with more than just Broadcom) how can they claim to have released an 802.11n device when 802.11n does not yet exist? [wikipedia.org] Yes, a draft version of .11n is out, and the final version *should* be *mostly* compatible with the draft versions... but there will almost certainly be features/protocol in the finalized version of the specification that differ from these different draft versions coming out at the rate of one every few months. It's like buying Vista (or OSX) before the first patches--except here, you can't patch hardware.

Re:

[i.of.the.storm (907783)]

I'm not a wireless expert, but I thought a lot of draft n stuff would be firmware upgradable to the final draft when it comes out. Is that just for certain routers? My laptop has draft n but I've never used it, n routers are too expensive and I'm not sure if DD-WRT supports draft n anyway.

Re:Broadcom?

[IorDMUX (870522)]

From what I understand from the techs with which I've spoken, it's one of those issues where *most* draft n devices *should* be firmware upgradable to be *mostly* compatible with finalized n. The problem is that nobody knows exactly what finalized n will be, so it is impossible to make a device that is absolutely hardware and firmware compatible with finalized n. As a result, there are all sorts of draft n products out there which implement some version (3.0, 3.02, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0) of draft n, but in a way that doesn't guarantee compatibility down the line.

Narrowcom?

[Ostracus (1354233)]

"Meanwhile, the manufacturers who play nice with Linux are reaping the benefits of the Linux-running hardware tinkerer's credit cards."

Obviously you didn't hear the news about the credit crunch. Anyway tinkerers have always been a small part of overall sales for a manufacturer. Not because they don't have the money but because most people buy hardware to solve a problem. Not tinker with endlessly into the night.

"This isn't rocket science... the more places your device can work, the bigger your market."

They're devices already WORK. Just because they don't play nice with a small subset of the population doesn't mean they're unsuccessful. They're a chip vendor, not Apple computers selling a finished product to discriminating buyers. The people who work with what they sell work for companies that already can afford NDAs.

Re:

[billcopc (196330)]

That's fine because we'll never buy it.

If Broadcom is too stupid to realize the huge market for Linux-based network appliances, then they deserve to fail.

Freebies?

[FranTaylor (164577)]

Does the chip come with a free ticket to Henry Nicholas's lair?

Package Size

[necro81 (917438)]

Neither the article, nor Broadcom's product page [broadcom.com], nor the product brochure pdf [broadcom.com] mention the package size. Any guesses?

I suppose it is probably a smaller footprint than three discrete radio chips put together. One usually gets better die-level integration than board level, and you can usually eliminate redundant functions that way.

Even if it were larger footprint, the fact that you could address and power just one chip rather than three would be a winning advantage on its own.

Re:Package Size

[jhfry (829244)]

Why do debates about technology always get reduced to the size of one's package. What difference does the size of one's package make when it comes to pleasing your intended audience? So your car is faster, your phone is smarter, and your house is bigger... my package is smaller so ha!

(perhaps it's our effort to make everything smaller that has caused the decline in masculinity talked about earlier today)

Package Size-Multitasking.

[Ostracus (1354233)]

"(perhaps it's our effort to make everything smaller that has caused the decline in masculinity talked about earlier today)"

Hey! You can fit more of them in your pocket.

Re:

[svnt (697929)]

One usually gets better die-level integration than board level

Thanks Captain Obvious. Usually? Please provide a single concrete example of better board-level integration.

the fact that you could address and power just one chip rather than three would be a winning advantage on its own.

Maybe, but most likely it will only save a couple of chip selects. Also, don't you just love it when your WiFi drops out when your FM radio is damaged?

SoftRadio?

[Skinkie (815924)]

So is this a software defined radio? With some cleaver filter techniques or is something cooler going on?

Re:

[amirulbahr (1216502)]

From the block diagram [broadcom.com], it looks like there are three distinct RF front-ends.

Re:SoftRadio?

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Uh, neither. It's a wifi radio supporting two different protocols glued to an FM radio.

It's much less cool than a software radio.

FM transmission?!?

[Locke2005 (849178)]

That would be used for what, exactly?

Re:

[JesseMcDonald (536341)]

Well, like numerous similar (non-integrated) devices already on the market, it would probably be used most often to link the host device's portable media player function to a car stereo system. These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels. There are no significant interference issues to worry about.

FM transmission?!?-Pickup lines.

[Ostracus (1354233)]

"These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels."

Hey, that's nice. I can do Mr Microphone [youtube.com] into my laptop.

Re:FM transmission?!?

[Locke2005 (849178)]

I hadn't thought of using it to play your MP3s through your car stereo. Just bear in mind that all 3 of these radio services are mutually exclusive, and although you can time division multiplex between 802.11n and Bluetooth, if you are doing FM, that is pretty much the only thing you can do for the whole time. FM wireless transmission in a car is very much subject to interference; even the cassette tape emulator my wife uses to play her iPod on her car stereo works better. Ideally, car stereos would just come with a USB connector on the front panel! By the way, I've tried streaming hi-def videos over 802.11n to my MacBook while listening to the audio on Bluetooth stereo headphones and it DOES NOT WORK. There is just enough audio dropout over the Bluetooth to be extremely annoying; I don't know whether or not it can be fixed in firmware. Putting all your radios in the same chip should make it easier to time division multiplex them.

Re:

[Shatrat (855151)]

Ideally, car stereos would just come with a USB connector on the front panel!

USB? I really dislike the trend of using USB for everything, no matter how badly suited.
A simple 3.5mm stereo jack is the most versatile possible solution IMO.

Re:

[silas_moeckel (234313)]

I hate to disagree but a USB jack that works with a line in to USB adapter is the most versatile of the two. 3.5mm stereo jack takes us all the way back to unbalanced analog 2 channel audio at best. These has to be a pile of cheap chips to do the conversion.

My current setup gets me 5.1 digital audio at the bit rate and compression of my choosing, video as well, works with my steering wheel controls, and will allow for my main screen and 2 auxiliary screens to all have there own content (only 2 audio chann

Re:

[Locke2005 (849178)]

I'm not an RF Engineer, but I suspect that the periodic transmissions the iPhone sends to the cell tower would wreck havoc with FM reception -- in other words, you could use it to listen to FM music only if you turned the cell phone feature off first. Also might not work with Bluetooth enabled, even though that is a much weaker signal, so forget about listening to the radio on bluetooth headphones... besides which, if you've got an iPhone, can't you stream most radio stations over the 3G network?

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Hasn't stopped about half the existing phones on the planet having FM receivers... It's a solved problem.

Will it work on Linux?

[pembo13 (770295)]

That's my primary deciding factor when I am purchasing wireless interfaces.

Re:

[sricetx (806767)]

The Arstechnica article doesn't mention Linux support, but given Broadcom's history with Linux and their 802.11g chips, I would say that there will be a long wait for working Linux drivers. I'd consider Broadcom the third worst 802.11x chip maker for Linux. Better than Marvell or TI, but not by much. For now your best best for working wireless devices in Linux are Intel, Atheros and Ralink based devices.

Linux laptops

[mgkimsal2 (200677)]

So now we can have *3* devices that don't work in our laptops running Linux, instead of potentially only 1 or 2 not work! Awesome :)

Re:

[MadnessASAP (1052274)]

Becuase they would be shutting out 90% of the market and therefore be even bigger morons then Broadcom?

Re:Linux laptops

[Medgur (172679)]

The Linux users have paid for the hardware, same as everyone else. All they're asking for is the minimum specifications so they can write the software to make it work themselves.

Re:

[Whiteox (919863)]

Damnit! Slashvertisements escape Adblock.