ukhackster writes "ZDNet UK is reporting that ultrawideband will be legalized in Europe within 6 months, but with tougher controls than in America — the only place where it is legal now. Ultrawideband offers wireless connectivity at speeds up to 1Gbps, and is meant to supersede USB and clear our desks of wires. In Europe, fears that UWB might interfere with other technologies have kept it out of the market. Opening up the European market could give manufacturers a powerful incentive to push UWB." From the article: "[S]ources confirmed to ZDNet UK that the restrictions put forward by the EC would indeed be more rigorous than those imposed in the US, although they would not be so restrictive as to make it impossible for some global harmonization of UWB devices... It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal."
So, does "clear desks of wires" include life-time battery for my camera/cell phone/zune (:p), or we'll still have to have those gross wires (but won't admit it even to ourselves, of course).
"Wireless Desk Area Networking" is pointless until the desk incorporates a form of wireless recharger (e.g., inductive, or that dot arrangement thing, etc) and devices can be recharged via that mechanism. And that requires people to care about a few cables popping up behind the desk to their rechargers and peripherals. Note that a few ties can organise wires into looking quite tidy too. UWB is far more useful for high-speed in-house wireless networking between non-close systems, with applications such as HD
Don't forget your keyboard, mouse, flash devices, external hard drives (driven by a 12 volt car battery, I'd guess), scanners, cable and dsl modems, et al.
I had a wireless keyboard and mouse for a while. After a while, I figured it was easier to put up with a cord on the desk than having to dig through a drawer at 2 AM only to find out you're out of batteries. Granted, they don't need batteries often, but when they do, you're stuck if you don't have spares.
fears that UWB might interfere with other technologies has kept it out of the market
I've been hearing about these fears for like five years now. Why the hell doesn't anyone just test the damn thing? Is this question really that hard to settle? Am I missing something here?
The problem is the "death of a million cuts" -- by the time you've tested for it, it's too late. Each UWB device slightly degrades the radio spectrum around it for more conventional narrowband devices. One or two or even a thousand such devices in a square mile might be OK -- but by the time you've got a hundred thousand or a million of these things deployed in an urban core, it's too late to back out.
You can see the effect of progressive RF contamination by testing the range of (say) a CB rig in San Jose, California versus Tracy, California. Both have similar topography but vastly different levels of background RF noise in the 20-30 MHz band. (for what it's worth, a pair of car-mount Radio Schlock CB rigs with 1/4-wave antennae will work at up to about 35 miles in the California Central Valley, but only up to about 3 miles in Silicon Valley).
The problem is the "death of a million cuts" -- by the time you've tested for it, it's too late.
That's an error in testing, not the technology. The instruments are sensitive enough to determine the noise change from a single unit. Toss in an amplifier to raise the level to that which it would be with a million people with it, and then check the interference again.
"Linear" in this case refers to an 11 meter power RF amplifier with a linear transfer characteristic which is required to amplify AM or SSB signals without distortion.
It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal. UWB opponents are mostly established band users who claim that high densities of UWB usage will raise the interference level enough to affect their existing and future services. However, tests in the US have not found any plausible scenarios where such interference is a significant factor.
I believe there is some concern in Europe about interfering with GPS & GNSS equipment around airports. I believe a second GPS test in the US was done that showed it wasn't as bad as first thought, but I haven't read it.
The initial tested used devices that were damn near on top of each other.
I can show you a GPS unit failing when near a computer, or PocketPC under a similar configuration, with no other intentional radio signals present.
I wouldn't want a large amount of UWB equipment on an airplane, but I wouldn't worry about my GPS unit not working because of equipment in use near me. The alternator in a car generates more interference.
The question is whether UWB will actually be as useful as it's being touted. I certainly know that I have no need or desire to have a home AP that whose signal goes beyond 100 meters. I'm sure most of us won't be using it for that either.
I can see a very practical use for this for quickly deploying an internet infrastructure under an emergency situation, as this would be perfect for creating relays to maintain connectivity to a distant area while covering a huge surface. I'm sure that as time goes on other more inventive applications will come to mind.
I think you are confusing Ultra-wideband and WiMax.
WiMax is like conventional 802.11 "WiFi," but optimized for higher data rates and much longer distances. It's like Wifi on 'roids, emphasis on coverage area and distance.
UWB is different; it's a very short-range protocol for 'desktop' use. Basically, as a way to get devices that are near each other anyway, to communicate with each other without wires. Think of it as Bluetooth on 'roids, but hopefully without all the obnoxiousness.
UWB would definitely not be good for creating point-to-point internet relays/backhaul, or any application that involved distances of more than a few feet. It uses way too much RF spectrum; the idea is that it transmits on a whole load of frequencies at once, but since the power is very low, it doesn't interfere with other things (too badly). This way you get ridiculous data rates, comparable to high-bandwidth wired protocols (so say UWB's promoters) but without having to have wires all over your desk. In a UWB-ed world, you wouldn't have to have a cable going from your scanner to your PC, because it could just pass the data wirelessly.
Taking a peek behind my desktop PC, I see mostly wires for the following:
2 VGA cables to my dual monitors 2 Power cords to those monitors 1 power cable for the PC 1 RF antenna for my FM tuner 1 Coax for my cable TV 1 cord for USB mouse 1 cord for USB keyboard 1 cord for power to my speakers 1 cord to connect speakers to PC
Let's do the math. 2/11 of those cords can be fixed with UWB. Unless wireless power is part of the spec, I'm quite sceptical of its desk clearing ability...
I could be all wrong about UWB, but I believe that they want to clear 7 of those.
2 VGA cables to my dual monitors
1 Coax for my cable TV (would only count if you had a desktop case)
1 cord for USB mouse
1 cord for USB keyboard
1 cord to connect speakers to PC
The RF antenna and PC power cords are not on your desk. (given that you don't have a desktop case)
That leaves 3 power cords out of the 8 I would have counted. That is a pretty good improvement. Good enough to warrant more RF noise? That is another story...
Rechargeable batteries work quite well. On keyboards, a pair of batteries will last literally months. Mice are trickier, however, since your average optical mouse does a nontrivial amount of processing work. Logitech is coming up with new inventive solutions for making it bearable - the recent G7 mice come with a little charger and a pair of replaceable batteries, so your charging downtime is mere seconds. The keyboard could easily use the same batteries, though I don't know if they're going to bother with t
Power cords will remain, but you can probably see alternatives to some of the other devices:
1 RF antenna for my FM tuner
Why not use a USB device that would work wirelessly and allow you to place in a better position to actually place an antenna? Which leads us to...
1 Coax for my cable TV
I'm assuming this is cable to the TV itself (tho I'm unsure to what percentage of the average business desktop this would be found), but this could be a USB tuner/capture device as well (better if it includes FM!),
Exactly, Unless Superwideband induces voltage along with it, we will either still have wires and therefore ignore superwideband or replace batteries in everything every 45 minutes so we can be free of wires.
I always get a kick out of the claims "...is meant to supersede USB and clear our desks of wires."
Hmm. I actually quite like some of the wires. They're effective tethers to prevent my young children running off with aforementioned mouse, keyboard etc.
I have a logitech trackball.. it's unfortunately wireless. So every 2months I have to hunt down a pack of AA batteries from the office supply closet. Which during the holidays is impossible as everyone steals AA batteries to take home instead of buying them for their kids toys.
So, now I'll need another set for my keyboard, speakers etc...
Costco sells this Samsung rechargeable battery kit with the charger, 4 AA batteries, and 2 AAA batteries for USD15-20. Rechargeable are are cheap and also good for the environment:-)
I think the UWB idea is simply horrendous. First, privacy. Has anyone thought of this? Do you REALLY want the chance of someone being able to eavesdrop on every keyboard press or mouse click you make, or all other communications to your peripherals, perhaps what you are printing out? Another concern is the exposure to the EMF fields. This will surely just increase the nasty soup of RF fields that pollute our environment already. I have heard from many people who come down with all sorts of symptoms being ne
It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal
France has a long tradition of objetcing to things on spurious technical, moral or other grounds - but usually the real basis is a little simpler. If UWB were owned/invented/marketed by a French company (preferably a state-backed one) then it'd be not only legal by now, but probably compulsory. As a protectionist government, they usually en
Just ask anyone in the television industry about SECAM. It started out as a french standard that was created because the french wanted to prevent imports of (cheaper) foriegn PAL TVs and protect the domestic industry.
Although later on the Soviets adopted it for a bunch of iron curtain countries so that only state controled SECAM TV could be recieved and not PAL TV comming in from over the border in the west.
step 1. plug your desk into the usb port of your PC (s) step 2. plug your desk into the mains step 3. plonk monitors, mice, keyboards, ipods, digital cameras, possibly even laptops on desk everything can talk to everything else, including any usb-connected devices, and everything gets power too. all it would take is a couple of induction layers and you can still have a few mm of laminated wood-effect on top. the RF communication would work pretty much like bluetooth or UWB but would induct via a plate at the b
That really is how "they" name things. For example semiconductors: SSI - small scale integration MSI - medium scale integration LSI - large scale integration VLSI - very large scale integration ULSI - ultra large scale integration
Except, of course, the defining characteristic of a state is a unified system of defence. The US definitely has this, the EU does not. If you ever need to see where real political power lies, just follow the chain of command.
Then "Europe" can be an abbreviation for The European Union.
I didn't say I had a problem with calling the USA America, just that making a fuss over Europe != EU was just as silly as America != USA. It's not my fault you failed reading comprehension.
"I'm also concerned over all this radio activity in the air, even though people say it's alright, which I don't believe." Well unless you live in a giant Faraday cage then it really doesn't matter. BTW even your cables and PC emit RF. Have a nice day.
Charging (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
UWB is far more useful for high-speed in-house wireless networking between non-close systems, with applications such as HD
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget your keyboard, mouse, flash devices, external hard drives (driven by a 12 volt car battery, I'd guess), scanners, cable and dsl modems, et al.
I had a wireless keyboard and mouse for a while. After a while, I figured it was easier to put up with a cord on the desk than having to dig through a drawer at 2 AM only to find out you're out of batteries. Granted, they don't need batteries often, but when they do, you're stuck if you don't have spares.
Maybe if they resurrected Tesla's research [wikipedia.org] an
Re: (Score:2)
Err, testing?? (Score:5, Insightful)
fears that UWB might interfere with other technologies has kept it out of the market
I've been hearing about these fears for like five years now. Why the hell doesn't anyone just test the damn thing? Is this question really that hard to settle? Am I missing something here?
Re:Err, testing?? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can see the effect of progressive RF contamination by testing the range of (say) a CB rig in San Jose, California versus Tracy, California. Both have similar topography but vastly different levels of background RF noise in the 20-30 MHz band. (for what it's worth, a pair of car-mount Radio Schlock CB rigs with 1/4-wave antennae will work at up to about 35 miles in the California Central Valley, but only up to about 3 miles in Silicon Valley).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's an error in testing, not the technology. The instruments are sensitive enough to determine the noise change from a single unit. Toss in an amplifier to raise the level to that which it would be with a million people with it, and then check the interference again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Err, testing?? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal. UWB opponents are mostly established band users who claim that high densities of UWB usage will raise the interference level enough to affect their existing and future services. However, tests in the US have not found any plausible scenarios where such interference is a significant factor.
I believe there is some concern in Europe about interfering with GPS & GNSS equipment around airports. I believe a second GPS test in the US was done that showed it wasn't as bad as first thought, but I haven't read it.
Parent
Re:Err, testing?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can show you a GPS unit failing when near a computer, or PocketPC under a similar configuration, with no other intentional radio signals present.
I wouldn't want a large amount of UWB equipment on an airplane, but I wouldn't worry about my GPS unit not working because of equipment in use near me. The alternator in a car generates more interference.
Parent
Question is (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is whether UWB will actually be as useful as it's being touted. I certainly know that I have no need or desire to have a home AP that whose signal goes beyond 100 meters. I'm sure most of us won't be using it for that either.
I can see a very practical use for this for quickly deploying an internet infrastructure under an emergency situation, as this would be perfect for creating relays to maintain connectivity to a distant area while covering a huge surface. I'm sure that as time goes on other more inventive applications will come to mind.
Las quejas de un sysadmin argentino: http://aosinski.phpnet.us/ [phpnet.us]
UWB is not WiMax (Score:5, Informative)
WiMax is like conventional 802.11 "WiFi," but optimized for higher data rates and much longer distances. It's like Wifi on 'roids, emphasis on coverage area and distance.
UWB is different; it's a very short-range protocol for 'desktop' use. Basically, as a way to get devices that are near each other anyway, to communicate with each other without wires. Think of it as Bluetooth on 'roids, but hopefully without all the obnoxiousness.
UWB would definitely not be good for creating point-to-point internet relays/backhaul, or any application that involved distances of more than a few feet. It uses way too much RF spectrum; the idea is that it transmits on a whole load of frequencies at once, but since the power is very low, it doesn't interfere with other things (too badly). This way you get ridiculous data rates, comparable to high-bandwidth wired protocols (so say UWB's promoters) but without having to have wires all over your desk. In a UWB-ed world, you wouldn't have to have a cable going from your scanner to your PC, because it could just pass the data wirelessly.
You might be interested in reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Appli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_area_networ
Parent
Clear our desk of wires? (Score:5, Insightful)
2 VGA cables to my dual monitors
2 Power cords to those monitors
1 power cable for the PC
1 RF antenna for my FM tuner
1 Coax for my cable TV
1 cord for USB mouse
1 cord for USB keyboard
1 cord for power to my speakers
1 cord to connect speakers to PC
Let's do the math. 2/11 of those cords can be fixed with UWB. Unless wireless power is part of the spec, I'm quite sceptical of its desk clearing ability...
Re:Clear our desk of wires? (Score:4, Interesting)
2 VGA cables to my dual monitors 1 Coax for my cable TV (would only count if you had a desktop case) 1 cord for USB mouse 1 cord for USB keyboard 1 cord to connect speakers to PC
The RF antenna and PC power cords are not on your desk. (given that you don't have a desktop case)
That leaves 3 power cords out of the 8 I would have counted. That is a pretty good improvement. Good enough to warrant more RF noise? That is another story...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The keyboard could easily use the same batteries, though I don't know if they're going to bother with t
Re: (Score:2)
1 RF antenna for my FM tuner
Why not use a USB device that would work wirelessly and allow you to place in a better position to actually place an antenna? Which leads us to...
1 Coax for my cable TV
I'm assuming this is cable to the TV itself (tho I'm unsure to what percentage of the average business desktop this would be found), but this could be a USB tuner/capture device as well (better if it includes FM!),
Re: (Score:2)
I always get a kick out of the claims "...is meant to supersede USB and clear our desks of wires."
Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wireless DVI
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11146180/Wireless_
As far as I can tell, only the 3 power cords in your setup cannot be replaced by wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless peripherals mean more batteries (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now I'll need another set for my keyboard, speakers etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
]{
americans (Score:3, Funny)
devices? (Score:2)
]{
Bad idea (Score:2)
France... it's not about the technology (Score:2)
France has a long tradition of objetcing to things on spurious technical, moral or other grounds - but usually the real basis is a little simpler. If UWB were owned/invented/marketed by a French company (preferably a state-backed one) then it'd be not only legal by now, but probably compulsory. As a protectionist government, they usually en
Re: (Score:2)
It started out as a french standard that was created because the french wanted to prevent imports of (cheaper) foriegn PAL TVs and protect the domestic industry.
Although later on the Soviets adopted it for a bunch of iron curtain countries so that only state controled SECAM TV could be recieved and not PAL TV comming in from over the border in the west.
Security industry boom (Score:2)
They'll have to pry my cables... (Score:2)
Instead: how about an electric desk? (Score:2)
step 2. plug your desk into the mains
step 3. plonk monitors, mice, keyboards, ipods, digital cameras, possibly even laptops on desk
everything can talk to everything else, including any usb-connected devices, and everything gets power too. all it would take is a couple of induction layers and you can still have a few mm of laminated wood-effect on top. the RF communication would work pretty much like bluetooth or UWB but would induct via a plate at the b
How 'bout... (Score:5, Funny)
Massively Connected Architecture, or MCA?
Petabit Connected Internet, or PCI?
High Density Datalink, or HDD?
Low-range Petabit Transmissions, or LPT:?
Further examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SSI - small scale integration
MSI - medium scale integration
LSI - large scale integration
VLSI - very large scale integration
ULSI - ultra large scale integration
what's next?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
SHF-super high frequency
EHF-extremely high frequency
Overwhelmingly Large Telescope
Ridiculous speed
Ludicrous speed
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
UltraWideBand Turbo
Super UltraWideBand
Super UltraWideBand Turbo
And once we run out of names....
UltraWideBand 2.0! (increment and repeat)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:In Europe? (Score:4, Informative)
> isn't it better to keep the meanings intact?
Most non-EU nations in Europe tend to follow EU regulation as well. They just don't get a say in it.
> Also, aren't EU bills only a recommendation for the EU states, which have to accept it one by
> one as well?
They have to be implemented in national law, which the EU countries are legally obliged to do.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I had a problem with calling the USA America, just that making a fuss over Europe != EU was just as silly as America != USA. It's not my fault you failed reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Well unless you live in a giant Faraday cage then it really doesn't matter. BTW even your cables and PC emit RF.
Have a nice day.
Wired is cheaper? (Score:2)
Of course it is PRICED higher. But the wireless is cheaper, in most cases.
Ratboy
Re: (Score:2)