The Only Alternative: Bluetooth and Ultra-wideband
by Dean Anthony Gratton
The potential and associated applications for Ultra-wideband have been promised by numerous manufacturers over what may seem to be an eternity. We have all become very excited about the real possibility of Ultra-wideband delivering high-speed connectivity with data rates that are comparable to its USB-enabled counterpart (if not more!). We have to be careful not to portray an obituary listing in this feature, but rather focus more on a reflection of a collage of anecdotes that have led to the current status of the technology. Moreover, we need to address this current status, along with understanding the existing high-speed offering (that is Wi-Fi), and to review the long-term benefits of Ultra-wideband’s integration into the Bluetooth specification.
With good intent
In reality, the WiMedia Alliance has been disbanded and inevitably it will soon cease any administration activities for its former members along with terminating the evolution of the technology completely – this responsibility shall soon be bestowed to the Bluetooth SIG. Likewise, many Ultra-wideband silicon manufacturers have been unable to sustain a presence during an economic crisis where companies have folded and the more steadfast have simply culled their staff. Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Stacatto Communications concurs “the economy didn't help in the last couple of years, because it made it more difficult to raise the capital required to complete the commercialization.”
As we fondly recall Ultra-wideband’s journey, the early days of the technology’s promise was filled with extensive paperware slideshows, all demonstrating many use case scenarios. It was these use case scenarios that bestowed our over-active imaginations with the promise of true high-speed wireless connectivity, albeit over relatively short-distances (less than 10m or so). The motivation was a simple one; penetrate as many consumer electronic products as possible.
A frustrating time for all involved
Ultra-wideband allowed us to conceive, with a sense of proportioned reality, that a digital video camera, for example, could realistically wirelessly stream high-quality audio and video content to the TV. The technology purported ultra low power usage, deeming the technology suitable for most, if not all, electronic products, so the excitement was certainly well-founded. But alas, the technology endured an unfortunate rollercoaster ride in its endeavour to become the one and only wireless high-speed solution. Its early onset was marred by a battle of which is better: orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) or direct sequence Ultra-wideband (DS-UWB)? Indeed, two very different schemes, which are incompatible.
The battle commenced: the two technology camps took their respective corners and burdened the technology’s full introduction to market and adoption by other manufacturers for a number of years. In the meantime, a minority of manufacturers suitably massaged their egos, in turn, stifling the growth of Ultra-wideband – ultimately, this led to uncertainty and frustration for all involved. In the ensuing years two alliances formed, each touting their respective Ultra-wideband flavours, namely the WiMedia Alliance and the UWB Forum – the latter group were advocates of the DS-UWB offering. The eventual “we prefer this one” accolade was handed to the WiMedia Alliance and its first product offering deflated the industry, as the intensely proclaimed data rates of up to 480Mbps were nowhere to be seen. The OFDM frequency scheme assured us of minimal interference from other neighbouring wireless technologies – surely, a wireless utopia steeped with true untetherred connectivity. It’s like offering an elixir to eternal life in one magic shot – one sip, that’s all you need, and a sustainable and unrelenting wireless connection can be yours!
Humph – such a depressing tale, but nonetheless it’s all based on true events!
The elusive high-speed accolade
Meanwhile, the Bluetooth SIG was looking to enhance its technology portfolio. With Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) and Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) the Bluetooth SIG offered the industry several new techniques that potentially reduced interference from neighbouring wireless devices (using AFH); plus a solution with EDR to polish up its high-speed offering (at a modest 3Mbps). Alas, it still wasn’t enough to achieve high-speed throughput for streaming video.
It seemed the streaming video trophy still remained elusive and out of its grasp for the Bluetooth SIG. Moreover, the Bluetooth SIG had to react quickly, since the IEEE, with a new and improved flavour of its 802.11 portfolio (despite it being marketed as a ‘draft’ version), was dangerously clipping the Bluetooth SIG’s heels. The 802.11n offering increased data rates, along with backward compatibility with previous generations of 802.11 products – some astonishing foresight not to entirely nark the existing consumer-base! Finally, with 802.11n, the industry had in its possession a viable wireless high-speed solution that would potentially deliver streaming video content for a host of electronic products and gadgets.
Living with or without you
The kerfuffle of the Ultra-wideband story and associated rumours of its demise have been bubbling around for over a year or so now. In fact, Incisor featured a story titled, The Tortoise and The Hare in November’s 2008 issue highlighting the Bluetooth SIG’s introduction of its Alternative MAC/PHY layer (or AMP). Indeed, many in the industry were somewhat agog and aghast at the partnering of what was once considered to be two competing technologies – “Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are what?” Incidentally, Incisor recalls a conversation with Alan Woolhouse, former Vice President of Marketing & Communications at CSR, who shed some further insight “Bluetooth over 802.11 is not done through a merger of technologies. Bluetooth is just using 802.11 as a fast radio to transmit Bluetooth data.” Woolhouse intimated at the time, “Testing for the new specifications is already ongoing - when this will be completed is unknown at this point, as three interoperable prototypes have to be shown to work and pass a comprehensive test specification to be "ratified" by the Bluetooth SIG.” Initial feedback seems to suggest that this would be completed around the second quarter of 2009, although Incisor hasn’t been privy to any new announcements surrounding the success (or failure) of interoperability testing.
What is clear however, is that most consumer electronic products use both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, as part of their standard feature set, so Bluetooth piggybacking, if you like, Wi-Fi to transmit or receive large data, seems to make sense. But, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi serve two very different audiences – two technologies providing different use case scenarios. Well, we have certainly been told that over the last decade or so, right?
The Only Alternative
Anyhow, what some individuals might not be aware of is that the Bluetooth AMP architecture permits radio independence for the Bluetooth software stack. In other words, the AMP architecture is an hardware abstraction layer (or HAL) permitting any radio, along with a suitable abstraction interface, to coexist. The AMP proposal suggested that no modifications were required to the actual Physical (PHY) or Media Access Control (MAC) layers, but instead, the solution offered a “four address” packet format, which would be used to transmit Bluetooth-specific data. Naturally, this would ensure that a Wi-Fi access point could coexist in harmony, allowing both devices to transmit and receive data simultaneously (at this time, it’s a theoretical assumption).
So, in essence the Bluetooth SIG could plug in either a Wi-Fi or an Ultra-wideband radio assuming that a suitable abstraction layer was present. The intent of the architecture proposed by the Bluetooth SIG would suggest that it perhaps wanted to integrate Ultra-wideband into its future specification, but when we spoke with Mike Foley, Executive Director of the Bluetooth SIG, he commented “UWB could become a part of the Bluetooth specifications if the WiMedia members agree to contribute that work to the Bluetooth SIG such that it can be adopted as a Bluetooth specification. If and when that occurs is up to those companies that participated in WiMedia. Since this occurring is such an uncertainty, UWB is not on the Bluetooth SIG roadmap. It can’t be added until it is known that the technology can be used in a Bluetooth specification. Doing so before then would be premature.” Eh? What was that Mike? Nonetheless, Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Statacco Communications, vehemently supports the technology transfer to the Bluetooth SIG, saying “the WiMedia [Alliance] made the right decision to offer the technology transfer to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth, because with all the standardization heavy lifting behind us, those groups can control the whole product certification.”
If you build it, they will come
The AMP architecture may paint an idyllic picture, but the Bluetooth SIG can’t surely expect to utilise Wi-Fi as a long-term high-speed solution? It would imply that products targeted as high-speed would need to incorporate both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi is sometimes notorious for being power hungry and an application overkill. The advantages and future for Bluetooth wireless technology must lie with Ultra-wideband being the only alternative. It enables the Bluetooth SIG to truly offer an independent high-speed solution (that is, away from Wi-Fi) and offer more bespoke applications that can ultimately take advantage of the inherent low power characteristics of Ultra-wideband and not just its high-speed attributes. Nevertheless, Aiello is adamant that WirelessUSB-enabled products will continue to move forward despite the WiMedia Alliance’s demobilisation, as he reckons “the standard is complete, the certification program is in place, and some products are shipping.”
Perhaps, the Bluetooth SIG’s hesitation at this stage is simply based on their conclusion that Ultra-wideband still isn’t ready for them? Despite the standardisation process being in place for the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the SIG instead provides a short-term solution with Wi-Fi that still meets the need for the ever-so impatient consumer. Moreover, it may be biding its time to ensure that when Bluetooth v4.0 (this is nothing more than pure speculation) appears it’s fully prepared to deliver the promise of high-speed wireless streaming audio and video content with ease and, dare we say, simplicity.
About the Author
Dr Dean Anthony Gratton is a bestselling author, writer and telecommunications consultant. He has authored several patents, contentious articles and a number of bestselling books on wireless technology. He has worked within the telecommunications industry for over sixteen years and provides consultancy to a number of high profile companies.
You can contact Dean at incisor@deangratton.com and follow him on Twitter @grattonboy, but you can read more about his work at www.deangratton.com.
The potential and associated applications for Ultra-wideband have been promised by numerous manufacturers over what may seem to be an eternity. We have all become very excited about the real possibility of Ultra-wideband delivering high-speed connectivity with data rates that are comparable to its USB-enabled counterpart (if not more!). We have to be careful not to portray an obituary listing in this feature, but rather focus more on a reflection of a collage of anecdotes that have led to the current status of the technology. Moreover, we need to address this current status, along with understanding the existing high-speed offering (that is Wi-Fi), and to review the long-term benefits of Ultra-wideband’s integration into the Bluetooth specification.
With good intent
In reality, the WiMedia Alliance has been disbanded and inevitably it will soon cease any administration activities for its former members along with terminating the evolution of the technology completely – this responsibility shall soon be bestowed to the Bluetooth SIG. Likewise, many Ultra-wideband silicon manufacturers have been unable to sustain a presence during an economic crisis where companies have folded and the more steadfast have simply culled their staff. Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Stacatto Communications concurs “the economy didn't help in the last couple of years, because it made it more difficult to raise the capital required to complete the commercialization.”
As we fondly recall Ultra-wideband’s journey, the early days of the technology’s promise was filled with extensive paperware slideshows, all demonstrating many use case scenarios. It was these use case scenarios that bestowed our over-active imaginations with the promise of true high-speed wireless connectivity, albeit over relatively short-distances (less than 10m or so). The motivation was a simple one; penetrate as many consumer electronic products as possible.
A frustrating time for all involved
Ultra-wideband allowed us to conceive, with a sense of proportioned reality, that a digital video camera, for example, could realistically wirelessly stream high-quality audio and video content to the TV. The technology purported ultra low power usage, deeming the technology suitable for most, if not all, electronic products, so the excitement was certainly well-founded. But alas, the technology endured an unfortunate rollercoaster ride in its endeavour to become the one and only wireless high-speed solution. Its early onset was marred by a battle of which is better: orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) or direct sequence Ultra-wideband (DS-UWB)? Indeed, two very different schemes, which are incompatible.
The battle commenced: the two technology camps took their respective corners and burdened the technology’s full introduction to market and adoption by other manufacturers for a number of years. In the meantime, a minority of manufacturers suitably massaged their egos, in turn, stifling the growth of Ultra-wideband – ultimately, this led to uncertainty and frustration for all involved. In the ensuing years two alliances formed, each touting their respective Ultra-wideband flavours, namely the WiMedia Alliance and the UWB Forum – the latter group were advocates of the DS-UWB offering. The eventual “we prefer this one” accolade was handed to the WiMedia Alliance and its first product offering deflated the industry, as the intensely proclaimed data rates of up to 480Mbps were nowhere to be seen. The OFDM frequency scheme assured us of minimal interference from other neighbouring wireless technologies – surely, a wireless utopia steeped with true untetherred connectivity. It’s like offering an elixir to eternal life in one magic shot – one sip, that’s all you need, and a sustainable and unrelenting wireless connection can be yours!
Humph – such a depressing tale, but nonetheless it’s all based on true events!
The elusive high-speed accolade
Meanwhile, the Bluetooth SIG was looking to enhance its technology portfolio. With Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) and Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) the Bluetooth SIG offered the industry several new techniques that potentially reduced interference from neighbouring wireless devices (using AFH); plus a solution with EDR to polish up its high-speed offering (at a modest 3Mbps). Alas, it still wasn’t enough to achieve high-speed throughput for streaming video.
It seemed the streaming video trophy still remained elusive and out of its grasp for the Bluetooth SIG. Moreover, the Bluetooth SIG had to react quickly, since the IEEE, with a new and improved flavour of its 802.11 portfolio (despite it being marketed as a ‘draft’ version), was dangerously clipping the Bluetooth SIG’s heels. The 802.11n offering increased data rates, along with backward compatibility with previous generations of 802.11 products – some astonishing foresight not to entirely nark the existing consumer-base! Finally, with 802.11n, the industry had in its possession a viable wireless high-speed solution that would potentially deliver streaming video content for a host of electronic products and gadgets.
Living with or without you
The kerfuffle of the Ultra-wideband story and associated rumours of its demise have been bubbling around for over a year or so now. In fact, Incisor featured a story titled, The Tortoise and The Hare in November’s 2008 issue highlighting the Bluetooth SIG’s introduction of its Alternative MAC/PHY layer (or AMP). Indeed, many in the industry were somewhat agog and aghast at the partnering of what was once considered to be two competing technologies – “Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are what?” Incidentally, Incisor recalls a conversation with Alan Woolhouse, former Vice President of Marketing & Communications at CSR, who shed some further insight “Bluetooth over 802.11 is not done through a merger of technologies. Bluetooth is just using 802.11 as a fast radio to transmit Bluetooth data.” Woolhouse intimated at the time, “Testing for the new specifications is already ongoing - when this will be completed is unknown at this point, as three interoperable prototypes have to be shown to work and pass a comprehensive test specification to be "ratified" by the Bluetooth SIG.” Initial feedback seems to suggest that this would be completed around the second quarter of 2009, although Incisor hasn’t been privy to any new announcements surrounding the success (or failure) of interoperability testing.
What is clear however, is that most consumer electronic products use both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, as part of their standard feature set, so Bluetooth piggybacking, if you like, Wi-Fi to transmit or receive large data, seems to make sense. But, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi serve two very different audiences – two technologies providing different use case scenarios. Well, we have certainly been told that over the last decade or so, right?
The Only Alternative
Anyhow, what some individuals might not be aware of is that the Bluetooth AMP architecture permits radio independence for the Bluetooth software stack. In other words, the AMP architecture is an hardware abstraction layer (or HAL) permitting any radio, along with a suitable abstraction interface, to coexist. The AMP proposal suggested that no modifications were required to the actual Physical (PHY) or Media Access Control (MAC) layers, but instead, the solution offered a “four address” packet format, which would be used to transmit Bluetooth-specific data. Naturally, this would ensure that a Wi-Fi access point could coexist in harmony, allowing both devices to transmit and receive data simultaneously (at this time, it’s a theoretical assumption).
So, in essence the Bluetooth SIG could plug in either a Wi-Fi or an Ultra-wideband radio assuming that a suitable abstraction layer was present. The intent of the architecture proposed by the Bluetooth SIG would suggest that it perhaps wanted to integrate Ultra-wideband into its future specification, but when we spoke with Mike Foley, Executive Director of the Bluetooth SIG, he commented “UWB could become a part of the Bluetooth specifications if the WiMedia members agree to contribute that work to the Bluetooth SIG such that it can be adopted as a Bluetooth specification. If and when that occurs is up to those companies that participated in WiMedia. Since this occurring is such an uncertainty, UWB is not on the Bluetooth SIG roadmap. It can’t be added until it is known that the technology can be used in a Bluetooth specification. Doing so before then would be premature.” Eh? What was that Mike? Nonetheless, Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Statacco Communications, vehemently supports the technology transfer to the Bluetooth SIG, saying “the WiMedia [Alliance] made the right decision to offer the technology transfer to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth, because with all the standardization heavy lifting behind us, those groups can control the whole product certification.”
If you build it, they will come
The AMP architecture may paint an idyllic picture, but the Bluetooth SIG can’t surely expect to utilise Wi-Fi as a long-term high-speed solution? It would imply that products targeted as high-speed would need to incorporate both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi is sometimes notorious for being power hungry and an application overkill. The advantages and future for Bluetooth wireless technology must lie with Ultra-wideband being the only alternative. It enables the Bluetooth SIG to truly offer an independent high-speed solution (that is, away from Wi-Fi) and offer more bespoke applications that can ultimately take advantage of the inherent low power characteristics of Ultra-wideband and not just its high-speed attributes. Nevertheless, Aiello is adamant that WirelessUSB-enabled products will continue to move forward despite the WiMedia Alliance’s demobilisation, as he reckons “the standard is complete, the certification program is in place, and some products are shipping.”
Perhaps, the Bluetooth SIG’s hesitation at this stage is simply based on their conclusion that Ultra-wideband still isn’t ready for them? Despite the standardisation process being in place for the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the SIG instead provides a short-term solution with Wi-Fi that still meets the need for the ever-so impatient consumer. Moreover, it may be biding its time to ensure that when Bluetooth v4.0 (this is nothing more than pure speculation) appears it’s fully prepared to deliver the promise of high-speed wireless streaming audio and video content with ease and, dare we say, simplicity.
About the Author
Dr Dean Anthony Gratton is a bestselling author, writer and telecommunications consultant. He has authored several patents, contentious articles and a number of bestselling books on wireless technology. He has worked within the telecommunications industry for over sixteen years and provides consultancy to a number of high profile companies.
You can contact Dean at incisor@deangratton.com and follow him on Twitter @grattonboy, but you can read more about his work at www.deangratton.com.
posted by Vince Holton at
4:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home