IP: The 100 Mile-Per-Gallon Carburetor -- How Ultra Wide Band May (or May Not) Change the World

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> > The 100 Mile-Per-Gallon Carburetor
> > How Ultra Wide Band May (or May Not) Change the World
> >
> > By Robert X. Cringely
> >
> > A few weeks ago, I wrote about my desire for Wendy, my personal
> > supercomputer (since completed and works fine, thanks), and mentioned
> > that one of the projects I planned for her was an experiment in
> > Ultra Wide Band (UWB) communications. This single reference brought
> > from the web world many reader responses, most of them from engineers
> > alarmed at the whole idea of UWB. They are convinced that UWB will
> > be bad for us all, making useless the GPS satellite system, and
> > maybe even your mobile phone. I am not at all convinced of that,
> > but I am sure that UWB will shortly create a thorny business problem.
> > What it reminds me of most is the proverbial 100 mile-per-gallon
> > carburetor.
> >
> > The 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor is supposed to be a gizmo that
> > does exactly as its name suggests, only of course, we can't buy
> > one. That's because the oil companies and the car companies and who
> > knows what other companies are supposed to have bought-up the patents
> > on the 100 mile-per-gallon carb specifically to make sure it never
> > hits the market. Entire industries would be destroyed, we're told,
> > if this beast ever hit store shelves. Certainly, Exxon-Mobil would
> > have to sell a few corporate jets to get profits back in line once
> > gasoline consumption dropped in half.
> >
> > There is actually some precedent to this particular conspiracy
> > theory. America had a well-developed light rail system at the end
> > of the Second World War that was systematically bought up and
> > destroyed primarily by General Motors, which promptly replaced rail
> > cars with buses. If GM would buy one industry just to destroy it,
> > why not buy another?
> >
> > But what is it that makes UWB so scary?
> >
> > Ultra Wide Band will either be the beginning of a new age of
> > communication or the end of an old one, and probably both. UWB is
> > true digital radio communication, a series of very short electrical
> > pulses (billionths of a second) that exist not on any particular
> > frequency, but on ALL frequencies simultaneously. It is just a blast
> > of electrical noise. The key to turning that noise into communication
> > lies in the timing of the pulses that beat out a code. But in order
> > to hear the information in that code, a UWB receiver has to know
> > the exact pulse sequence used by the transmitter. In other words,
> > with UWB you have to know exactly WHEN to listen in order to hear.
> > This makes UWB very secure, which is why the military likes it so
> > much (UWB technology was originally developed for the military and
> > various U.S. and Soviet spy agencies as early as 1960). UWB is
> > pretty much immune to eavesdropping, is equally immune to interference
> > or jamming, and because its broad frequency range includes the
> > ultra-low frequencies used to communicate with submerged submarines,
> > UWB can be used easily in buildings and even underground. And because
> > of the random nature of UWB timing schemes, there appears to be
> > virtually no limit to the number of UWB signals that can share the
> > same airwaves.
> >
> > In many ways, UWB is the successor to spread spectrum radio, a World
> > War II technology for splitting a broadcast among many radio
> > frequencies to avoid jamming. Spread spectrum, which was patented
> > in 1942 by actress Hedy Lamar and composer George Antheil (I am not
> > making this up), operates today in every mobile phone. But where
> > spread spectrum used just a few dozen frequencies and used them one
> > at a time, UWB uses every frequency there is, and uses them all at
> > the same time, which means the data-carrying capacity of UWB is
> > enormous.
> >
> > UWB requires ultra-low power, often one ten thousandth as much as
> > a cellphone, and because of that low power it is undetectable by
> > conventional radios, looking to them just like very quiet noise.
> > This is one reason why the FCC is considering allowing UWB as an
> > unlicensed service; it is hard to regulate a signal that can't be
> > detected and doesn't interfere. Besides, UWB has important friends
> > -- companies like Intel, IBM, Motorola and Texas Instruments --
> > that are committed to making UWB chipsets or have invested in UWB
> > startups.
> >
> > A UWB phone uses so little power it can remain on for weeks without
> > recharging. And UWB will ultimately be cheaper to make than
> > conventional radios since it is built entirely of commercial grade
> > computer chips and requires no tuning. There is an irony here that
> > UWB was impossibly expensive to build until computer chips came
> > along, and now, it is going to be impossibly cheap. The U.S. Navy,
> > for example, plans to put a UWB location marker on almost everything
> > it ships overseas, just to keep track of all the stuff and keep it
> > from being stolen.
> >
> > UWB products will probably begin to hit the market in the next 18
> > to 24 months. In addition to radios, these products will include
> > radar and electronic positioning devices. For soldiers entering a
> > strange building, UWB radar can show literally where all the bodies
> > are, right through walls, ceilings and floors. As an electronic
> > measuring device, UWB is accurate to within 10 centimeters -- much
> > better than competing technologies like Global Positioning System
> > satellites, and UWB can be used indoors, while GPS cannot.
> >
> > The first commercial UWB radios will probably be use for wireless
> > computer networks (GE is working on that) and portable phones. UWB
> > computer networks being developed now will initially operate at 40
> > to 60 megabits-per-second, or four to six times as fast as the most
> > common networking technologies now in use.  Researchers think that
> > UWB networks may eventually run at speeds up to a gigabit-per-second,
> > and therefore, should be able handle all the phone, television, and
> > Internet traffic for any home or business.  And since UWB radios
> > don't interfere with each other, every home and business in the
> > neighborhood can have its own gigabit.
> >
> > The downside of UWB for users is range, which is generally limited
> > to around one kilometer with high gain antennas, and for the fastest
> > data rates, can be measured in tens of feet. UWB trades bandwidth
> > for distance, so longer links are slower.
> >
> > But one kilometer is about the range of PCS mobile phones, and those
> > are successful. UWB can also solve the "last mile" problem that
> > presently allows high-speed Internet services to be everywhere
> > except in most of our homes, which are served by slow telephone
> > wire.
> >
> > Now back to the 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor metaphor. UWB is
> > going to make a lot of trouble for existing communication businesses
> > as it comes to offer a cheaper, better alternative for almost every
> > way of getting in touch. Local phone companies, cable TV companies,
> > mobile phone companies, and Internet Service Providers all look
> > vulnerable. Even if they adopt UWB in order to compete, the value
> > of their old infrastructure will drop to zero, which can't be good
> > for business. Maybe this is why the big business-loving administration
> > of George W. Bush is suddenly digging in its heels, delaying FCC
> > approval of UWB.
> >
> > Or perhaps, as my engineer correspondents have claimed, the FCC is
> > just finally realizing at the last moment how bad UWB really is.
> > Only time will tell.
> >
> > UWB is even worse for those companies that are regulated communication
> > monopolies or have exclusive licenses to certain parts of the radio
> > spectrum. Having given billions to the FCC for those licenses, are
> > they now going to be worth nothing? That is a possibility. Oh, the
> > phone and cable and cell and Internet companies can all switch to
> > UWB and compete, but their cost structure won't make it easy. And
> > because UWB is unlicensed, there can suddenly be a hundred cable
> > companies in town, not just one, with all the new cable companies
> > having a distinct cost advantage.
> >
> > The biggest losers, though, would appear to be the radio astronomers.
> > Just as the light pollution from street lamps made work harder for
> > astronomers with optical telescopes, UWB will raise the noise
> > threshold for the radio astronomers.
> >
> > The winners in this new market will be those best positioned to
> > leverage UWB, like PCS vendor Sprint Communications, if it is willing
> > to add new UWB radios to its thousands of short range cell sites.
> > Optical backbone providers will also win, because UWB will increase
> > the demand for long-haul bandwidth, yet can't compete in that sector
> > because of UWB range limitations. And content providers like TV
> > networks and movie studios will win because there will be an even
> > broader market for their programs.
> >
> > "Seinfeld" will still be "Seinfeld," even over UWB.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/