IP: Dwindling UWB sector hopes for FCC breakthrough

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> [Note:  This item comes from reader Janos Gereben.  DLH]
>
> At 20:29 -0800 1/6/02, Janos G. wrote:
> > From: "Janos G." <janos451 () earthlink net>
> > To: "D.H." <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> > Subject: Dwindling UWB sector hopes for FCC breakthrough
> > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:29:50 -0800
> >
> > =============
> > Dwindling UWB sector hopes for FCC breakthrough
> >
> > Janos Gereben - www.the451.com
> >
> > [Ultra-wideband developers, federal agencies expect regulation changes, but
> > the ruling may turn out to be too little, too late or both.]
> >
> > Only the hype is bigger than the importance of a possible Federal
> > Communications Commission approval of ultra-wideband technology for consumer
> > electronics. After decades of waiting for the green light to use UWB,
> > companies still staying in the `business' of developing products that cannot
> > be sold without a change in regulations are positively breathless as Feb. 14
> > approaches. That's the date for the Commission's next scheduled session and
> > there is widespread speculation that a twice-postponed UWB decision may be
> > forthcoming.
> >
> > For example, Xtreme Spectrum of Vienna, Virginia, is touting the UWB-based
> > chips it is producing as "100 times faster than Bluetooth and still
> > low-power enough to be embedded into batter-powered applications" such as
> > PDAs, camcorders, DVDs, digital cameras, laptops, and so on. Calling UWB's
> > high data-rate handling of multiple streams of video and audio"ideal" for
> > home applications, Xtreme points to recent funding from Cisco, TI and
> > Motorola as proof of the potential impact of the technology.
> >
> > (As so often is the case with this technology, there is much loose talk
> > here. UWB can have many different implementations and, according the
> > specifics of a device, it can have one-tenth the speed of Bluetooth just as
> > running 100 times faster.)
> >
> > UWB radio uses short impulses of radio energy, generally at low power. Its
> > characteristic spectrum signature extends across a wide range of radio
> > frequencies, enabling the transmission of encrypted voice and radar signals
> > simultaneously. The technology's proponents claim that a whole houseful
> > loaded with `ubiquitous UWB' - operating in the 2,500-5,000MHz range -
> > wouldn't approach the power of a cordless phone, much less that of a cell
> > phone. (Again, only the specific implementation may or may not validate that
> > claim.) UWB signals are difficult to intercept and can be digitally
> > encrypted for additional security.
> >
> > Will the FCC finally resolve the UWB regulation conundrum? Not so fast, say
> > grizzled veterans of the frequency wars, highly skeptical of the Commission
> > waving a magic wand. The situation is especially fluid now that federal
> > agencies, especially the Pentagon, are guarding their frequency monopolies
> > more jealously than ever - and, at the same time, want industry development
> > of military and intelligence tools utilizing UWB.
> >
> > The Commission's decision is likely to contain a laundry list of caveats and
> > constraints, observers say, designed to placate opponents while permitting
> > the FCC to proclaim the unleashing of some thrilling new technology. The
> > question is not if there will be constraints, says one of the experts, but
> > rather how stringent they may turn out to be. Bennett Kobb, author of
> > "Wireless Spectrum Finder," the handbook of US radio frequency allocations,
> > told the451 that so-called "safeguards" could be either deal-busters or UWB
> > companies may be able to make profits while complying with conservative FCC
> > rules.
> >
> > Kobb posed a number of scenarios: "Will UWB turn out to be another cool
> > technology to be quashed by Washington lawyers, overwhelming the FCC with
> > political pressure and interference complaints? Will UWB proponents have to
> > act quickly to change any FCC rules that confine or confuse them, or will
> > they feel free to move to production?"
> >
> > Kobb's concern - that the FCC will "limit UWB to an obscure spectrum ghetto,
> > instead of offering this technology as an alternative to increasing private
> > enclosure of the radio spectrum via auctions and exclusive licenses" - is
> > shared by numerous expert observers, including Dandin Group CEO Dewayne
> > Hendricks.
> >
> > Hendricks, who is on the FCC Technological Advisory Council and doubts that
> > a conclusive decision will be handed down next month, has been questioning
> > the form of the enabling regulation may take. He and others see
> > software-defined radio (SDR) and, within that, cognitive radio as more
> > potent forms of technology, but he does not expect that the Commission will
> > encourage or even allow development on that front. Both SDR and UWB require
> > a different, wideband, oriented spectrum usage model, Hendricks says, and
> > the FCC is still "embracing the old paradigm that works through a narrowband
> > orientation."
> >
> > Among the remaining UWB firms, Alabama's TimeDomain is generally regarded as
> > the leading company in the field, but California's Pulse-Link and Aether
> > Wire & Location, Xtreme Spectrum, even Intel and Sony departments are also
> > heavily invested in the technology.

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