Summary of MIT/VLAB UWB

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>

[Note:  This item comes from reader Mark Laubach.  DLH]

At 14:26 -0800 2/19/03, Mark Laubach wrote:
> From: Mark Laubach <mark () broadbandphysics com>
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> Subject: Summary of MIT/VLAB UWB
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:26:24 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> Hi Dewayne,
>
> I attended the MIT/Stanford Venture Lab event last night with their
> panel on UWB.  <http://http://www.vlab.org/204.cfm?eventID=29>
>
> Personally, I'm bullish on the technology.  However, as we all know it
> takes a lot more than just a physical layer technology to make a complete
> system that works as expected.
>
> I am disappointed that the panel was more focused on the physical
> layer technology, rather than establishing comfort that the higher
> layer MAC and management of the system is getting the job done and
> on time for market and regulatory needs.  A bad MAC can make a good
> PHY look bad as well as vice versa.
>
> Generally, most of the answers to audience questions fell into one of
> several buckets:
>
> 1. The physical layer technology is great
> 2. It'll be handled by a higher layer
> 3. The IEEE 802 standards group will solve the problem
> 4. The FCC supports the current approach of UWB
>
> I won't go into the details on all the Q&A but the answers to the
> following questions fell into one of the above answer buckets:
>
> + Physical layer security?
> + How are all the different implementations going to inter-operate?
> + 150 clients in the same room, who gets to own the data projector?
> + How to stay friendly to other RF services?
> + What's happening with multi-band?
> + Multi-hop?
> + Can't you do this with QAM?
>
> and others which I can't seem to recall at this time. Maybe someone else
> can give a more detailed Q&A summary as well as the panelists presentations.
> Also, when the audience was polled about this being real in [2-3] years
> or [4-5] years, most of the hands went up on the longer time period.
>
> Where I am disappointed is that to me, the higher layer infrastructure
> doesn't exist yet. I have some specific questions/observations:
>
> 1. Given the peer-to-peer 10 meter radius of UWB, how is quality of service
> really going to be guaranteed?  We all know that QoS in a loose
> peer-to-peer is nearly impossible to manage for 100% guaranteed service
> required for the timing constraints of SD and HDTV video.
>
> 2. Given that this is being aimed at the in-home "cable replacement"
> space, how are adjoining MDU's/apartments going to negotiate resources
> with adjoining RF MAC domains?  Contention between close proximity
> living spaces will be inevitable, especially in AsiaPac and Europe.
>
> 3. A 30 feet radius won't cover larger homes. How is UWB going to work
> in all rooms of a house and all floors?
>
> 4. How exactly is the standards work going to future proof the system
> such that UWB can successfully overcome future regulation changes and
> the reality of "opinions" of other services in the spectrum?
>
> 5. If the MAC and MAC management needs to accommodate the above
> functionality, how is the system going to be put together to be
> really easy to use?
>
> 6. It seems likely that the current single band UWB will get to market.
> Will this cause RF interfere with what may happen in the future if the
> system has to go into some form of multi-band?
>
> If it were an ideal RF world, the current approach of single-band UWB
> may be great and I'd love to see it work.  The reality however, is
> that there are some significant issues that need to be solved *above*
> the physical layer that will likely require change to the single-band
> approach.  The next question is will the multi-band approach also meet
> all the requirements to make this technology successful?  We'll have
> to wait an see what the IEEE working group does with some "30+ proposals".
>
> My "where's the beef?" award goes to:
>
> The inference was directly made that switching from 400Mbps Firewire
> to UWB will make iPOD downloads go faster.  This reminds me of one of
> the current IBM TV commercials where the executives are being
> presented with "server uptime pixie dust".  "Just sprinkle and it will
> bring a server back up, sprinkle more and the server will repair itself"
> Just how is UWB in a shared RF space going to make the hard drive in
> the iPOD spin faster?
>
> In summary, let's get beyond the reply pitch and just assume that
> the UWB physical layer technology works as touted.  What about the
> rest of the system?
>
> Mark out.
>
> --
> *******************************************************************************
> Mark Laubach, CEO                         408-973-7333 voice direct
> Broadband Physics, Inc.                   408-973-7340 fax
> 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd, STE250          650-996-2219 cell
> Cupertino, CA 95014                       mailto:mark () broadbandphysics com
> http://www.broadbandphysics.com
> *******************************************************************************
> Located in the Panasonic Digital Concepts Center incubator facilities.
> *******************************************************************************

Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/