While most regulatory decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) often take years to be felt in the consumer market, an FCC ruling made
just 15 months ago may well result in new wireless electronic products parked
under this year’s Christmas tree. The most likely items will be camcorders
that wirelessly stream video to a television set or computer hard drive.
And, to listen to the burgeoning ultra wideband (UWB) industry, that will be
just the start. The industry and bullish analysts are predicting television
sets that wirelessly send different programs to other television sets in the
house, flat screen computer monitors that can be wirelessly tethered to a CPU
located anywhere in the home, and wireless connections between VCRs and
televisions to streamline that rat’s nest of wires behind the home
UWB, on paper at least, seems to be ideal for consumer electronics
applications such as camcorders, laptops, DVDs, and digital cameras to
wirelessly communicate with each in a home environment. The wirelessly
networked home, of course, has long been an elusive goal for consumer
Wireless transmission of video is seen as the key to making it become a
Today’s digital video transmissions use MPEG-2 for encoding and require up to
12 Mbps to broadcast the video. In addition, higher rate encoding standards
such as HDTV and MPEG-2HD (High Definition) use higher rate transmissions in
excess of 20 Mbps per video stream. Leading DVD companies have stated that
they are moving to MPEG-2HD, underscoring the need for a wireless home
technology that can deliver extremely high bandwidth for multiple channels of
digital video transmission.
For the all the success of the various flavors of 802.11, the technology is
inherently unsuitable for streaming video. 802.11a carries a data transfer
rate of 54 Mbps and can reach roughly twice that speed using proprietary
‘turbo’ architectures. In theory, 802.11a has a hypothetically greater range
However, as an Ethernet derivative designed as a packet based data networking
protocol, it is unsuitable for intensive multi-media applications since it
depends on data packets arriving in order and in time.
XtremeSpectrum, a Vienna, Va.-based
UWB firm, is predicting that its products will have a range of 30 feet with
data rates around 100 Mbps. Chip making giant Intel has a goal of 500 Mbps.
Another fundamental flaw in 802.11a technology for video streaming is that its
power consumption requirements of around 1.5 to 2 W makes it almost completely
unsuitable for battery dependent devices like PDAs, and even many laptops with
short battery lives.
And then there is the question of cost. Currently, consumer NIC cards for
802.11a are roughly $150 to $200, which could be too high for broad consumer
adoption. XtremeSpectrum has a chip set that is approximately $20 per 100,000
The February 2002 FCC decision that unleashed the happy dogs of optimism was a
ruling authorizing the commercial, unlicensed deployment of UWB. The FCC had
been attempting since 1998 to a find a way to approve and promote UWB
technology because of the potential commercial applications.
However, the agency had to fight the concerns of military, aviation, fire,
police and rescue officials that interference from UWB devices could
potentially disrupt critical public services and crucial military operations.
UWB also presented a novel regulatory issue for the FCC because time pulse
technology does not displace existing frequency users but, instead, overlays
wide swaths of existing spectrum.
In its February ruling, the FCC decreed that UWB devices must operate in the
frequency band 3.1-10.6 GHz. It also said the equipment must be designed to
ensure that operation can only occur indoors or it must consist of hand-held
devices that may be employed for such activities as peer-to-peer operation.
The FCC ostensibly passed the rule for UWB’s “significant” public safety
benefits, pointing out the technology’s ability to power radar imaging of
objects buried under the ground or behind walls, providing rescue workers at
catastrophic disaster sites with a valuable, lifesaving tool. UWB also may
lead to breakthroughs in medical imaging and also has wired potential as
But it was the commercial potential of the technology that set off a flurry of
activity that has UWB’s proponents predicting a boom in UWB-driven home
networking products. Intel, Cisco, and Motorola have all said they will all
have UWB market products by late this year.
In July 2002, Xtremespectrum attracted a $12 million investment round that
included participation from Texas Instruments. Just last month, San
Communications, secured $7.5 million in Series A funding from Bay
Partners, Charles River Ventures and Allegis Capital.
Staccato has built a CMOS silicon prototype of a new architecture for UWB that
it says is both compliant with the FCC’s regulations and enables high bit-rate
UWB in CMOS for the first time.
“The venture capital community has been watching the UWB space for years
waiting for the right timing for investment,” Dino Vendetti, a general partner
with Bay Partners, told Time Domain certifying that the company’s
radio communications device meets the Commission’s UWB regulations for sale in
the U.S., making it first UWB communications product to pass the FCC’s
Certification paves the way for a more extensive roll out of Time Domain’s UWB
silicon-based products. The product certified is one in a series of hardware
components based on the company’s patented PulsON 200 chipset. It will be
available to customers as part of the PulsON 200 Evaluation Kit (EVK), a
product development platform that supports the full range of UWB capabilities,
including wireless communications, tracking, and radar.
“Our commercial and government customers want to explore the many potential
applications of UWB, ranging from high-speed communications to precision
tracking to through-wall imaging,” said James R. Baker, EVP for Time Domain’s
commercial products. “From this collaboration we expect to see demand escalate
for application-specific chipsets, like our PulsON 300 which is being
developed to achieve the very high bandwidth and low power consumption
required for wireless multimedia applications.”
To celebrate the first anniversary of the FCC’s UWB rule, the agency in
February held an Ultra Wideband showcase at its headquarters in Washington.
XtremeSpectrum demonstrated a wireless broadcast of two high definition HDTV
streams to two separate large screen displays using the company’s UWB Trinity
chipset. The multiple streams of video offered “wire-like” performance while
co-existing with an 802.11b/a system, a microwave oven, a cellular/PCS phone
and a cordless phone-all in simultaneous operation during this demonstration.
Time Domain showcased its RadarVision, which allows users to detect the movement of
people behind walls. The hand-held unit incorporates Time Domain’s
PulsON chipset technology, which the firm said provides a new level of
situational intelligence and awareness for law enforcement and public safety
Also participating in the show was Germantown, Md.-based Multispectral Solutions, which rolled a
UWB intercommunications system it has developed for the U.S. Navy to reduce
accidents and injuries by eliminating on-board cabling, providing flight crews
with unrestricted movement throughout the aircraft cabin.
In addition, the company previewed a digital wireless audio system designed
for CD-quality, wireless speaker and headphone applications.
Despite all the activity in the UWB field in the last year, the question still
lingers if UWB the Next Big Thing or just the latest Most Hyped Thing? The
answer is an unequivocal maybe.
The ultimate success of UWB rests in the hands of the industry itself. The
first challenge to overcome is agreeing upon a universal standard wireless
network interface that can coexist with existing spectrum users. Already,
there are competing visions of the technological standard needed to accomplish
In November 2001, it was agreed that a new study group would be formed to
identify an alternative transmission technology, or physical layer, for an
emerging higher data rate WPAN standard (802.15.3a). In March, proposals
submitted for the IEEE 802.15.3a standard were presented and reviewed at the
IEEE 802.15.3a Task Group meeting.
Of the 23 proposals presented, 16 were based on a multi-band approach. Its
proponents believe that the 7.5 GHz of spectrum allotted for UWB by the FCC
should be divided into smaller bands of 500 MHz to 700 MHz that can be added
and dropped based on interference from other systems.
The UWB Multi-Band Coalition, which is comprised of 14 companies, including
Intel, Philips, Mitsubishi and General Atomics, is currently working to merge
the various proposals into one. The Coalition says that this approach is more
flexible and scaleable than one based on a single band, and also ensures
coexistence with other systems operating in its range, such as 802.11a.
At the same meeting, though, Motorola’s Semiconductor Products Sector
announced that they are supporting the XtremeSpectrum proposal for the
IEEEP802.15.3a alternate physical layer (PHY) standard.
“Our relationship with Motorola SPS underscores our commitment to deploy
ultra-wideband technology on a wide scale to both consumer electronics OEMs
and semiconductor partners,” said Martin Rofheart, CEO of XtremeSpectrum.
“And, with Motorola’s support on our PHY proposal to the IEEE, we are taking
the first steps toward creating a horizontal market for UWB that will
ultimately benefit consumers around the world.”
This week in Dallas, Motorola and Xtreme jointly presented
a proposal to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks that advocates a
dual-band, direct sequence code division multiple access (CDMA) approach for
Chris Fisher, Xtremespectrum’s VP of marketing, said, “There is a fundamental
physics benefit that comes from wideband radio transmission vs. narrowband. We
can provide wire-like transmissions with wideband. If we narrow up the
bandwidth, we lose that.”
Fisher also said the standard must allow a home network to support many users
while being able to provide high data rates to each of them. He contended that
with multi-band, there is a tradeoff of data rate vs. number of users.
“The problem with the multi-band ‘frequency hopping’ approach is you can’t hop
to the next frequency until the wave you launched in the initial frequency has
settled down,” Fisher said. “It limits the rate at which you can move to next
channel and limits the amount of data you can push through at any time.”
Which standard will emerge is still in question and it’s not expected that
there will be agreement before the end of the year.
“It might be a little too early to tell if this is a Betamax-VHS debate,” said
David Hoover, an analyst who tracks ultra wideband for the Precursor Group, an investor side
research firm in Washington, D.C.
The debate, though, is sure to determine the future of UWB and who will emerge
as the winners and losers.