Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Intel Promises UWB Products By 2006 91

Posted by timothy from the that's-a-long-way-off dept.
prostoalex writes "Ultra WideBand radio is a technology that allows transmitting huge amounts of data over a short distance at very low power. At Intel Developer Forum this week Ben Manny, director of wireless technology development at Intel Research and Development, promised market deployment of UWB-based solutions by 2005-2006. Possible applications of UWB can be discovered in this article that also refers to UWB as 'Bluetooth on steroids'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Promises UWB Products By 2006 More

Intel Promises UWB Products By 2006

Comments Filter:
  • Goodbye (thank God) data cables of all sorts.
    • Now I can make another Beowulf Cluster in my basement. Except this time I won't worry about tripping over cables, that pulls two nodes off the shelf and sends them crashing to the floor, forcing me to work another 6 months to get everything running again.

  • Sometime in the futre aboard an airplane... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:29PM (#4253952)
    "This is the captian speaking. Our monitors have detected someone in first class using a UWB device, so as per international law we have jettisoned the entire first class cabin to ensure the saftey of this aircraft. The remaining delicacies not already consumed by said criminals will now be distributed by the flight attendants. Thank you for your attention."

    • Their only real mistake there was to allow people on the plane. Sooner or later they'll figure that out, and then air travel will be really secure.

    • ain't just airplanes... wideband scatter communications piss off all their neighbors because of all the random hits on other frequencies. all the other users screaming, that's why the air force almost had to fight nuclear war in the US to get one up in alaska decades ago. the physics haven't changed. I shot newsreel footage behind the Safeguard ABM antenna structure some 23 years ago, and the sound track on my film was all fuzzed up from an RF-proofed amplifier being zinged by the backscatter through the disk. "shut up and drive!" will be replaced by "log off and use pencil!"

  • UWB advertising slogan (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:29PM (#4253960) Homepage
    You, too, can clobber every radio and cellphone within 20 feet!

  • Possible applications of UWB (Score:3, Informative)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:30PM (#4253963) Journal
    can be taking down planes [slashdot.org]

  • Tricorders (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonym1ty ( 534715 )

    Yup now we know Star Trek had it again... Just hold the tricorder near the computer and everything zips over.

    I see this being useful in pda sized devices. move your home movies from one place to another, from you cam corder to your computer to your pda photo/video album

    What I can't wait for is technology like this to become common place and I can't wait to see what uses we'll find for it that no one has thought of just quite yet.

    So far I see using the home computer as you storage area and editor for the data that is used by devices to start and being able to transfer the data easily will be a big step in that direction.

  • Finally, wireless monitors! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Suidae ( 162977 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:34PM (#4253989)
    Does this mean I can get rid of all my video switches and just connect the keyboard and mouse to the monitor and connect to whichever CPU I want?

    That would kick ass.

  • Usefulness? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HTMLSpinnr ( 531389 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:35PM (#4253991) Homepage
    So if you wanted to turn this into a wireless network, you'd have to put base stations at every 10 feet?

    And if you want to turn it into Wireless USB 2.0 - you can now broadcast your color print jobs of confidential documents from a corner office and have joe hacker on the opposite side of the wall eavesdropping the "connection"?

    I think I'll keep my cables for now.
    • So if you wanted to turn this into a wireless network, you'd have to put base stations at every 10 feet?

      Like bluetooth, the idea is really to eliminate data cables, not do networking as such (although bluetooth did support that whole "scatternet" thing.

      Think of it as IrDA for people who aim poorly...

  • Steroids. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xunker ( 6905 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:36PM (#4253999) Homepage Journal
    Can we get rid of this expression? Please? It's, like totally, from the 1980's. It's so aniquated and cliche'd that's it's not funny (literally anf figuratively).

    A better 21st century expression would probably "Bluetooth on a double-hit of Viagra".

  • Ban it ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <jonkje@gmailCOBOL.com minus language> on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:36PM (#4254002) Homepage
    "By applying UWB wireless technology to cable TV operating systems, it is possible to double capacity. Thus a system that currently offers customers 100 channels could
    increase options to 200 channels."

    That is exactly 100 times more channels on my behalf and I allready watch too much TV. How many days can one fit in one?
    • Well, maybe now you can watch better TV. I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement.
      • Guess I'll now get all the crap, more television channels does not enhance quality. Sure there are a few I wish I had (Discovery, and any channel sending StarTrek,) but then again it's all those 296 other channels I don't wan't.
        • I disagree, the cheaper it gets to broadcast, they more amateur content you will have.

          I'd rather watch some hobbyist in his garage describe his nieghborhood wireless network, than watch some rerun of Voyager. We don't have that luxery now, but if we get 10,000 tv channels that are well organized(like newsgroups). Then the channels will be ordered by content, searchable, and much more accessible.
        • You realize that there are plenty of people who would drop Discovery and your Star Trek channels for a different few channels? Having a multitude of channels you'll never watch ensures that there will always be space for the the channels you do watch. Specialization also means the shows you like are on more often: a broadcast channel might show Star Trek once a week, SciFi shows it once a day, because the broadcast channel caters to different audiences at different times.
    • It's a good way of getting rid 90% of the mindless drivel that floods through the hundreds of channels.

  • Useless (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 )
    Whats the use of eliminating data cables if you still have power cables?

    But just up the power of the transmitter to a gigawatt or so, and then you might have something! Safetey, schmaftey! Once we're all wearing those lead-lined trousers and codpieces everything will be perfectly safe.

    • Whats the use of eliminating data cables if you still have power cables?

      I've been wondering for a long time if it would ever be possible to eliminate power cables. Researches will implant small chips in animals and release them in the wild. The chips have no power source of their own but are activated when they receive a signal via satallite or whatever. Obviously these chips probably operate on some extremely low voltage, but would there be a way to amplify this technology to the point where a person could have a wireless-ly powered PDA or Laptop?
      • simple, just grow humans in tanks, then use there energy as a portable power source!

      • Researches will implant small chips in animals and release them in the wild ... no power source of their own ... would there be a way to amplify this technology to the point where a person could have a wireless-ly powered PDA or Laptop?

        You can't just release geeks into the wild. They don't have the necessary skills to survive. They would starve to death!
        • Yeah Right!...
          I know for a fact that you can build a solar oven from a month or so supply of daily sent AOL 7.0 CD's.. As for what to cook, for the vegans.. well just look around.. go download/buy a copy of a US Army Field Manual and theres tons of things in there that you can do with a simple old SCSI Card and a few bi-di printer cables from basic shelter to water purification.. those "User Guides" Come in good as tinder for a camp fire.. Use an un-cooled Athlon to spark the fire... Bah to you and your idea of a geek starving in the wild.. BAH TO YOU I SAY!
          Damnit... Now your giving me Ideas..

          *grabs scsi card and stack of cd's, bounds out the door*
      • I've been wondering for a long time if it would ever be possible to eliminate power cables.

        Yeah, check it out. It's this crazy thing invented in 1893: "a voltaic cell whose contents are not spillable -- called also dry battery"

        Seriously, I see long lasting batteries powering computing appliances in the future--As soon as recharging is made to be infrequent and convenient.

  • So what is the effective range, Mbs, etc?
    • Yeah... no mention of speed other than "tons of data"... how scientific. However, the other link in the post is to the UWB Working Group's FAQ and from their links list I found a great Scientific American article [sciam.com] on the subject. It says that potential speeds are 100 to 500 Mbps and the range is 5 to 10 meters. Note that that range restriction, if I understand correctly, is due to current FCC restrictions. Nonetheless, that's a wide enough range to cover my tiny house. The article points out that a large chunk of the population in the developed world spends most of their day within ten meters of a wired internet access point.

  • Hmm.. no cables so how does the data move? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WinPimp2K ( 301497 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @04:51PM (#4254068)
    Oh yeah. it is wireless.
    So,that means there is some type of receiver with a fair amount of processing power to turn that lovely EM burst back into nice clean digital data.

    A receiver in every device, and of course a transmitter as well which uses that same processing power to turn digital data into EM bursts.

    So, no more cables to hook up your monitor or speakers or other devices. There are some definite possibilities for convergence between HDTV and computer monitors here - why continue to build TV tuner circutry into your video display device? after all, you don't have built in FM tuners in every speaker.

    BUT:
    This sure sounds like just the sort of massive technological change that is exactly what the DRM people are looking for to piggyback Pay-Per-Everything onto. Certainly there will be plenty of processing power to implement some nasty strong encryption scheme in the UWB hardware.
    • Jesus Christ.

      Guess what? The local Burger King has a new kind of burger. But I don't want to try it out because it might have, y'know, DRM in it. Scaaaaary!!!

      Seriously. Do you think that DRM applies at all to this situation? The only difference between this and any other communications standard is implementation details. "Plenty of processing power"? What makes you think that UWB devices will have more surplus processing power than anything else? Circuits designed to do UWB will be designed for UWB. Circuits designed for DRM will do DRM. Combination circuits could do both. But what is there about this that couldn't also be done with USB or IEEE 1394?
      • God Almighty.

        Guess what? I can't think of a good but idiotic fast food analogy - but if I ate at BK I'd be more afraid that it might have , y'know MSG in it.

        Seriously. Intel already has quite a history of promoting DRM and other initiatives deigned to prevent free use of technology. Remember the chip ID number a few years back? How about their more recent annonuncement of hardware support for DRM. (Last time I checked UWB would require hardware) Will the chips have "surplus" processing power to handle some sort of DRM enforcement encryption scheme? No - because the DRM enforcement will be part of the base design. USB and Firewire hardware is already shipping and DRM was not included in their specifications. A 3-4 year lead time suggests plenty of time to make sure that every UWB compliant chipset will include hooks for DRM as part of an overall "secure communications protocol" (note to the tinfoil hat people, this secure protocol will have a backdoor bigger than the goatse guy (supply yer own darn link) - strictly for the War on Terror y'know)

        And once again, remember the big news here in comparison to USB or Firewire is that it is wireless. That means all new hardware to take advantage of it. New speakers, new monitors, new video cards, new keyboards, new mice, new PDAs, and so on. (I'm sure I don't have those in actual order of adoption - cut me a little slack OK?)

        Some folks are happy over the idea that there will be no more need for umpty trillion cables. I am too. Just think how much money a UWB solution can shave off the Bill of Materials for those items. Heck, I probably have over 300 dollars worth of freaking cables in my home office. My concern is that the "standard" will incorporate something that will pretty much make DRM mandatory and that it will do so completly without discussion.

        And another thought which occurred to me. If this is all embedded in the chipset, will it provide a neat little endrun on Microsoft's patent on DRM in the operating system? (It is Saturday - I don't remember if I'm supposed to hate MSFT today - I can't hate the MPAA cause it is movie day... darnit we need a banner on slashdot to tell us where we want our hate to go today)
  • The Technical Research Centre of Finland has developed a somewhat similiar (or at least remotely related) tehcnology for about 17 GHz wireless networking. Those who are interested of this thecnology might want to check out http://www.vtt.fi/vtt/new/new109.htm [www.vtt.fi] (or http://www.vtt.fi/vtt/uutta/uutinen409.htm [www.vtt.fi] in Finnish).
  • So my USB keyboard will be connected at around 500Mbps. About how many words a minute does that come out to?

    Of course, you'll need all that keyboard bandwidth to type all the passwords. Because all your new wireless UWB devices will need to be password protected so they don't accidentally work on your neighbor's computer. On startup you'll log on to every individual computer component, each of wich will be scattered about the room (speakers on ceiling - zip drive on top of blender - DVD drive in sock drawer).

    USB 5.0 will solve this password issue by providing a sleek insulated "password transfer conduit" that connects directly to your PC, interfacing, for security reasons, with each peripheral directly.

  • I'm fairly certain that UWB devices will see the light of day, but let's not forget the oodles of previous technologies that could've, should've, but never did make the imapact that were promised.

    I'm not saying UWB is vaporware, though. It'll just have (greatly) limited application unless much of our other wireless technologies change before then too (which is unlikely- eg, look at how slowly DTV is replacing analog TV, or how slowly G3 mobile phones are taking hold here in the states)

  • I'd say "Hello, fragmented computing", but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @05:02PM (#4254124) Homepage
    This would be a great thing in terms of fragmented computing, but there's been zero progress with the tools we have now.

    I've played booster for this before, but the industry just hasn't reacted in any sort of reasonible way. Instead, we've seen mutant solutions like cell phones will sub-par digital cameras built in (which is, to me anyway, pretty much useless).

    So, once more with feeling, here is my dream: I want a personal network that moves with me. I want to be able to have the various personal devices I'm carrying at any given time detect each other and communicate (securely) and to act in a way which raises the value of the whole beyond that of just the components.

    I want to take pictures with my digital camera and have them stored on my iPod. I want my cell phone to detect this and use idle time to send bits back to my home computer (maybe the pictures could show up in email or something). I want to use my PDA to sort through my MP3s and have them play on wireless headphones. I want to use my PDA to get a real-time account balance (again, via my phone, which is more of a communication hub) when I'm trying to decide how much to spend at lunch.

    I don't want a *wearible* computer. I want my computer to be the sum of my devices.

    • In case you don't already, you best start buying Apple stuff, Steve has been pushing for this for a while, and he's working to get products working with this as we speak.
  • I'd be happy seeing Bluetooth on simple things like cell phones and printers and keyboards. Having Bluetooth on steroids would be nice and all, but let's get it on regular ol' devices first, ok?

  • Promise; Like Itanium? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is this like how they promised my company they would have Itanium servers shipping in May 2000 and 18 months later we were still waiting and very angry at the lies and continual BS they were feeding us?
  • The scary bit for me are not the admittedly awesome communications aspects of UWB, but the radar applications (see FAQ page linked to above).

    Low cost devices that can image through walls? Through the walls of MY house? No thanks!
    • The Supreme court has already ruled that police can't use infrared cameras on a house or other dwelling without a warrant, and infrared cameras are PASSIVE.

      Any radar-based police surveillence will almost certainly require a warrant or real emergency (e.g., hostage situation).

      MM
      --
      • Correct, but now imagine cheap (well, affordable) UWB based radars available a few years down the road. Even if they'll be banned from the US market based on rulings like the one you cite, they'll be available from other sources. I live just 30 minutes from the Mexican border where I can get all sorts of illegal high-tech gadgets.

        It still makes me uneasy. If the police can't use them, other government agencies may still use them. Can you say Patriot Act? Not to mention private individuals with various strange motivations.
  • I mean, really? What does it give me in 4 years that I don't already have? Can I connect my keyboard and mouse at gigabit speeds? Better brush up on my typing then.

    Bluetooth gives me fast enough connections for keyboard, mouse, data to my pda, GPRS phone. I can use wireless networking 802.11b and better for higher bandwidth and slightly longer distance connections.

    All this and it doesn't pollute the background noise level the way UWB does.

    I think Intel are just royally pissed that they didn't think of Bluetooth and are now trying to rain on the parade.

    • UWB is very low-power and is less subject to interference than other wireless protocols. Robert Cringely had a good writeup about UWB and its capabilities in his column [pbs.org] earlier this year.

      See also the earlier /. discussions here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].
  • This is great news, but I fear that somehow a division will form in who actually adopts this. It is being developed by Intel, so obviously windows machines will support it, and linux, etc will as well. My greatest fear is that Apple will -not- for some reason, or Intel won't want to give it to them. The Bluetooth features of MacOS 10.2 are pretty suave... I'd even say it makes me want to get more devices that can actually use it. Effortless synchronization of information, and the likes, is really cool. If all of the major "players" adopt this as a universal standard, and all the devices play nicely together across all platforms, I think this will be nearly revolutionary as far as how technology is used in our lives. However, if only certain platforms and devices support it, it's just another trend.
    • Ah but you're making the fatal assumption that if intel develops it, they will deploy it. Intel developed USB, and then sat on the finished product, too afraid to break the tried and true compatability (or in compatability) of other formats. Apple came along, took USB from them, and made it work. They forced people to adopt, and it was for the better. You're also assuming that just because Apple is investing currently in BlueTooth, that they won't adopt a different tech down the road.
  • Does the following sound anything like a promise, or more like a vague prediction?

    "We expect initial market deployment of standards-based UWB solutions to be sometime in the 2005-2006 timeframe," said Ben Manny, director of wireless technology development at Intel Research and Development.
  • Any electrical engineer would tell you that bluetooth is nothing like UWB. Infact it's the exact opposite technology.

    Bluetooth is based on narrow-band which is *A LOT* different technically.

    I'd get into it but then I'd get flamed for posting a lesson.
  • My dedicated wireless (3Mbps) is good for about 10km and has to be line of sight. I'd rather have the same speed over a longer distance with no LOS conditions.

  • There's a few papers and other interesting bits on UWB and localizer technology at the AEther Wire & Location, Inc. Homepage [aetherwire.com]

  • The infamous pringles-can-mod (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mamba-mamba ( 445365 ) on Friday September 13, 2002 @06:49PM (#4254657)
    From the FCC pub:
    69. We find no validity to the statement from USGPSIC that an operator would modify the UWB antenna to change operating frequency or bandwidth or that equipment that has been damaged in such a fashion would continue to be operated.
    I guess the FCC committee is unaware of the pringles can mod for 802.11!

    MM
    --
  • My AV center (receiver, CD player, tapedeck, turntable(!), amp, DVD player, VCR, TV) has a veritable rats nest of cables behind it. I'm afraid to reach in to get the dust bunnies out. With low-power UWB devices, we won't have to mess with cables all these cables! This, along with UPNP (or UDDI or whatever the hell they'll come up with to corner the market), and I won't even have to configure anything!

  • Not so fast. A laptop ban on aircraft is more like (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    NASA recently did some testing with UWB devices on, in and around aircraft. The results are pretty scary. GPS receivers just stopped working, no surprises there. The real scare came from the way TCAS reacted... the displays just went blank.

    The NASA tests prompted aviation administration to bring up the possibility of banning *all* laptops from flights in the UK on the basis that some laptop manufacturers propose to install UWB capability in laptops.

    Since the airlines are in the business of flying people about, not providing free emissions testing on electronic equipment to all comers, the only logical, practical route is to ban all laptops and other UWB-possible devices from all flights.

    There's still work to be done before UWB gets off the ground, literally.
  • Granted, most radio astronomy locations are purposely removed from populated areas. However, what happens when millions of these things are in use? All those "low power" levels they are talking about will add up to one giant batch of noise. I can see extraterrestrials writing off earth as that "noisy interfering planet." :)
  • I'm sure MS and the RIAA will make sure it includes DRM and is Palladium compliant [slashdot.org] before allowing this to become nationaly adopted.
  • ... and multi-gigahertz, micro-wave transmitting CPU's, Intel is going to fry the nards of every nerd alive within the next 10 years. Where will the next generation nerd come from?

  • UWB patents (Score:2, Informative)

    by tiohero ( 592208 )

    The firm has applied for an array of patents to cover its wired UWB technology and apparently is the only company to use this approach

    I've noticed a disturbing feeding frenzy for UWB patent applications similar to the internet business models. Somehow I can't believe that feeding the UWB signal down a cable TV transmission line instead of an antenna is a non-obvious patentable idea.

    Here's a current list of some of the patents around UWB. Notice that only a few groups hold almost all of the cards:
    http://www.aetherwire.com/CDROM/General/titles.htm l [aetherwire.com]

  • The FCC is considering laws to not allow laptops on planes anymore because of ultra wide band interfering considerably with the GPS systems that are on planes. This will be a huge problem, since so many people these days get a considerable amount of their business done on laptops while on planes. Case

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close