UWB Heavyweights Get Together

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

Page 1 / 2 > >>

IPobserver 12/4/2012 | 11:45:32 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together The website for the Multi-Band OFDM Alliance is now live: http://www.multibandofdm.org

The site lists all the official members and supporters of the alliance.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

aqureshi 12/4/2012 | 11:45:29 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together Hello,

Any insigthts as to why they are going away from the traditional UWB (Pulse based) PHY to OFDM. What are the pros and cons of these two approaches from a technical and business perspective.

Regards,
Ali

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

jacksullivan66 12/4/2012 | 11:45:27 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together A solid explanation of the systems design and market issues between a single-band approach vs a multi-band approach is included below:

http://www.eetuk.com/story/OEG...

The OFDM technique proposed by TI is actually occuring within each "band" or channel within the multi-band approach - with the result being better capture of multi-path energy and therefore greater resistence to interference. In addition (as it the case between 802.11b vs .11g), the OFDM technique should provide for greater range and signal durability given the same transmit power.

The only real differences between the multi-band PHY submittal and TI's latest OFDM PHY submittal was (1) applying the OFDM technique within each band, and (2) TI proposing only 3 bands between 3.1Ghz - 4.8Ghz, whereas the Intel lead group is proposing 7 bands in roughly the same range.

Having agreed to map the 3-band and the 7-band approach to each other so they are interoperable, it now appears that the bulk of the 802.15.3a participants (excluding Motorola and Xtreme Spectrum) are in the same camp - hopefully promising a fairly quick ratification of a draft standard for UWB hi-rate WPANs...

I hope this helps.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

IPobserver 12/4/2012 | 11:45:00 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together Thanks for the post Jack. You wrote:

The only real differences between the multi-band PHY submittal and TI's latest OFDM PHY submittal was (1) applying the OFDM technique within each band, and (2) TI proposing only 3 bands between 3.1Ghz - 4.8Ghz, whereas the Intel lead group is proposing 7 bands in roughly the same range.

That jibes roughly with what people have been telling me GÇô that this is a merger intended to produce the best technical solution GÇô but donGÇÖt you think it looks like something of a coup for TI?

To my untrained eye the merged proposal seems to focus on the 3.1GHz to 4.9GHz spectrum (i.e. enough for three 500 MHz bands), as TI suggested in March. To get to seven bands the merged proposal suggests four extra 500MHz bands in the 6.0 GHz to 8.1 GHz range, but I wonder if anybody will bother with the upper four bands anytime soon?

Word is that a favorable analysis of TIGÇÖs March proposal by Staccato, an influential startup from the multi-band coalition, cleared the way for OFDM. TI has always appeared (to me) to be quite at ease with the multi-band concept, as long it uses OFDM.

This is all pretty complex stuff, which I donGÇÖt understand too well, so real propeller heads should probably have a look at the actual presentation: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups... (1.8M)

Looking at the .15.3a website now, there are only seven proposals left on the table:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups...

This would really seem to clear the way for a fairly quick ratification of the standard. The timetable has been explained to me as follows:

Summer 03 GÇô decide on a single proposal. Start writing the detailed spec.

Summer 04 GÇô finish writing the spec. Start getting all the rubber stamps from the IEEE.

1Q05 GÇô the standard is ratified. Hooray! UWB companies throw a party.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

jacksullivan66 12/4/2012 | 11:44:22 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together A coup for TI? Yeah, in that OFDM will be used... With regard to the # of bands, the two proposals really weren't that far apart from the beginning. Remember, the FCC FR&O sets 500Mhz as the minimum band size, and the last Multi-Band Coalition proposal before they integrated TI's input included 15 538Mhz bands (current proposal uses 13 528Mhz bands).

TI did get the Gen1 focus on the bands below 5Ghz, but I still expect to see some (including a few of the initial Multi-Band Coalition founders) using 7 bands Gen1. Regarding 3 vs 7 usable Gen1 bands, I know their are technical details here that affect performance, complexity, and manufacturability. But I do expect to see Gen1 chipsets optimized for one or the other depending on the primary application of the device in which the chipset resides (PC vs CE). So the fact that they've agreed to make them compatible with each other is the key part for broad market adoption.

Regarding timeframes, at least from what I've heard, things may indeed move more quickly that your prediction. Initial goals were a draft spec by Nov 03. Until the merger, the TG was on schedule to use next weeks meeting to work down to a "handful" of choices, then use the Sept meetings for the final down selection. Now, with only 6 remaining, there's a remote possibility of getting to 1 by the end of next week - several months "ahead of schedule"! You don't hear that phrase very often with regard to the IEEE... See this link for others, who know more than I, also speaking of similar timeframes (http://www.wirelessweek.com/in....

Either way, I expect final ratification would then occur Q3 04, with bulk product shipments starting Q2 05, picking up steam dramatically for Q4 05 in the consumer space. I think this still holds...

But who knows... All bets are off until the down selection voting gets to one. With XSI/Motorola going down fighting, MBOA is at least in for a battle.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

IPobserver 12/4/2012 | 11:44:05 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together A joint presentation by Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp and Sony called "Consumer Electronic Requirements for TG3aGÇ¥ has just been posted on the .15.3a website.

It summarizes the consensus view of the five companies on the requirements and priorities for a UWB PHY in the CE market. It offers the following timeframes:

* Home theater applications (AC powered) GÇô must be available by 1H2005, but 2H2004 is desirable

* Portable applications (battery powered) GÇô must be available by 2006, but mid-2005 is desirable.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups...

The presentation does not support any particular proposal.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

jacksullivan66 12/4/2012 | 11:44:02 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together Thanks for passing along the link, Gabriel. It does indeed represent the "party line". The point I made in my last email was simply that, from what I've seen and heard, don't be surprised if the timeframes set out as minimum deliverable dates by the CE companies listed below are not only met, but exceeded.

Remember, Xtreme Spectrum already has silicon in production. If it's proposal is selected by the .15.3a TG - then the CE companies can begin going to market very rapidly. My take is that they'd be willing to throw their support behind a technically superior solution (arguably the MBOA proposal), but they won't do so unless they are assured that the additional complexity associated with a Multi-Band OFDM PHY doesn't (1) dramatically increase their costs, and/or (2) significantly delay their time to market.

Once they are comfortable that this is the case, expect them to throw all of their considerable influence behind the strongest technical solution. And, expect this whole process to be completed by Fri... ;) Expect concensus within the .15.3a TG to be swift moving forward.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

IPobserver 12/4/2012 | 11:43:46 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together There are only 6 proposals left on the table at IEEE .15.3a: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups...

A little bird points out that Motorola has withdrawn its proposal and has not merged with Xtreme.

Not sure if this is significant in anyway, but note that Moto had said it would support Xtreme's proposal because of its time-to-market advantages: http://www.unstrung.com/docume...

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

jacksullivan66 12/4/2012 | 11:43:39 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together Yeah - 6 proposals left at the beginning of the week is what I'd pegged as the number in my last post, so no real change there. The significance of 6, however, is that once there are 6 or less the IEEE can immediately move to the down selection voting. This is one of the key reasons why many integral to the process have stated publicly that they're "hopeful" that a final choice can emerge by the end of the week. If not one, two will very clearly emerge, and they'll still be on schedule for a draft standard by Nov 03.

Regarding the Moto observation - I'm not challenging it's accuracy, but I am challenging it's relevance. Moto pulled their proposal in Q1 '03 when they officially threw their support behind the XSI vision - http://www.ultrawidebandplanet... . To be clear, XSI's proposal was never a joint XSI/Moto proposal - it was always XSI's alone. It just had the support and backing of Motorola beginning in early March.

I could be wrong, but I think you're "little bird" is reading too much into it.

If during the course of the week, however, Moto decides to either waiver on their support for XSI, or change camps all together, then the game is up. But I've yet to see anything that suggests that change of position... By Fri afternoon, we should know more.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

jacksullivan66 12/4/2012 | 11:42:25 PM

re: UWB Heavyweights Get Together The good news is that the 802.15.3a gathering last week in SF has narrowed the selection of a UWB ALT PHY down to two remaining choices. Also in the category of good news (at least for those proponents of UWB), it appears that the TG is indeed on schedule to produce a single technical solution by Nov that will become the basis of a draft standard for UWB.

And, from the outside looking in, with the Multiband OFDM approach backed by the MBOA securing rougly 60% of the final vote, it would appear that concensus is building.

However, a potentially serious challenge has been made by the competing camp lead by Xtreme Spectrum, suggesting that the operating parameters set by the FCC's First Report and Order on UWB significantly limit the performance of frequency hopping systems in both FCC approval testing, as well as real world deployments that must abide by these same FCC rules. The most amazing thing is that it appears nobody within the MBOA could clearly and definitively rebut Xtreme's charges, which were laid out in the document below:

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups...

Despite alot of press recently that the Intel / TI MBOA "juggernaut" was soon to own UWB, it appears they have one significant hurdle remaining before receiving the proverbial keys to the kingdom.

As a proponent of UWB, one can only hope that this issue is resolved in a timely fashion, with the best technical solution emerging as a result. For such an important technology, it wouls be a shame to see otherwise...

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Page 1 / 2 > >>