Global Harmonization of UWB Standards Unlikely, Experts Say
The global effort to set ultrawide broadband (UWB) standards is winding down but it’s unlikely to result in total harmonization, several key players said. The U.S. has completed its work, and Europe and Japan are expected to adopt standards by March. But lingering concerns over interference with other spectrum users -- and the lack of a unified standard -- could slow uptake, experts said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The main reason standards will differ by country is that UWB bands will be allocated differently, said WiMedia Alliance Pres. Stephen Wood. When the FCC enacted UWB regulations in 2002, technologies such as WiMAX weren’t in view. But WiMAX now exists in the U.K., so that country’s regulator has had to take it into account. In addition, some countries have radioastronomy “listen-only” services charged with specific obligations, meaning standards must be different to account for the greater sensitivity required, he said.
The chief obstacle to harmonization is the fear of many countries that UWB will interfere with existing systems operating in the same band, said Fatih Yurdal, who heads up frequency management & regulatory affairs div. of the European Radiocommunications Office (ERO). Those countries won’t accept the power limits set by the FCC for UWB emissions, and are seeking more stringent limits to eliminate any possible interference, he said. The ERO operates under the European Communications Committee (ECC) of the Conference of Postal & Telecom Administrations (CEPT), whose draft UWB regulation will be considered at an ECC meeting next week.
One key question is how much variance among standards is desirable, Wood said. At this point, it’s all speculative because no one really knows who will use UWB technology and for what. Moreover, countries have different risk tolerances: U.S. and U.K. regulators are required to foster the development of new technologies; others are charged with protecting existing ones, he said.
Once standard-setting is done, the WiMedia Alliance will try to persuade govts. to align their provisions as much as possible, Wood said. Where regulators can agree on incremental changes, harmonization is possible; where wide differences remain, agreement is unlikely. Then the question is: Who will use this technology? Having a single worldwide standard would make it easier for device makers, Wood said. As that won’t happen, manufacturers will have to develop either products designed to the highest standard in a region, or unique products for each place they want to market to.
The U.K. Office of Communications (Ofcom) submitted its preliminary proposal last month for a harmonized generic UWB solution for discussion by the ECC. In it, the regulator warned FCC limits won’t protect incumbent services in Europe, and Europe should speed its standard- making so device makers won’t end up having to conform to U.S. specifications.
The IEEE has long been engaged in an effort to set a UWB standard for personal area networking for peer-to-peer devices, said UWB Forum Exec. Dir. Mike McCamon. The process is so deadlocked it’s jokingly called “Groundhog Day,” he said. Out of frustration, his group and the WiMedia Alliance decided to move forward on their own and let the market decide UWB’s future.
The 2 groups are working on issues surrounding the continuity of band allocation, McCamon said. But some members in both organizations want to use the regulatory process for competitive advantage, by lobbying govts. to set interference and other parameters that suit their UWB products more than competitors’.
The UWB Forum isn’t taking that route, he said. Instead, it wants to convince the industry to come up with a “consistent story” about what frequencies UWB devices will operate on -- to ease harmonization -- and show regulators that UWB noise levels are actually lower than the typical interference levels of most electronic devices. Interference isn’t really an issue, McCamon said, but operators that have spent massive amounts of money on spectrum are reluctant to share it with other users.
Regulation is “the 800-lb. gorilla of UWB,” McCamon said. Much of the regulatory debate has had the premise that all UWB devices want to talk to each other, making uniformity necessary. But, he said, the forum thinks it more likely that a device maker will develop and market products that work in different regions around the world, and not worry about total harmonization.
There may never be universal regulatory approval of power requirements, so manufacturers will just have to ensure that different products don’t interfere and can communicate with each other if that’s what consumers want, McCamon said. In fact, he said, the biggest problem may well be interference from UWB devices in the same room, not the out-of-band interference regulators are worried about.
McCamon doesn’t expect UWB products to be available anywhere for some time. Earlier this year, the UWB Forum and the WiMedia Alliance announced that Bluetooth was looking to use UWB for future high-speed radios. The groups are working with the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) -- which owns the logos and licenses the technology -- which is investigating UWB over Bluetooth.
The SIG has said the technology may not be available until 2007, McCamon noted. Because there hasn’t been a “full export of the IEEE conflict” into the SIG, the Forum hopes something comes of the effort. “At the end of the day, people want to use this stuff,” he said. The SIG should focus on making that a reality rather than on the political issues.