Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

USB To Go Wireless

Posted by Zonk on Wed Oct 18, 2006 04:22 PM
from the realizing-the-bluetooth-dream dept.
Troy Samuel writes "The WiMedia Alliance is planning to make the technology known as 'ultrawideband,' or UWB, work among a wide variety of consumer electronics devices. Various organizations, including the Bluetooth SIG, have chosen the WiMedia Alliance's version of UWB technology as the foundation for a next-generation short-range networking technology." From the article: "UWB technology can deliver data rates at up to 480 megabits per second at around 3 meters, with speeds dropping off as the range grows to a limit of about 10 meters. Real-world speeds will probably be a little slower, but this is as fast as the wired version of USB 2.0 and much faster than current Wi-Fi networks are capable of transmitting data. 'This stuff is plumbing,' Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, said of the newer-generation wireless technology. 'It's important that it be there, it's going to be handy for getting rid of cables hanging around your desk.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Nokia's Wibree Takes on Bluetooth 120 comments
narramissic writes "Nokia has developed a new, short-range wireless technology, called Wibree, that it says is a lot more power efficient than Bluetooth, which means it could be used in smaller and less costly devices. It can also use the same radio and antenna components as Bluetooth, helping keep costs down further. Wibree could compete with Bluetooth in the workplace as a way to link keyboards and other peripherals to computers. But it could also have more interesting applications for consumers, in devices such as wrist watches, toys and sports equipment." What does this say about Bluetooth, considering Nokia is a member of the Bluetooth Promoters group?
[+] Mobile: Ultrawideband Soon To Be Legal In Europe 109 comments
ukhackster writes "ZDNet UK is reporting that ultrawideband will be legalized in Europe within 6 months, but with tougher controls than in America — the only place where it is legal now. Ultrawideband offers wireless connectivity at speeds up to 1Gbps, and is meant to supersede USB and clear our desks of wires. In Europe, fears that UWB might interfere with other technologies have kept it out of the market. Opening up the European market could give manufacturers a powerful incentive to push UWB." From the article: "[S]ources confirmed to ZDNet UK that the restrictions put forward by the EC would indeed be more rigorous than those imposed in the US, although they would not be so restrictive as to make it impossible for some global harmonization of UWB devices... It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MankyD (567984) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:26PM (#16492495) Homepage
    I'm curious - how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color. Anyone have any ideas?
    • by b-l4ke (997876) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:28PM (#16492511) Homepage
      1600 x 1200 x 32bpp per pixel x 30 fps = 1.85 Gbps
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Double that at least as computer displays run at 60+ fps
        • are there not also control instructions to add to the mix? Surely it isn't just a case of transfering the bitmap from the buffer.

          I know crap all about monitors though...
      • I guess I was hoping someone could also offer some insight into lossless compression techniques and their average compression ratio. As long as one is not doing FMV, you wouldn't, in theory, need to refresh the whole screen. Maybe that's getting too fancy for a simple question though.
        • But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?
          • But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?

            Of course it would be worth it! Consider the copper alone. Do you have any idea how much copper is in a two metre video cable?

            [What? About enough to make 7 or 8 pennies? Are you sure? ... Crap!]

            Um... Nevermind.
            • Except... (Score:3, Informative)

              Copper pennies aren't made anymore, because, you guessed it, the amount of copper required to make a penny is worth more than 1c, so if they made copper pennies you'd be theoretically better off melting them down and selling the raw material...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color.

            The answer is right there. 1600 x 1200 x 24 = 46,080,000 bits per frame (46Mb) - not including any overhead for packing/unpacking all this info. Now how many frames per second did you want?
    • by 56ker (566853) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:30PM (#16492537) Homepage Journal
      24 bits = 3 bytes
      3 bytes * 1200 * 1600 = 5.76 Megabytes

      Assuming a refresh rate of 50fps that's 288 Megabyte/second or 2.25 Gigabits/second A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        Actually, no. Imagine having your CPU in the closet and only your monitor and peripherals at your desk. Or imagine having a monitor/peripherals in a totally different room of the house/office.

        Even if it's only two feet away, wireless is nice for... well, for removing wires. Systems can be such a cabling mess. I'm much rather bath in the invisible waves than have to deal with that rat's nest.
        • Imagine having your CPU in the closet

                That goes against the fashion nowadays, I mean, everyone is coming OUT of the closet and you want to put the computer back in...
      • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:39PM (#16492659)
        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        So that's why my laptop keeps going dark whenever I move more than six feet away from my desk.

        KFG
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        It seems to me that most of this wireless craze is pointless for the exact same reason. Just how hard is it to plug your USB key into your computer anyway? And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?
          • by Grishnakh (216268) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @05:52PM (#16493667)
            It still seems like a solution in search of a problem.

            I for one would like a wireless USB connection so that I could do time-lapse webcam shots from my deck.

            Why not have a webcam with 802.11? Instead of inventing a whole new technology and protocol, you'd just have to slap a 802.11 chip and transceiver onto a webcam, and make some software to allow it to be accessed over the network. Plus we already have WEP and WPA to handle security.

            Cablebox to PC for extra data storage from my PVR (assume HDTV bandwidth could be sustained).

            This is a perfect application for Wifi (or even wired ethernet for those that already have their homes wired with Cat5). The higher speed of this UWB only works if your computer is very close to your device; most people don't keep their TVs in the same room as their computer with lots of storage.

            Wireless memory card readers,

            What's so hard about plugging your memory card into a slot on your computer? Or having a wired reader plugged in all the time if you use it that much?

            iPod/MP3/PDA sync'ing.

            This sounds handy, if a bit lazy (again, how hard is it to plug in if you're already sitting there?). But isn't this what Bluetooth was invented for? Or is UWB really supposed to be the higher-speed replacement for BT?

            As other pointed out, wireless video to the monitor when MPEG-like quality is sufficient. Have a decoder built into the display.

            So you'd basically need a small computer inside your monitor to decode the signal, just so you can save the trouble of a single cord? Somehow I don't think there's that many people out there who will want to pay the premium price for this "feature" to make this a mainstream thing.

            And yes, I'm not sure about wireless keyboards for desktops, but my HTPC (home theater pc) was wireless as I don't want to sit near the 100in screen.

            Yes, wireless keyboards make sense here, but it seems the vast majority are sold to people who use them at their desk.
      • All you have to do is bond several channels together and there's your wireless monitor.
        Wifi has, what, 11 channels? How many does wireless USB have?

        Since the range on this is relatively tiny, you can probbably aggregate, say, 5 or 6 WUB channels into a single 2+Gbit channel to talk to your monitor. Sure, you'll be barred from putting more than 1 or 2 in close proximity, and yet... For the price of 5-6 transmitter chips at each end and a bit more core logic, a manufacturer can probbably piece this together t
        • not really, but there's no reason why image compression wouldn't work with a CRT monitor too. think of things like VNC or RDP - these are display-over-network technologies that would be used with a wireless monitor, you're effectively viewing the monitor over a network instead of directly connected with a cable.
    • About 330MB/s from my calculation (that's 60 fps uncompressed).
      It's likely that could be cut down via lossless compression and of course, only sending areas that have changed.. however then the monitor needs a cpu to decompress the stuff, so we might as well just use a small form-factor pc running VNC over a wireless LAN :P
    • I use "remote" (but not "wireless") monitors all the time - Remote Desktop, pcAnywhere, VNC, etc.

      I know, that is not what you meant, but many of the solutions imply a "server" for your "client" screen, so there are some current examples.

      But it doesn't work for "fast" stuff like video or games.

      The big quesion, as someone else pointed out - how long is your "wireless" monitor going to run on batteries?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The first thing I thought of when reading the blurb was "video glasses arriving soon." I'd rather have 800x600, 16 bpp per lens at 24 fps, or 368.64 Mb/s, and get reasonable immersive 3D than I would a single stream of 1600x1200 at 24 bpp.
  • As far as I knew this technology was already in use - for example wireless USB webcams. However I can't think of many real life applications that would use the bandwidth this technology provides other than video. Any suggestions?
    • by bbernard (930130) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:32PM (#16492561)
      For that matter, one of the benefits of USB is that power is delivered along with the data--how often do you change the batteries on your thumb-drive, or plug in your 2.5" external hard drive? So, directly compared to USB I still need the same number of cables, unless they're delivering power wirelessly too? Hmm...
  • by Name Anonymous (850635) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:28PM (#16492509)
    1. Data security...
    2. wirelss interference from another computer
    3. wireless interference from other electronics and wireless devices
    I am all for wireless devices that make sense. I sitll however use a wired keyboard and mouse on my desktop computer. On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.
    • On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.

      And you can solve this problem by leaving your USB mouse and keyboard plugged into a hub on your desktop, so you only have one thing to plug in. As a bonus, you could get a USB-powered laptop cooler with a built-in hub (like this one [newegg.com]), so you're not only cleaning up cable clutter, but also reducing heat-related stress on your hard drive. -- Paul

    • 4. Power
      • Indeed, the idea of replacing a device which has one small cable running to a PC or hub with a device which produces increased interference and still has a cable, only this time it's attached to a chunky transformer plugged into the mains, is just plain silly.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        4. Power

        *coughs*

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power [wikipedia.org]

        And

        http://www.splashpower.com/ [splashpower.com]

        There used to be a cool Wireless transfer microwave kit on ThinkGeek.com but I can't find it anymore...

        My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.

          That's not wireless. The toothbrush must sit in a base that's connected to an electrical outlet. The only thing "cool" about this is that there's no exposed electrical contacts on either the base or the toothbrush. This isn't wireless power transmission technology; it's a variation of a simple transformer, it's two inductors that are situated next to each other (when the toothbrush is in the holder), so that current
  • Is USB relly a good fit for this? USB is based around a strictly controlled hierarchy of devices with a single master at the top of the tree. Wireless applications are more in need of symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.
    • Re:A good fit? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animats (122034) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @05:15PM (#16493143) Homepage

      symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.

      Firewire actually has rather strong master/slave relationships; there's a tree, and a tree root, and a master node. But there's a negotiation process during hot-plugging which establishes the master/slave relationships.

      One big problem with Firewire is that it doesn't have a notion of device ownership. You can plug two computers together with FireWire, and that will work if both machines support IP or Ethernet over FireWire. But plug a peripheral into the same bus, and there's no mechanism to allocate it to a unique host computer. You'll get a control clash.

      Underneath, FireWire isn't really a "bus". It's actually a local area network, and its controllers work more like Ethernet controllers, with packets and buffer chains, than bus adapters.

      The "bus" aspect is that there are defined packet formats for loading and storing 32-bit data items in a 64 bit address space. In practice, though, what usually happens is that at the host end, some code formats such a packet, saying "set bit 22 of register 0x2490 at node 3", and when that packet gets to node 3, some little CPU in the peripheral decodes the packet, acknowledges receipt of the packet, a switch statement decodes the "register" address, and code notes that bit 22 means "turn camera on". No status for this event comes back; the host has to send a packet to "read" some other device register to find out what happened.

      Giving FireWire a "device register" model turned out, in the end, to be kind of silly. Something more like SCSI, with function codes and statuses, would have made more sense. (And, in fact, there's SCSI over FireWire.) You'd get back better status info, and devices which don't implement some functions would have a simple way to report that. This makes it easier to implement generic drivers, reducing the temptation to have to have a special driver for every manufacturer's device. And we all know where that leads.

      So if you're designing something like this, don't go with a device register model. Anything smart enough to talk it will have a CPU, so use it.

  • I can see SOME uses of this, but there are a large number of people out there that would rather have a mouse connected with a cable than have to deal with batteries. And as the number of devices you want to connect grows, this effect will only become more pronounced. My verdict: useful, but not revolutionary.
  • by truesaer (135079) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:34PM (#16492583) Homepage
    One thing I've always wanted is to get rid of the cables for my LCD displays and my speakers. That would be 4 fewer cables cluttering my desk (2 LCDs, 1 cable between left and right speakers, 1 cable to speaker out jack). I'm not sure what the real time and data throughput requirements would be. This looks like its primarily intended to replace wired USB devices but what additional complexity would there be in getting rid of some of the other wires?


    It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

    • "It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables."

      Um why? One cable is fine but two is.... inconceivable?

    • It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

      On my desk, there's three speakers: right, left, and a subwoofer (on the floor). I suspect many people have similar setups. The subwoofer has the amplifier in it, and is connected with special wires to the two speakers.

      So you want to replace these wires from the amplifier with a wireless connection, and then put separate amplifiers in the speakers, and then add individual power cables to the speakers. Now I'll need three spaces on my power
  • What about power? One of the most notable benefits of a wired connection is that you can not only transfer information but power the device as well. I don't know about you, but I hate wireless mice/keyboards for the very reason that it's just too inconvenient to keep replacing batteries.
    • I agree, or worse, mice that contain embedded rechargable batteries that require you to place the mouse on a charging station. I had the Logitech MX1000 and loved it except for the charging issue as I would often forget to place it on the charger at the end of the day leaving me with a useless mouse at some point.

      There is however a mouse that doesn't have this problem. The Logitech G7 Laser Cordless Mouse is perfect. It comes with two small Li-ion battery packs and a charging station. So while you are using
      • Kensington makes several wireless mice that charge with a cable hooked up to the USB port. So, if you run out of juice, you can just plug the mouse into the cable and continue using it as a wired mouse while it charges.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:38PM (#16492641)
    No, wait! It's back up with an annoying alert that it's connected again!

    Wait, no, it dropped again.

    I love this game.
  • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @04:40PM (#16492681)
    Does this mean that all I would need to do to spy on someone's pen drive is get within 10 meters and peek over UWB?

    I assume there would be some encryption and passwords, but it's yet another security question to discuss.
  • What I like about USB is the possibility to have the devices powered. This is handy for portable HD's for a laptop for example. I doubt that wireless USB will be able to power external devices. Having used wireless mice and keyboards in the past, I got rid of all them because the battery power always fails in a critical moment (Murphys law). An other issue with wireless keyboards and mice is data security. Will these wireless USB devices have encrypted data streams?
  • Combine this technology operating in a very low-power mode with something like this thing [newscientisttech.com] I read about earlier on /., and do we get smart DVD drives that can detect if they're authorized to play a given disc securely and over air? I mean, you could stick an RFID on each DVD and then a reader somewhere in the drive, but is this a more off-the-shelf type of combination?

    Or am I full of crap?
  • Most of the wires on my desk do double duty as data & power (key board, mouse, PDA, iPod) so what's the point of getting rid of all the cables just to replace them with charging stations?

    - Peace
  • I don't understand the "my desk must be wire free" mentality. Wireless networking is nice because it's like a lamp: you can move around and use it equally; new people can walk into the room and use it without extra technology, etc. But I don't see the point of wireless mice, hard drives, etc. With a range of 3-10m, in order to move your computer very far, you have to carry the same number of objects whether or not they have wires. Normal human orientation is toward the computer/monitor, so the cords lea
  • by tehcrazybob (850194) <ben DOT geek AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 18 2006, @05:24PM (#16493271)
    I've never seen the point in the recent uptake in wireless technology. I have a wireless network, but it's just so I don't have to run network cords around my apartment. I hate my wireless network - it's unreliable and slow, despite being all alone on its channel and usually running at 54 Mbps. However, despite my own issues with it, I understand the point of wireless networking. It's great for public access or situations like my apartment where running cables cleanly is difficult. I can also see the point of a bluetooth mouse for a laptop, or a bluetooth keyboard for your PDA. It makes things faster and more portable, and gives you more freedom.

    However, I draw the limit there. My keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, external storage, and occasional other things are all wired. I don't have to keep track of batteries, and I don't get poor performance near the end of my battery life. It's all sitting on my desk not moving anyway, and there are only a few cords present on my desk - the rest are hidden behind the desk. I also like the tactile effort cords provide. When I plug my graphing calculator into my computer, when I stick a USB thumb drive in, when I connect my camera, when I plug in my headphones, or when I hook up a USB card reader, there's tactile feedback. I know I have just achieved something. I also don't find it terribly inconvenient to stick my flash drive into a front USB port.

    There's more than just reliability and feedback, though. When I unplug my flash drive or external hard drive, I know that the devices are powered down and safe from snooping eyes, and not experiencing wear and tear. I also know that when I sit down at the computer lab with my flash drive in my pocket, the guy next to me isn't stealing my files. I understand that the connection between the computer and device will probably be encrypted automatically, so that's fine. But what about the connection process? If I have to go through a lengthly process to associate the device before I can use it (bluetooth), then I'm not really any better off than I was with wired USB. If I don't have to go through that process, what's stopping the guy next to me from doing it? And in the same computer lab, with USB my mouse isn't going to suddenly decide to associate itself with the computer across the way. Now, we could password protect the flash drive. However, and perhaps I'm alone on this, I'd rather not have a password on my mouse. And what if I replace 'mouse' with 'keyboard?' You can't password protect a keyboard.
  • by 1trickymicky (924393) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @05:42PM (#16493489)
    but... if i've got one of these devices in my backpack and i walk past a whole heap of computers, lets say in an office for example... is it going to try and install it automatically?

    "Windows has recognised your UWB vibrator and is installing it now......"
    • I have a wireless keyboard/mouse combo from Logitech for at least two years now.
      The keyboard uses two AA batteries (which can be rechargable) that last for many months of intensive use.
      The mouse came with a rechargable battery. The receiver doubles as a recharging craddle for the mouse, I put it there when I go to sleep, or I'm leaving home. But even if I forgot to do it now and then, it's no problem, the mouse battery lasts for some days (it's optical, I imagine a analog mouse would consume less).
    • Reference Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
      Note: Baud should not be confused with data rate in "bits per second" (or bytes per second, etc.). Each symbol transmitted can carry one or more bits (for example, 8 bits in 256-QAM modulation) of information. When each symbol is binary it carries just one bit, so baud and bit rate are equal. This is a cheap, simple encoding. However, it's common to make better use of channel bandwidth by encoding multiple bits per symbol.
    • Probably. After all, look at what a great job the electronics manufacturers did with 2.4GHz wireless devices (cordless phones, Wi-Fi, etc.). They tested out their devices all by themselves, and didn't bother to see what would happen if other devices, using the same spectrum, were in the area. After all, it's not their problem if there's interference.

      What the heck do you need a wireless mouse for, anyway?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not really.

      The geniuses doing it over there forget the fact that the usb dongles are mostly powered by the usb bus, now if they get wireless, they will all have to have power adapters or batteries & chargers. Still a mess.