[FLham] FCC OKs Limited Ultra-Wideband Technology

[doc]

Heads up!  We have only 6-12 months to detect interference
and demand limits -- after that history suggests that efforts to
get modifications to the regs will come much harder.

Problem is we will need to know where, geographically, this
stuff is being operated so we have a fair shot at detecting
problems during the trial phase prior to widespread implementation.

"Since there is little "operational experience" with the technology,
however, the FCC said it would "err on the side of conservatism
in setting emission limits when there were unresolved interference
issues." The FCC also said it would "act vigorously to enforce the
rules and act quickly on any reports of interference." It will also
review its standards for UWB devices in the next six to twelve
months, in the interest of making the standards more flexible."

The FCC appears to have made this trial phase much easier on
the UWB vendors than on those who are now at risk of suffering
interference.  Hopefully the claims of the UWB folks are true
and there will be no interference ... "Trust, but verify."  Ronald
Reagan.

Thanks! & 73, doc KD4E  ARRL-WCF-SEC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

February 15, 2002
FCC OKs Limited Ultra-Wideband Technology

By  Matthew Carolan, eWEEK
New posts: 1

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday gave a conditional
go-ahead to companies seeking to market products employing ultra-wideband
(UWB) technology.

UWB operates by releasing many small bursts of radio signals at very high
speeds over a wide radio spectrum, rather than, as more established wireless
technologies do, issuing a protracted signal over a limited frequency range.

Proponents claim a variety of potential consumer, business and safety uses
for UWB, from virtually interference free, energy-efficient, super
high-speed voice and data transmission, to devices that could enhance public
safety with highly accurate imaging and location capabilities.

For example, law enforcement and rescue workers could use UWB to find people
trapped under debris or held hostage behind walls. Engineers could locate
structural defects in various edifices. And automobile companies could use
UWB for enhanced collision avoidance applications.

The FCC, in a written statement accompanying its "First Report and Order,"
agreed UWB has potential, and seemed to reject some claims that it could
create dangerous interference. "With appropriate technical standards, UWB
devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio services
without causing interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources
to be used more efficiently," the Commission said.

Since there is little "operational experience" with the technology, however,
the FCC said it would "err on the side of conservatism in setting emission
limits when there were unresolved interference issues." The FCC also said it
would "act vigorously to enforce the rules and act quickly on any reports of
interference." It will also review its standards for UWB devices in the next
six to twelve months, in the interest of making the standards more flexible.

"We're very pleased by today's decision, we went from being illegal to legal
today," said Jeff Ross, vice president for corporate development and
strategy at Time Domain, a Huntsville, Alabama company that has been
pitching UWB to the FCC since 1987.

Ross said his company is awaiting the final specifications accompanying
Thursday's FCC announcement before being able to discern all of the
implications for potential products, but, "based upon what they have put out
there today, I think it's a good positive step forward, it's going to allow
us to get some products to market." He said Time Domain expects to have a
chipset out in the next couple of months, and products from its partners out
"hopefully by the end of the year."

"The biggest thing this technology will be used for," said Ross, "is indoor,
short-range, high-data rate communications," such as Personal Area Networks
and Device Area Networks. At 100 Mbs per second, over short distance,
probably within a room, Ross said. "I think you'll see it first within the
consumer market."

UWB opponents however, particularly in the aviation industry, have charged
that new UWB devices could disrupt global positioning systems and other
airborne safety devices if operating in a frequency range under 6 Ghz, what
the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) labels the "safety-of-life
spectrum."

The FCC's decision Thursday allows some UWB technologies to fall below that
threshold.

"No level or amount of interference - no matter how weak, intermittent or
infrequent - is acceptable for aviation," said the ATA President and CEO
Carol Hallett in a prepared statement a few days before the FCC's decision.
"It is of paramount importance for the FCC to ensure that UWB technologies
avoid any interference with transmissions in restricted spectrum bands.
Anything else significantly threatens aviation safety - a risk too great to
impose on the public."

ATA officials were not immediately for comment on Thursday. However, they
have cited previous government practice, dating back to the Communications
Act of 1934, to place the burden of proof on those promoting new UWB
devices.

"We firmly take the position that the burden to demonstrate that a proposed
unlicensed device will not cause harmful interference to authorized aviation
technologies lies with the device proponent," said Hallet, in a prepared
statement.

Ross rebutted these concerns by comparing UWB technology to laptops and
handhelds in use today. "There are already billions of devices operating . .
. at 2000 times greater power than what they authorized for ultra-wideband
today," he said, "and with those billions of devices out in those bands, and
there haven't been any problems to the GPS system, there certainly can't be
any problem with ultra-wideband operating at 2000 times lower. It's almost
silly."

Ross charged that many alarms about UWB are being raised for competitive
reasons, but at the same time he downplayed UWB's potential to undercut
existing technologies. He said, for example, that GPS and UWB are actually
"complementary" location technologies.

And to those who think UWB will undercut Bluetooth, the emergent wireless
standard for data transmission, he argued that each would lead in totally
different directions for applications. At 100 Mbs per second, with
position-location and high spatial-capacity without interference for UWB,
compared to 720 Kbs for Bluetooth data transmission from laptops and other
devices, he said, "it would be like having a laser when all you need is a
pocketknife."

http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s=201&a=22863,00.asp