Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking IT Hardware

Intel Takes UWB Standard to ECMA 49

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the fighting-to-be-heard dept.
judgecorp writes "The Intel-backed WiMedia group, unable to get its UWB proposal approved as an IEEE standard, has got it published as a standard, by the ECMA group. ECMA has less of a history in network standards, and is more swayed by commercial issues, say critics." From the article: "ECMA, whose members are manufacturers, has published two standards, ECMA-368 and 369, based directly on the WiMedia UWB proposals. These had previously reached stalemate in the IEEE, where they were blocked by rival proposals from Motorola-backed Freescale in a debate that lasted for years. ECMA, by contrast, approved WiMedia unanimously, in about three months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Takes UWB Standard to ECMA More

Intel Takes UWB Standard to ECMA

Comments Filter:

  • Multiple committees = good for consumers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:28PM (#14229984) Homepage Journal
    This is an interesting article, and one that shows how multiple standards committees are actually better for consumers than just one.

    Intel wasn't able to convince the IEEE to accept their proposal for a standard. The ECMA accepted the standard, but opinions exist (and I agree with them) that the ECMA is more a corporate-shill than a standards committee.

    How will this help consumers? By having the IEEE refuse the standard, other manufacturers aren't going to jump on the standard as it isn't widely accepted. Intel is one of the most powerful corporations in the world, yet a standards committee is preventing them from releasing a product that won't help consumers (which could include businesses of course). This will keep the manufacturers returning to the drawing board to try to find a way to convince the IEEE. Yet the ECMA has accepted the product, which means Intel will release it and attempt to gain consumer attention, which could create a de facto standard without IEEE acceptance. Consumer need/desire is met through not just competition between manufacturers but competition between standards committees as well.

    I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.

    As for the UWB idea, it seems that there are numerous competitive technologies, which is part of IEEE's reasoning for refusing the standard. This lets the consumers decide which standard will win out through market forces. Motorola's Freescale doesn't seem any better or worse than Intel's UWB, so I'm sure I'll see both in action in my customer base. The IEEE version may end up being a combination of both technologies.

    This is the free market in action, and this is why technology tends to grow in leaps and bounds, whereas heavily regulated markets take years to wade through the red tape, spending billions in the process.
    • FDA is a governing body...and while they have issues, it is always a BAD thing when things like this happen. I find when looking at say Certified Organic, by different bodies, it does not instill confidence in the product if there are multiple certification houses.

      It takes time to research what the policies of each committee is and then decide if they are pro consumer or just waiting for corporate welfare.
      • takes time to research what the policies of each committee is and then decide if they are pro consumer or just waiting for corporate welfare.

        And this is a Good Thing. An educated consumer is the only wise consumer. All you need to do is become educated to which committee body is working in YOUR interest, and buy those products (primarily). When we only have one committee, we don't really know in who's interest that body is working in. I'm hoping you see that the FDA doesn't really work in the citizens'
        • With all the fraud in the drug research field, you think that a manufacturer-based certification group is going to help with the problems you noted?
          • Yes, I do.

            The FDA fails, every day. They fail to certify drugs that might help millions that might haarm a few. They fail to certify drugs in use elsewhere in the world. They fail to check drug company research. They fail to operate efficiently.

            End the FDA. Let drug companies form certification boards that compete with doctors groups and consumer advocate groups. I believe if the FDA didn't have so many hoops to jump through, Merck would have released Vioxx with a warning that there might be the chanc
            • Chances are they lied so that doctors would write "Vioxx" instead of "Celebrex" on their prescription pads. They didn't withhold information because of fear of the FDA -- they hid it because of fear of bad publicity. Your "efficient" market system would not have stopped it from happening -- they would have gotten creamed in the market if they said it increased deaths.

              I can imagine the conversation in the doctor's office:

              "Hey, doc, I've got some pain in my back."
              "Well, we can treat it two ways, with V

            • in y'all's process of arguing economic theory, you are really using a situation without any grounding in truth. Vioxx was on the market before there was any research showing long term harmful effects. There was one study in 2000, well after it hit the market, that could have showed possible long term problems(as recently challenged by some New England Journal).

              This means that with a completely honest presentation of the data available, they got certification. It is required that after certification you c
    • I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug.

      ...and if you are too poor or stupid to reliably consult a good doctor you just go with the product which "seems to be ok".

      Drug marketing is such a huge business that there needs to be solid Government oversight of the products they re

      • Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:47PM (#14230067) Homepage Journal
        ...and if you are too poor or stupid to reliably consult a good doctor you just go with the product which "seems to be ok".

        Drug marketing is such a huge business that there needs to be solid Government oversight of the products they release.

        I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health. These items could emit dangerous wavelengths, have explosion potential and can even electrocute the user if designed improperly. Yet we don't have government oversight of the items we use every day. Just like Target won't sell a UL-listed lamp, your doctor/pharmacist wouldn't sell you a drug that hasn't been certified by a trustworthy organization.

        I can go to Chinatown and buy a non-UL listed hairdryer, but I won't. I believe you should be able to get uncertified medications as well, you just have to make that decision yourself. The more decisions that government makes for us, the less choice and control we have over our decision making.
        • I think drugs are potentially less dangerous than microwaves, televisions, hair dryers and even computers can be to your health.

          The reason they are less dangerous is because of the FDA - could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market. Don't worry about fatal side-effects, they were approved by the industry body! Sure...

          And, just FYI, we do have government oversight of every item you can buy. It is the wonderful world of consumer protection legislation and health a
          • - could you imagine industry regulated (i.e. unregulated) drugs being released on the market.

            Yes, I could. The FDA can't be sued. Tort law provides more than enough protection from dangerous companies. Cancer patients would have a choice of competitive cannibis products. Pain sufferers and their doctors could choose from safer opiate-based medicines. Alternative therapies would be available for those with little hope.

            There are regular stories in Australia around Christmas time of kids toys imported f
            • One problem with the tort approach is that ALL drugs have side-effects. How do you determine whether they are tolerable? If it is whatever a jury thinks, then even the cure for cancer would probably land a company in bankrupcy court if it caused patients to break out in pimples or if 1 in 10,000 keel over from a heart attack.

              The FDA review process at least gives companies some kind of standard to point at in court. "If the FDA reviewed it, and thought it was safe, then why are companies being punished" -
        • I would agree with the parent poster's remarks, up to the point that government should have no part in the consumers' decision making process.

          One of the most insidious business organizations, the American Medical Association, has gone out of its way to help protect the reputation of bad, even dangerous, medical professionals. They are like the Mafia in that no one outside the organization can or will speak out against the bad doctors or medical professionals. There are only a handful of states in which ma
    • Interesting how different industries resolve non-compatible standard issues.
      • These issues WILL resolve themselves, though.

        Look at the videotape industry. Most slashdotters would say "Beta versus VHS" but this is a wrong response. You had Beta, VHS, VERA, quadruplex, U-matic, C-format, betacam, M3, S-VHS, DVC, HDC, D5, 8, Hi8, and DVCAM. I probably missed a few.

        All that choice led us to what we have today, and continues to lead us to new options. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD might be a hassle for early adopters, but formats MUST continually change, combine, and fall apart over time for con

    • Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers (Score:5, Informative)

      by J. Random Luser ( 824671 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @05:07PM (#14230146)
      This is an interesting article, and one that shows how multiple standards committees are actually better for consumers than just one.

      Indeed, so long as a consensus results in a useful standard that all can comply with. But there are more than one problem here:
      • TFA says WiMedia hope the IEEE will back off UWB standard setting
      • ECMA has rubberstamped one company's technology, to the possible exclusion of other worthy efforts
      • ECMA's fast track to ISO means international standards may mandate technology protected by US patent law

      A similar [computerworld.com] argument [groklaw.net] is raging [com.com] over Microsoft's attempt to use ECMA to steamroller its Office document formats over the OASIS ODF. There's a difference between a free market where I am free to buy off the legislators, and a free and open market where all are free to compete to openly agreed standards.

      • TFA says WiMedia hope the IEEE will back off UWB standard setting

        Not surprising. That doesn't mean the IEEE will abandon their efforts, but I'm sure WiMedia hopes they will.

        Instead of crying to the IEEE, Freescale should get their standard published by ECMA, ISO, or whomever is willing.. Then get to work convincing manufacturers that their UWB is better, faster, and/or cheaper than Intel's offering.

        ECMA has rubberstamped one company's technology, to the possible exclusion of other worthy efforts

        Le

        • If people don't like the standard, they can ignore it.
          Ah, the free market at work. Where I come from standards are recognised as the right way to do things. In some areas of public safety the law requires the standard to be used. Our standards setting bodies are sufficiently educated that their standards don't need ignoring or circumventing until they become obsolete.

          Of course the corollary to Moore's Law driving technology forward at exponential rates of progress might mean that standards in some areas

          • Re:Multiple committees = good for consumers (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Ancil ( 622971 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @11:17PM (#14231571)
            In some areas of public safety the law requires the standard to be used.
            Yes, this approach gave us the wonderful OSI networking model [wikipedia.org]. You remember OSI? That standard which was supported by governments across Europe, Asia, and even (in its less enlightened moments) the United States? That standard which was completely unworkable despite 15 years of bickering and pissing away money?

            Meanwhile the Internet Engineering Task Force [wikipedia.org] changed the world forever. How? By publishing standards which worked and which companies actually wanted to implement. Not by of begging Momma Government to require compliance.

            Yeah, that free market thing is a terrible idea.

            • Actually, I think the IETF won by creating a BSD-licensed implementation of their protocol stack that any vendor could just drop in to their offering. It cost a few days of coding time to hack the BSD TCP/IP stack into most existing systems, and then they had a working implementation. In contrast, modifying a network stack to support the OSI model took more effort. The IETF didn't win because of technical superiority, they won because of laziness.
    • I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body.

      Except that conflicts over wireless communication standards doesn't kill people. Putting an unsafe drug on the market (Viox anyone? [healthyweightforum.org]) does.
      • Actually, consumer electronics are far more dangerous than drugs.

        We're lucky to have the UL and other private safety testers. Ovens, hair dryers, irons, lamps, halogen bulbs and other daily use products could be far more dangerous without private testing.

        The FDA should shoulder part of the blame in the Vioxx case. They didn't do their job, did they?
        • Actually, at the time of FDA review, there really wasn't any data suggesting Vioxx was dangerous, was there?

          The heart problems really only started turning up a year or two after the drug was on the market, but even then the data wasn't really clear cut - studies showed that Vioxx was more dangerous than Alleve, but no more dangerous than sugar pills - hardly conclusive clear-cut evidence. Certainly cause for concern though, and the FDA was concerned. However, there really wasn't anything all that solid an
    • I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.

      This is an interesting idea, except for the liability of side effects. What happens if the patient gets s
      • for experimental drugs, they already do exactly that. Drugs that have reached human testing phases are usually done on terminally ill patients because they will die anyway and this gives them a chance to try the drug. but besides that, they do this same thing will all kinds of drugs. There was an attempt at an HIV vaccine a while back, all the participants got HIV and had no recourse.

        but of course, once you have FDA approval, you can't do that. you are completely liable for the effects of your drugs and
        • Of course, even experimental drugs have rules. First, they must be free (so no profit motive to delay applying for a marketing license). Second, almost all countries require safety standards and an application demonstrating animal safety.

          You couldn't make a profit off of "experimental" drugs under the current regime. Maybe if you totally deregulated things companies would make patients sign waviers. Somehow, I can't see all that leading to a drug utopia. If the main goal is tort reform then congress ca
    • ... a standards committee is preventing them from releasing a product that won't help consumers ...


      Yes. That is correct.

      ECMA has no knowledge of the subject.

  • For those not so well versed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cherita Chen ( 936355 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:34PM (#14230014) Homepage
    For those of you who are not so well versed - here is a link to some very interesting information regarding UWB, it's uses, etc...

    http://www.sss-mag.com/uwbp3.html [sss-mag.com]

  • Hint: It's about wireless internets (Score:4, Informative)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:43PM (#14230044)
    In short, the international (read: US-Dominated) world standards group (IEEE) refused to support Intel's standard. Europe's standards group passed Intel's standard.
    • An interesting snippet from TFA: "This is the first international standard in the world, for UWB," said Stephen Wood, president of the WiMedia Alliance, at an ECMA meeting in Nice. Although ECMA is historically European (its name originally stood for European Computer Manufacturers' Association), it now sees itself as an international body. This standard will be only applicable in the US for now, however, since that is the only country where wireless regulators allow UWB products. So a European manufactur
    • ECMA standards are worthless. Intel took UWB to ECMA because they knew they would easily pass it regardless of any outstanding issues. ECMA is hardly experienced in network standards as it is, as compared to IEEE which does nearly all telecom standards. If they had been a real standards body, why would they have not started there?

      The ECMA is a rubber stamp factory for its members, and can hardly be considered a respectable standards body these days. For example, one of its most well known standards is M

  • Does this mean the spec will be free? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigtrike ( 904535 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @05:36PM (#14230258)
    Does ECMA release its specifications to the public for free? IEEE's are all copyrighted and must be purchased.
  • UWB sounds great until you talk to users of other technologies, and how UWB raises the noise floor level for all other communication devices within the band covered. Not something anyone else wants.

    So do we know why exactly did the IEEE decline to make it a standard? I haven't read the papers, so someone please summarize.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close