The following text is
copyright 2004 by Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction,
as long as attribution is given and this notice is included.
Faster
than you need is not fast enough
By Scott Bradner
There is something in a
standards organization that abhors a limit. The latest example is the work underway in the IEEE 802.11n
project. There is a lot of
wrangling to go yet but the goals of the project are impressive enough.
The High Throughput Study
Group (802.11n) (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/tgn_update.htm) was
authorized by the IEEE about a year ago to define a new version of the wildly
popular 802.11 Wireless LAN standard that could run at twice (or more) the
speed of the 52 Mbps 802.11a/g standards.
(The formation document for the study group
(http://www.ieee802.org/11/Documents/DocumentHolder/2-798.zip) and the project
criteria (http://www.ieee802.org/11/Documents/DocumentHolder/2-799.zip) are
available on the IEEE web site.)
The deadline for presentations to explain individual proposals for
technology to meet the criteria were due mid August. Last June more than 60 people had indicated that they
intended to make presentations about full or partial proposals but I've not yet
seen how many actually submitted presentations.
Two groups seem to have
decided that PR campaigns might
help their chances when it comes to getting their proposals adopted. The first group, which is calling its
proposal "TGn Sync," includes Agere Systems, Intel, Sony, Nokia,
Philips and Atheros. There
is a whitepaper on the TGnSync proposal at http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT5096801417.html. The other group calls its proposal
"WWiSE" which stands for "WorldWide Spectrum
Efficiency". The WWiSE group
includes Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Conexant, STMicro, Airgo and Bermai and
has a website at http://www.wwise.org/.
The name of the second proposal alludes to one of the differences
between them, the WWiSE proposal uses 20 MHz channels, which are supported in
all countries and the TGn Sync proposal uses 40 MHz channels, which are not
supported in Japan but can back off to 20 MHz channels. Both proposals include
modes that are compatible with 802.11a/b/g and other modes that support 500
Mbps or faster data rates. One
hopes that these two groups can work together, along with some subset of the
many other proposers, to come up with a single standard within a reasonable
period of time.
One interesting tact that the WWiSE
group is taking is to offer, with some specific conditions, to license the
technology in their proposal royalty-free to companies implementing the
resulting IEEE standard (assuming their proposal becomes the standard). This may look better than it actually
is because these days it's unlikely that the members of any particular group
will own or control all of the patents that lawyers somewhere will assert apply
to a standard. Just to make the
intellectual property rights games more interesting, there is no reason to
think that all the companies that may decide to assert patent rights in the
future are currently participating in the IEEE discussions where they might
have to disclose such patents or patent applications.
I'm sure that bandwidth-wasting
applications will be developed (like the memory-wasting applications so popular
for PCs these days) that will make use of the data rates that 802.11n will
enable but, in the meantime, I can get the same vicarious thrill with wireless
as I do now with my gigabit Ethernet-equipped laptop plugged into my home
gigabit Ethernet LAN and connected to my rather non-gigabit cable modem.
I'm sure there are
theoretical and practical limits to the data rates that can be teased out of
this type of technology but, using history as a guide, I would not want to bet
on what the standards 10 years from now will include.
disclaimer: Part of
Harvard's job is the testing of perceived theoretical and practical limits on
all sorts of things but I did not ask about this particular one thus the above
opinion is mine.