Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Submission Title: [Response to the No Comments Involving Market Issues]
Date Submitted: [14Sept2004]
Source: [Jon Adams] Company [Freescale Semiconductor]
Address [2100 E Elliot Rd, Tempe AZ, USA]
Voice:[+1 480-413-3439], FAX: [], E-Mail:[jta@freescale.com]
Re: [15-04-0377-11-003a-consolidation-explanations-no-vote-confirmation.doc]
Abstract: [Response to 802.15.3a No Vote Comments]
Purpose: [Explain rationale for how one or more no votes for confirmation of DS-UWB merger #2
proposal have been addressed by the merger #2 comment resolution team.]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. It is offered as a basis for
discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right
to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE
and may be made publicly available by 802.15.
Submission
Slide 1
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
General Categories of Comment
•
•
•
•
Silicon Supplier Support
Interoperability Support
Customer Support
Other General Comments
We’re offering these comments even though many of these
questions go outside the strict sense of the PAR requirements
Submission
Slide 2
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Silicon Vendor Support 1
• There should be multiple silicon vendors to enable a competitive
market for me to change my no vote to a yes.
• Multiple vendors There would need to be multiple, committed, large,
competitive silicon vendors based on this proposal (not the current
products they claim to be shipping) for me to consider changing my no
vote to a yes.
• Multiple vendors. There would need to be multiple vendors of silicon
to enable a competitive ecosystem for me to change my no vote to a
yes.
• There should be multiple silicon vendors to enable a competitive
market for me to change my no vote to a yes.
• Lack of wide industry support. support from leading players. multiple
silicon vendors.
Submission
Slide 3
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Silicon Vendor Support 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Following my concerns, and the concerns of other engineers, I find no global
support for the DS technique for UWB. I am therefore worried that DS UWB
standard will not be adopted by enough vendors to enable ramping up this
market with an healthy competition. I will change my vote if I get indications
that other vendors (not only Freescale) intend to implement this approach.
Lack of industry support - to date, only Freescale has publicly announced
silicon plans for DS-UWB. Multiple vendors will be required for success.
While I have several reasons for voting no, my primary reasons for voting no
is the lack of support by multiple chip vendors and the fact that the WUSBIF
has slected the MBOA specifcation as the basis for wireless USB.
I'm worried that there are few vendors of silicon that are in a position to bring
a solution to market in a timely fashion. Proof of several vendors and
reasonable time to market would be needed in order to change my vote.
Multiple vendors - There would need to be multiple vendors of silicon to
enable a competitive ecosystem for me to change my no vote to a yes.
There should be multiple silicon vendors to enable a competitive market for
me to change my no vote to a yes.
Submission
Slide 4
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Silicon Vendor Support 3
•
•
•
•
•
IEEE is based on consensus as this should reflect the will of the industry (IEEE is not an
academic exercise). However, there seems to be only one semiconductor company
intent on building this PHY. The major CE/PC and mobile companies overwhelmingly
support the other proposal.
2. I currently know that most of companies currently refused to accept DS-UWB system
not MB-OFDM. So I worried about compatibility with other company’s goods
Industry support. Currently big lack of industry support. While I greatly appreciate the
work and efforts made by technical engineers involved in proposal#2, I maintain my no
vote answer for the reasons above.
Market Support - The investment in technology implementation for commercial success
is dependent not only on the publication of a specification by an accepted Standards
Publishing Organisation, but also on the support by component, sub-system, test
equipment, product manufacturers and others. MB-OFDM has the overwhelming
support of all sections of the product community with significant investments already
made and committed for the near future.
Below is what Im looking for in a proposal for 802.15.3a at this time - Multiple
semiconductor companies announcing implementation plan
Submission
Slide 5
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Multiple Silicon Vendors
• We all recognize that sole sources can be an impediment to
successful adoption as an industry standard
• All of the DS-UWB authors, Freescale included, have
offered the essential IPR to all comers for development of
compliant IEEE802.15.3a PHY silicon solutions
• The UWB Forum is an industry alliance with over 75
member companies
– Many of these companies are silicon vendors
– Efforts already underway by several silicon component vendors to
start interoperability efforts in 4Q2004
• Time to market is now
Submission
Slide 6
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Interoperability/Compliance Support 1
•
•
•
•
•
No ecosystem adoption - there would need to be a certification and compliance
program in place to support the PHY standard for me to change my no vote to
yes; as there are fears of interoperability if there is no organization. Merge
proposal #1 has a compliance and certification program in place, as specified
by the WiMedia Alliance.
Interoperability and certification - The authors of this plan must show a
comprehensive plan and timeline for realization of comprehensive testing and
interoperability. This will need to include implementations from multiple
sources.
Lots of company endorse MBOA, So I worried about Interoperability.
Lack of industry support.
No ecosystem adoption - There would need to be a certification and
compliance program in place to support the PHY standard for me to change
my no vote to yes; as there is fear of interoperability if there is no
organization. Merge proposal #1 has a compliance and certification program in
place, as specified by the WiMedia Alliance.
Submission
Slide 7
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Interoperability/Compliance Support 2
• Lack of testing and certification programs and related
support.
• No ecosystem adoption. There would need to be a
certification and compliance program in place to support
the PHY standard for me to change my no vote to yes; as
there is fear of interoperability if there is no organization.
Merge proposal #1 has a compliance and certification
program in place, as specified by the WiMedia Alliance.
• Merge proposal #1 has a compliance and certification
program, which is specified by the WINA, but the merge
proposal #2 not. This increases the possibility that merge
proposal #2 will lack wide industrial support.
Submission
Slide 8
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Interoperability and Compliance Programs
• UWB Forum
– Presents more of a Bluetooth philosophy toward end-to-end
compliance, certification and application testing
– 75 (and rapidly growing) participant companies, with major test
and conformance houses in process of joining
– Interoperability and Certification Test Task Group established
within UWBF to address these issues
– Membership within working group growing steadily, much
experience with interop/certification in other industry open/closed
standards
– Would like to work with other industry alliances to promote
broader interoperability or compatibility for UWB solutions in
many spaces
Submission
Slide 9
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Interoperability and Compliance Programs
• Broad Market Will Need Different Solutions
– Outside these comments, others have indicated that the
utility of each PHY may make each important
depending on the market space
– UWB Forum
• Endorses a broader interoperability effort that includes both
forms of modulation
• Will support industry efforts to provide strong interoperability
between different but equal modes like DS-UWB and MBOFDM
Submission
Slide 10
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Customer Support 1
• No support from major companies in the PC, CE and Mobile area, and
no support from major worldwide industory groups such as Wireless
USB promorters group, WiMedia and so on.
• Support from tier-one customers
• Lack of the industry support - MB-OFDM is currently supported by
ten major semiconductor manufactures (Infineon, Intel, Mitsubishi,
NEC Electronics, Philips, Samsung, ST Micro, TI, Toshiba, Renesas)
as well as by the major consumer-electronics manufactures
(Mitsubishi, Olympus, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, SONY,
Toshiba, Hitachi). Big industry alliances such as WiMedia Alliance and
Wireless UWB Promoters have also officially announced their support
of MB-OFDM. Industry has clearly chosen MB-OFDM as the
preferred standard, and I would not ever reconsider my NO vote unless
DS-UWB receives equal or larger support from the industry.
Submission
Slide 11
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Customer Support 2
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of support from Wireless USB Key Developers group.
Lack of industry support.
MB-OFDM is currently supported by the major consumer electronics
manufactures and the major alliances such as WiMedia Promoters and
Wireless UWB Promoters. I would change my no vote after DS-UWB receives
any major support from the industry.
There would need to be adoption of merge proposal #2 by major industry
segments for me to believe that the industry believes the performance
capabilities of merge proposal #2. Merge proposal #1 has major industry
adoption, including the Wireless USB Promoters Group, and I fear that merge
proposal #2 has minimal industry support.
IEEE is based on consensus as this should reflect the will of the industry
(IEEE is not an academic exercise). However, there seems to be only one
semiconductor company intent on building this PHY. The major CE/PC and
mobile companies overwhelmingly support the other proposal.
Submission
Slide 12
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
DS-UWB Ready For Market
• DS-UWB fits mobile device & entertainment
applications for ranges <10m
– Commercial product shipping to customers today
• Two year time to market advantage over alternative UWB
– DS-UWB is best performing UWB technology for
mobile device applications
• MB-OFDM does not meet mobile device requirements
– No regulatory uncertainty for DS-UWB in the US
market
• No interference issues for DS-UWB
• Working toward worldwide harmonization with US rules
Submission
Slide 13
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Customer Support
•Freescale DS-UWB technology is FCC Compliant
•DS-UWB technology is true to spirit and rule of FCC
regulations
•This gives strong assurance to any OEMs that their solution
employing this platform is compliant with US regulatory
environment
•There is no other UWB communications solution in product
ready form
•Freescale has already announced solid silicon platform
roadmaps that go way beyond other proposed UWB solutions
in speed, (low) power consumption, and demonstrated
performance; other vendors expected to do similar
Submission
Slide 14
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
DS-UWB Modules Embrace DS-UWB
• Leading Tier 1 Module developers
developing product right now
• Modules will start going for FCC regulatory
approval over the next weeks and months
• MiniPCI, IEEE1394 interfaces currently,
other interfaces being developed, making it
exceedingly easy for OEMs to integrate DSUWB into end products
Submission
Slide 15
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
EMS/CM Houses
•
Major Electronics Manufacturing Services/Contract Manufacturers have
expressed strong interest in DS-UWB-based technology
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Design Services
Global Test Development
Advanced Manufacturing Solutions
Enclosure Integration
Direct Fulfillment
After Sales Services
Business Processes
Driven by ease and availability of module-based solutions, lack of “RF and
protocol engineering” required
These companies provide the “insides” of many of the CE products on the
market today
Expectation that these companies will aid in driving applications development
for interoperability
EMS/CM Houses eliminate uncertainty and reduce risk for OEMs
Submission
Slide 16
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Major CE Companies Embrace DS-UWB
• Multiple Tier 1 CE companies have demonstrated
and/or are building products for the market
• Major computer vendors are expected to order 3rd
party mini-PCI modules for product development
• Major cellular phone companies are developing
demonstration solutions using DS-UWB
technology
• Multiple demos by Tier 1 manufacturers at major
trade shows in 2004 and more expected for 2005
Submission
Slide 17
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
General Comments
• I'm extremely concerned about affirming a
relatively unexamined proposal in the current
climate, where there are such obvious differences
between claims of the two camps related to the
performance of each proposal.
• Industrial support and time-to-market. IEEE
802.15.3a has to investigate the real market and
industrial conditions instead of playing the voter
numbers all the time.
Submission
Slide 18
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
Addressing the General Comments
• Only the DS-UWB solution exists in final silicon,
available from multiple manufacturers
• Allowing OEMs to discover for themselves the
value and utility of DS-UWB – What does the
other side provide?
• We all agree that we’d like the IEEE process to
recognize utility, regulatory success, and time to
market advantages in order to stop the squabbling
Submission
Slide 19
Jon Adams, Freescale
September 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0513r0
MKT Comments Resolved
•
Silicon Vendors
– UWB Forum driving industry acceptance of DS-UWB and IEEE802.15.3, an
essential requirement for IEEE802.15.3a
– An FCC compliant solution using the same DS-UWB waveform is available in the
market today
– Multiple silicon vendors working on interoperability testing right now
•
Interoperability and Compliance Testing
– UWB Forum established Interoperability and Certification Test Group with efforts
underway to start first interoperability tests
•
Customer Support
– Multiple Tier 1 Module vendors on target to provide DS-UWB modules to ease
integration challenges
– Multiple Major ODH/CM houses expected to take advantage of low-risk
integration of DS-UWB modules into embedded CE platforms
– Multiple CE, Computer and Cellular manufacturers working to integrate DS-UWB
in several product spaces
– DS-UWB is available for the market today
Submission
Slide 20
Jon Adams, Freescale