Ultra Wideband Bandwidth

(UWB) Transmission-
Potential and the Controversy

Manoj Kr. Shukla

Professor
Dept. of Electronics Engg.
Harcourt Butler Technical University
Kanpur
Likely UWB Market Target
Plus
Ground penetrating
radar

Through-the-wall
radar

Tracking systems
 Other UWB Advantages
Doesn’t need licensed dedicated
spectrum
Low power consumption
Small semiconductor size
Ranging/location as a byproduct of
communications
 Some UWB Technical History
Sources

http://www.aetherwire.com/
CDROM/General/papers.html

http://www.multispectral.com/
history.html
UWB Background: Technology
 Early sparkgap radio systems were similar in some
ways to UWB and occupied large bandwidths
 Growth in demand for capacity necessitated
spectrum sharing
 Any orthogonal multiplex system could share
spectrum
 A basis set made of sinusoids was the only available
one in early days of radio and remains viable for most
uses today
 Sinusoids replaced sparks and “Class B” emissions
banned by ITU
UWB Background: Technology
 Like the invention of the computer,
origin of UWB somewhat convoluted
TD analysis of microwave networks is one
origin
Work of Prof. Harmuth at Catholic
University of America in 1970s on Walsh
functions as an alternative basis set was
another
UWB Background: Technology
 Ross 1973 patent may
be the first
 By 1989, Sperry Rand
had more than 50 UWB
patents but no civil
applications
 1987 Time Domain
Corp. founded
 Initial work all
government
 UWB Background:
Regulation

Where did this come from?

 UWB Background:
Regulation
Why underlays?
“White space” problem
In the real world there are significant gaps in
spectrum use at a given place at a given time
Major spectrum policy issue is how to “recycle”
this white space responsibly
Growing demand for short range, high
capacity links to supplement existing IT
systems
 UWB Background:
Regulation
What is “harmful interference”
ITU definition came from a different era
where interference was more binary
Is “interference” that is small compared
to naturally occurring problems
“harmful”
US Northpoint 12 GHz DBS/BSS precedent
Outage increase <5% of rain-related outage is
OK
 UWB Background:
Regulation
 1981-85 FCC Docket 81-413
 Intended to explore potential of spread spectrum
in civil applications
 Resulted in ISM bands for unlicensed, e.g. Wi-Fi
 Stimulated development of CDMA cellular
 Initial proposals were broad enough to include
UWB
All proposals were broadly criticized by existing radio
users
No real advocates for “underlays”
ISM band chosen as a safe place to explore CDMA
 UWB Background:
Regulation
 1989 rewrite of FCC Part 15 rules aimed to
generalize concepts and decrease specific rules
for specific devices
 New 15.209 allowed unlicensed use on most
frequencies subject to PC emission limit
 At insistence of NTIA, certain bands are exempted
from any such emissions - 15.205
 But, please note that real PCs do not actually
emit all the time on all frequencies
Roots of FCC UWB Decision
Re
n e se a r c
two h in
rk
cha mic
rac row
ter a
iza ve
tio Capital
n
Formation
Research in n
onsinusoidal
Orthogonal fun
ctions St. Valentine Day cono
my
m E
.co
2002
d
FCC Decision
h spee ctors
Hig icondu Intense
sem lobbying

Ea po
ap
rly intm
&D

Bu e n
R
ry

sh t s
ilita

Ad
M
9
20

m
ini
5.
1

st
io C

ra
cis FC

iot
n

n
De 989
1
 St. Valentine’s Day 2002
“The Perfect Storm” of Spectrum Policy
 Why did UWB get authorized
when previous attempts got
nowhere?
 Bush administration appoints 3
political appointees with
technical business
backgrounds in key positions:
 Steve Price/DoD
 Mike Gallagher/NTIA
 Ed Thomas/FCC
 St. Valentine’s Day 2002
“The Perfect Storm” of Spectrum Policy
 In previous years vested interests had
blocked almost all consideration of underlays
 Realities of new millennium allow issues to be
addressed on their merits
 Approval complicated by concerns over 2
relatively recent developments
 GPS/”Assisted” (indoor) GPS
 CDMA cellular
 UWB Background:
Regulation
“.com Boom” in late 1990s stimulates
interest in novel radio technologies
“Serious money” could be made in IPOs of
high tech firms
Time Domain Corp. raises funding
estimated at $50-100M for development
of UWB and the regulatory fight needed
to get it approved
Possibly 50% budgeted for regulatory fight
 UWB Background:
Regulation - UK Version
 UK Ofcom has
attempted to balance
costs and benefits of
UWB
 US focus was declaring
costs to be de minimis
 But analysis is only as
good as assumptions
 ITU-R
Good News
TG1/8 will complete its work in
October 2005
Expected to reach consensus on 3
documents
Bad News
Unlikely to reach consensus on key
document
 UWB EMC Analysis Issues
 Key to UWB Policy Development
 It is easy for both sides to be “blinded by
ideology” in analyzing novel EMC issues
posed by UWB
 It is tempting to apply existing EMC standards
out of the context for which they were
intended
 and which may not have been well documented
 Basic UWB EMC Issues
Receivers only see UWB power within
their receive bandwidth
If PRF is greater than receive
bandwidth and pulses dithered UWB
appears noise-like
If PRF is less than receive bandwidth
UWB appears impulsive
 Basic UWB EMC Issues
UWB emitter creates a local increase in
noise which decreases with distance
depending on appropriate propagation
model
For some weak desired signals this can
adversely impact SNR
“Burnthrough” -change in geometry can
cure SNR problem
Basic UWB EMC Issues: CDMA
In basic decade CDMA cellular has
become common
CDMA systems are impacted differently
by noise increases than FDMA or TDMA
In an ideal RF noise environment, UWB
would decrease capacity of CDMA LM
systems
Impact in realistic environments more
complex
“Aggregation”
 “Aggregation”
continues to be the
“Count Dracula” of
spectrum
management
 Aggregation actually
is a real concern,
but is exaggerated
by some
 “Aggregation”
 Aggregation is the possible accumulation of
undesired signal power at a victim receiver
resulting from many UWB transmitters.
 Depends on various factors such as minimum
distance to closest UWB source and nature of
propagation
 In most real applications there is a practical
minimum distance or cutoff of uncooperative
signal sources
 Modeling UWB location as a pair of i.i.d. random
variates is unrealistic
 “Aggregation”
Closest Interferer Issue
Modeling UWB location as a pair of i.i.d.
random variates is simple but in the real
world there is a minimum distance for
unrelated sources
Each person has some space around them
under there own control ~ 0.5 - 2m
Each residence has a similar space 3 - 20m
These bound location of closest interferer
 “Aggregation”
 Aggregation is a real threat in cases of free
space paths such as in ground-air
communications and satellite uplinks
 In these situations victim could see a large
number of UWB devices with free space paths
 However, most applications involve terrestrial
paths and “victims” with more complex
propagation characteristics
 “Aggregation”
 With square power
law power will UWB User Density Square Law

aggregate with 0

Relative Received Power

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-5

number of users -10

-15

 But location of -20

closest user is a key

-25

-30

factor -35

-40

-45
 “Aggregation”
 For  >2 in
propagation, typical UWB User Density 4th Power Law

of terrestrial paths, 0

Relative Received Power

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

integrals summing
-10

-20

to infinity converge -30

so aggregation -40

-50

converges -60

 Nearest interferer is -70

-80

still key -90

 “Aggregation”
 For  =2 (square
law) integral of Upper limit of integral (distance)

power received at a -20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

victim receiver -25

Square Law

increases as upper -30

limit of integral -35

increases -40

4th Power

 For  =4 integral
-45

converges
-50
 Microwave Landing System
(MLS)
11/01

When the aircraft is at the

maximum range (43 nautical mi) of
the MLS (e.g. minimum MLS signal)
the aircraft is at too great an
altitude for any possible UWB • NTIA analysis assumed minimum MLS
device to affect performance signal to derive the 160 m protection
criteria range
• BUT, aircraft must be over the runway to
be that close.
• There is at least 34 dB more signal from
the MLS when the aircraft is landing

10,000 ft
(3050 m) 160m

UWB
80m

1 mi
43 nmi MLS
 Radar Issues
To understand these issues you have to be realistic about antenna siting

Nearby
Office
Building

Radar

FAA/NTIA Viewpoint FCC Viewpoint

 Radiation Hazards 11/01

 Aircraft – 300 V/m peak

 FAA, 14 CFR Parts 21 & 25, Federal Register May 16, 1988
 Critical Medical Electronic Devices
 IEC – 3 V/m
 AF report SAM-TR-76-4 (e.g. Pacemakers etc.): – 200 V/m peak
 ASR-9 – 1.4 km  TDWR – 4.3 km
 ARSR-4 – 1.1 km  NEXRAD – 4.5 km
 Personal Exposure Limit (PEL) – 1 mW/cm22
 DOD instruction 6055 and ANSI C95.1-1982
 Fuels – 3.1 kV/m peak
 DNA 4284-F-SAS-1 Dec 1979
 Explosives – 12.4 kV/m
 DNA 4284-F-SAS-1 Dec 1979

It is not reasonable to base regulations on geometries that put

the UWB user in field strengths that are not safe not safe
UWB Schism
 Mike Gallagher (NTIA)
on
UWB Emission Masks
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2005/MGallagher_UWB_05212005.ppt
 “A technically based approach (measurements and analysis) was used to develop
the UWB emission limits necessary to protect the radio frequency spectrum used
by GPS as well as other current and future radionavigation satellite systems.

 To date, all credible studies

have shown the U.S.
developed UWB emission
limits adequately protect GPS
receivers (based on 2 meter
distance separation and
protection of assisted
GPS receiver technology).”
 UWB Controversy
While Time Domain Corp. deserves
credit for its pyrrhic victory in getting
UWB regulations in US, its sometimes
outrageous claims also incited
opponents
Most notable: UWB can be used for a
cellular service without buying a license
 Please Be Careful Making
Claims
 Wire free Harmony … The combination of broader spectrum, lower
power and pulsed data means that Ultra-Wideband causes significantly
less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions while
safely coexisting with other wireless technologies on the market.
http://www.uwbforum.org

 No harmful interference…Thanks to its low spectral density,

unlicensed UWB radio emissions do not add up to cause harmful
interference to other radio systems operating in dedicated
bands. In fact, normal propagation attenuation causes the
signals to dissipate faster than they can add up
http://www.commsdesign.com/design_corner/OEG20020301S0021

 Both of these claims are true to a certain degree

-- but also leave out some key “fine print”
A Historic Slide That Still
Holds Truth
 UWB is Coming!
 “A 37-inch high definition television from Chinese company
Haier was shown using an integrated UWB link to a digital
media server. The products will ship in the Chinese market in
the last quarter of 2005 and in the US in 2006.”
ZDNet UK June 22, 2005

 “Research firm West Technology Research Solutions

says that when Freescale Semiconductor ships its DS-
UWB chips in the third quarter of this year, it will spur
"significant economic growth" in ultrawideband circles.
They expect DS-UWB components to have a market
worth $482 million by 2010, with annual shipments in
consumer electronics alone hitting around 38 million
units by 2009.”
 UWB - A Pragmatic View
UWB is cleared for the US market and is
coming
If it meets real consumer needs and
predictions of no EMC problems are
confirmed in actual use -- spread to
other countries is inevitable
Let’s get ready for it!
 Ultra Wideband Bandwidth
(UWB) Transmission-
Potential and the Controversy
ste n in g l !
fo r L i S choo
Than ks m m er
re at S u
ve a G
Ha
Manoj Kr. Shukla
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Electronics Engg.
Harcourt Butler Technological Institute
Kanpur