Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

1. Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

2. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

3. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

4. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

5. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

6. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

7. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

8. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

9. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

10. 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 MB-OFDM Jon Adams, Freescale

11. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

12. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

13. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

14. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

15. 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 DS-UWB into end products Jon Adams, Freescale

16. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

17. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

18. 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. Jon Adams, Freescale

19. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale

20. 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 Jon Adams, Freescale