The rival specifications are very similar. Both offer the same trade-offs between data rate and distance, though the Forum's version extends to longer ranges and higher speeds (see figure). Unfortunately, seemingly arcane differences at the Physical layer make interoperability impossible. The Alliance's technology, known as Multiband Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (MB-OFDM), divides the radio spectrum into 14 channels, each for use by a different network. The Forum's, known as Direct Sequence UWB (DS-UWB), divides it into only two and uses codes to allow each one to be used by several networks at once.
Some devices may eventually support both standards, and the Forum has even proposed a specification known as the Common Signaling Mode (CSM), which would enable devices to adapt based on which standard is most appropriate. However, none of the Alliance members have accepted this, and there's little overlap between the two groups' membership. Siemens is the only major vendor to have joined both.
Of the two specifications, the WiMedia Alliance's is the one that most enterprise applications will use, thanks to its strong support from the PC industry. However, even standardizing around WiMedia may not be enough. The protocol that the Alliance has specified covers only the Physical and MAC layers, leaving vital functions such as security and the actual data transfer to higher-layer protocols. Four of these are under development so far, and more may be on the way.
USB OVER UWB
The higher-layer protocol closest to fruition is a wireless version of the Universal Serial Bus (USB), the port that links PCs to most peripherals. Although some of these devices can already connect wirelessly, they do so via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or infrared, none of which are ideal. The sub-1Mbps data rates of Bluetooth and infrared restrict them to keyboards and mice. And while Wi-Fi is faster, its complex security and high power consumption are overkill for cameras and MP3 players. Even setting those factors aside, Wi-Fi's 30Mbps doesn't compare well to the 480Mbps of a USB 2.0 cable.
Subsea cable alternatives can provide a level of comfort for those concerned about disruptions. Realistically, they will continue to play a small, but critical role in the short term.
Maintaining existing network infrastructures often incurs huge technical debt before newer technologies are adopted over time.
Amid ongoing regional uncertainties, telecom infrastructure in the Middle East has expand to include terrestrial low-latency network infrastructure, which offers resilience and agility in navigating political complexities without relying solely on undersea networks.
