The Bluetooth v. 802.11 Wars Appear Waning

[esutherland]

I've begun noticing more 802.11 products including Bluetooth support. The Yankee Group has a report out now predicting Bluetooth will throw in the towel, at least in a direct competition with 802.11. It seems there is enough of a networking market (short-range/long-range, telematics/ home-office) to go around.

Ed

[kgrr]

I bought a pair of Toshiba bluetooth cards from CompUSA and found they had about 30 foot range and they were slower than molasses (500Kbps at best). Also, they were quite a bit more expensive than the $50 that the marketeers promised us they would be - $250 each. I returned them because they did not meet my needs.

I think unless a miracle happens, this standard is doomed. At 30 feet you might as well be happy with infra-red or a hardwire connection. IEEE 802.11b has lots more speed, better range, and has a lower cost. Perhaps on the downside is that IEEE 802.11b is a little more power hungry.

Konrad Roeder
http://www.springswireless.com

[MoleStrangler]

I have never understood why people though that bluetooth was direct compertition to 802.11. The two technologies are designed for two specific and very different applications. Ericsson never designed bluetooth to attack the 802.11 market.

Its a short range comms channel for phones, mics, mobile printers, keyboards, mice, PDAs, TV remotes etc.

I could not understand why TDK release a bluetooth Access Point, nuts!

It is the case of people not understanding the different technologies and their different applications.

Bluetooth has many design features that 802.11 does not have. This makes complete bluetooth OEM radios (including antenna) extreemly small, down to .8cm x 2.6cm.

[esutherland]

Yes, this notion that Bluetooth is going to outsell 802.11 or that 802.11 has won the networking war is a red herring. At CES, even analysts that study the issue were still arguing over it. I remember a reported entitled "Bluetooth Kicks 802.11's B*tt." Talk about your boosterism -- almost like a hockey game.

I see Bluetooth as a great solution for cell phone to laptop communications ,in-car applications and many other short-range uses. It doesn't make sense for 802.11 to go after those markets. The old argument was that the two technologies would interfere with each other and corporations or homes couldn't have a PAN and an AP, so they had better take sides. This year, we'll see the two camps working to become compatible, laying to rest that issue.

Another compatibility issue I see is 802.11a and 802.11b.

Ed

[MoleStrangler]

Analysts, I listen to them NOT.

Bluetooth is designed for what you say, nothing to do with wirelessLAN.

I was supprised to here on this web site that bluetooth and 802.11b to not have problems when working together. Not so, I have a number of reports (Ericsson etc.) that there is a small amount of interference and when it does happen bluetooth looses out, but only by 10-20% when there is a small distance between the two transmitters.

802.11b & 802.11a were never designed to be compatiable. 802.11 & 802.11b use 2.4GHz, 802.11a uses 5.2GHz.

Just to note that the European Union agency for frequency allocation (ETSI) & standards have not accepted the 802.11a standard so you will not see any 802.11a kit in Europe for at least another 8-15 months.

ETSI have this thing called HyperLan/2 in the same 5.2GHz frequency, this includes a wirelessLAN technology (like 802.11a) that they are working with the IEEE to make compatiable. But more interesting the HyperLAN/2 standard also includes seemless roaming from WirelessLAN to GSM/GPRS. cellular networks.

So it will be like having a a laptop that uses 2G (GSM) or 2.5G cellular (GPRS) when in a WAN location and when in the office automatically roaming to a 802.11a like wirelessLAN.

[kgrr]

Molestrangler,
Granted that bluetooth may be useful for WPAN applications and IEEE 802.11 are more useful for WLAN applications. WPAN applications are a often a wireless substitute for a serial RS-232 cable like an IR link between two electronic devices that can see around corners -- like between a laptop and a cell phone, or between a laptop and a pocket pc...

I bought the Toshiba Bluetooth PA3053U pc cards to see for myself what kind of interference they would cause with IEEE 802.11b. What I was doing was using the pair in an ad-hoc like configuration to send data from one laptop to another. Besides being very expensive and slow, they don't seem to work well together with IEEE 802.11b according to my experiments.

I just don't think that Bluetooth will PAN out due to IEEE 802.11b being able to fill the same roles as Bluetooth does at a lower cost.

In the PCMCIA format, I don't see why you possibly would want Bluetooth. The cards are more expensive, less throughput, less range and just as power hungry as IEEE 802.11b cards.

Now that CF format IEEE 802.11b cards are available, the small size and lower power argument becomes a mute argument. You can now use your Pocket PC in a WLAN in both ad-hoc and infrastructure modes rather than messing with having two different standards in your house or office. Why bother having both a WPAN and a WLAN at the same time if they interfere with each other and there are no significant advantages by going with Bluetooth rather than IEEE 802.11b cards?

Konrad Roeder
http://www.springswireless.com

[MoleStrangler]

the only reason for bluetooth PC-Cards is for hardware that do not an bluetooth built-in. We are using an OEM module for our GSM/GPRS hand-held, the 802.11b option cannot have the bluetooth radio.

OEM bluetooth modules take far less power than PC-Card or CF-Card formats. I think that maybe due to the PC-Card & CF-Card interfaces rather that the wireless technology.

Also bluetooth have channels that can be setup for voice and data traffic. Though 802.11b has the capability to handle voice its a hack rather that a design feature. I think you can setup 8 channels at any one time.

PAN and WAN is usefull, A mobile computer taking to the host and being able to have a local connection (peer-to-peer) to a printer or information display.

bluetooth takes far less power than a 802.1b card (even if it is built onto the motherboard). There are applications that do not need the vast range 802.11b provides, also battery life can be important for some applciations. Also bluetooth is a single chip solution, 802.1b still requires more silicon, antenna design is smaller. Bluetooth is down to under 5usd per solution annd when designing new hardware that is a lot cheaper than 802.11 radios.

Bluetooth will come into its own then intergrated into devices.

There are also advantages with the small range of bluetooth. compare 802.1b with UHF and bandwith considerations.

The interferance is there but does not create serious problems, they both can exist and work ok.