developerWorks: Wireless : The phony conflict

.................

Advanced search IBM home | Products & services | Support & downloads | My account IBM developerWorks : Wireless : Wireless articles The phony conflict IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth wireless technology Brent Miller (bamiller@us.ibm.com) Sr. software engineer, IBM October 2001 In this article, Brent A. Miller addresses the relationship between two methods for wireless communication: IEEE 802.11 WLAN and Bluetooth WPAN technologies. Learn more about how these technologies are optimized for specific usage cases and why the author believes, as many do, that the two technologies are complementary, rather than competitive with one another. Contents: WANs, LANs, and PANs IEEE 802.11 for wireless LANs Bluetooth technology for wireless PANs Complementary wireless technologies Why the separate factions?

Conclusion Numerous forms of wireless communication exist: radio frequency, satellite, Resources infrared, and others. Two methods of wireless communication, namely IEEE About the author 802.11 and Bluetooth technologies, are getting a lot of attention right now in Rate this article the information technology industry. Press reports often claim these two are Related content: competitors and conclude that IEEE 802.11 will win out at the expense of Bluetooth revealed, Part 1 Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth revealed, Part 2 We assert here, though, that these two technologies do not, in fact, compete with each other in any significant fashion. Indeed, we view them as Also in the Wireless zone: complementary and expect each to succeed on its own merits. Tutorials Tools and products IEEE 802.11 is a wireless local area networking (WLAN) technology, whereas Bluetooth wireless technology is well suited for a wireless personal Articles area network (WPAN). The two technologies share some characteristics and overlap slightly in some usage models, but they serve fundamentally different purposes. WANs, LANs, and PANs One way to segment wireless communication technologies is by the geographic area they cover. A common approach is to partition technologies into wide-area, local-area, and personal-area networks (or WANs, LANs, and PANs, respectively). The coverage of a WAN is typically measured in kilometers or at least hundreds of meters. Communication over such distances requires relatively high-power transmissions, and, because of that, a license for a specific frequency band. Typically, carriers pay a fee for a license to transmit at certain power levels in a particular frequency spectrum. High-power transmission also leads to tradeoffs between power consumption and data rates in wireless WANs. Typical data rates for today's cellular networks are relatively slow, owing largely to the transmission power needed to reach the cellular tower from a handset. Significantly faster data rates at these same levels of power transmission are impractical using today's battery technologies. In the book Bluetooth Revealed, my co-author and I observe that third-generation, or 3G, cellular systems will have significantly faster data rates. However, to maintain power consumption at reasonable levels, 3G systems will require cellular towers to be much closer together - on the order of hundreds of meters -- approaching the coverage of WLANs (discussed next). WWAN technologies include those in common use for cellular communications, such as GSM, TDMA, CDMA, and others. WLANs typically cover distances from ten to a few hundred meters. This smaller coverage distance allows lower power transmissions that often permit the use of unlicensed frequency bands. Because LANs often

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-phone/ (1 of 5) [10/11/2001 8:44:56 PM]

developerWorks: Wireless : The phony conflict

are used for relatively high-capacity data communications, they often have fairly high data rates. IEEE 802.11, for example, has a nominal range of 100 meters and data rates up to 11 Mbps. This combination of coverage and data rate leads to moderate-to-high power consumption; thus, the types of devices normally used with WLANs are ones that have a robust computing platform and power supply; notebook computers, in particular. WPANs cover distances on the order of 10 meters and typically are used to connect various personal portable devices without using cables. This peer-to-peer device communication doesn't usually require exceedingly fast data rates. Bluetooth wireless technology, for example, has a nominal range of 10 meters with raw data rates up to 1 Mbps. The short range and relatively low data rates result in low power consumption, making WPAN technologies suitable for use with small, mobile, battery-powered devices such as PDAs, mobile phones, pagers, digital cameras, and so on. In addition, low-power transmission allows for the use of unlicensed frequency bands. Bluetooth technology operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz spectrum. Figure 1 illustrates these characteristics of WWANs, WLANs, and WPANs. Figure 1. WWANs, WLANs, and WPANs compared.

IEEE 802.11 for wireless LANs IEEE 802.11 technology is being deployed widely for WLAN applications. WLANs permit a degree of mobility and enhance convenience by eliminating the wires used to connect computers to networks. WLANs are increasingly being installed in businesses, shops, airport lounges, homes, and other venues; in nearly all of these cases, IEEE 802.11 is the technology of choice. IEEE 802.11 is a popular WLAN technology because it was designed for just this purpose. As indicated above, WLANs usually replace or augment existing wired LANs; hence, the devices typically used with WLANs are the same ones used on wired LANs: servers, desktop computers, and notebook computers. For the same reasons, WLAN applications are usually identical to those of their wired counterparts: e-mail, Web browsing, and others that rely on standard Internet-based protocols and technologies. Earlier we noted that typical WLAN applications consume a fair amount of electrical power for their
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-phone/ (2 of 5) [10/11/2001 8:44:56 PM]

developerWorks: Wireless : The phony conflict

relatively high data rate, and medium-range transmissions. Portable devices like notebook computers can supply this energy and still maintain reasonable battery life. But smaller portable devices like handheld computers, pagers, and mobile phones can't sustain the necessary power draw for long periods of time without the auxiliary power supplies that make the devices less mobile and convenient. This is where WPAN technologies come into play. Bluetooth technology for wireless PANs Bluetooth technology was invented to replace cables between small personal devices (mobile phones, pagers, PDAs, and so on). As such, Bluetooth wireless technology is optimized for short-range, low-power, voice, and data communication. Although some Bluetooth profiles describe methods to connect personal devices to networks, Bluetooth technology is not a bona fide networking technology. It is a WPAN technology -- after all, WPANs are used to connect personal devices within a small area, and Bluetooth technology focuses on precisely that. In contrast to WLAN technologies like IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth wireless communications consume significantly less power. This is because Bluetooth links operate over shorter distances at lower data rates. The nominal data rate and range for Bluetooth technology are each about one-tenth that for IEEE 802.11. Although this doesn't necessarily mean that Bluetooth communication uses only 1% of the power required for WLAN communication, it does indicate that significantly less power is required for Bluetooth communications. Complementary wireless technologies The preceding sections highlighted several differences between WLAN and WPAN technologies, namely IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth technologies. Those differences include: G Range: The reach of IEEE 802.11 is about ten times that of Bluetooth technology; G Raw data rate: The data rate for Bluetooth communications is about one-tenth that of IEEE 802.11; G Power consumption: The trade-off of power consumption versus range and data rate result in significantly lower consumption for Bluetooth devices; G Packet technology: Bluetooth links natively carry both voice and data using packets designed specifically for Bluetooth transports, whereas IEEE 802.11 heavily leverages Internet technologies for "Ethernet-style" data networking. Let's face it: Bluetooth wireless communication is optimized by design for WPANs, while IEEE 802.11 is optimized by design for WLANs. With these differences, it seems puzzling the two technologies would be perceived as competing with each other. Each has strengths that make it well-suited to its primary domain and that are, in turn, weaknesses in the other's domain. For example, there would be little need in a WPAN for transmission power capable of reaching a device 100 meters away, and the associated power consumption to do so would be a drawback to using IEEE 802.11 for a WPAN. In fact, we see the two technologies as complementary to each other -- a view also expressed by Ericsson. So, then, why are these technologies so often positioned as being in a battle against each other? Here are three theories as to why the perception may exist: 1. Both operate in the 2.4 GHz spectrum and, thus, inevitably interfere with each other when used in the same place at the same time. 2. There is some potential overlap in a few usage models between the two technologies, with each having the capability to do some of the things the other does, albeit non-optimally. 3. They are developed by different industry groups, so they must be at odds with each other. With regard to the 2.4 GHz spectrum, it is unlicensed virtually worldwide. Hence, it is an attractive band for wireless communication technologies that can operate within the constraints imposed by the spectrum. Among the benefits are limits on the transmission power and measures required to deal with RF interference. IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth wireless communications both take place in the 2.4 GHz band. Other wireless technologies operate here, too, including HomeRF and some cordless phones. Even microwave ovens and some specialized lighting fixtures emit frequencies in the 2.4 GHz band. It might seem this band is overcrowded and so one or more technologies need to "lose" if others are to operate effectively in this spectrum. Not true. A primary consideration for any technology that operates in this band is that it must expect RF interference and implement measures to deal with it. Clearly IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth technologies can interfere with each other, but we are aware of no studies that show that
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-phone/ (3 of 5) [10/11/2001 8:44:56 PM]

developerWorks: Wireless : The phony conflict

either technology fails when subjected to normal (or even extreme) interference from the other. Performance degradation often is an effect of RF interference, and groups within the IEEE and the Bluetooth SIG are performing studies and developing recommendations to understand and address this and other issues related to RF interference. Furthermore, there is some evidence that there is room for several players in the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Another unlicensed band, 900 MHz, is used by many technologies and devices, such as cordless phones, garage door openers, baby monitors, and others, and no single technology has crowded out the others. Why the separate factions? As far as the overlap of technologies goes, IEEE 802.11 is a wireless networking standard. It exploits Internet protocols, and although it could transfer voice traffic using methods such as voice-over IP, it doesn't carry voice natively in the way Bluetooth technology does. The range and data rates of IEEE 802.11 lead to relatively high power consumption, but low-power, short-range versions of IEEE 802.11 could be implemented. Could a low-power variant of IEEE 802.11 be a viable PAN solution? Perhaps it could, but because it is optimized for a different domain, namely WLAN, some characteristics would lead to a less-than-optimal solution if IEEE 802.11 were used for WPANs. For example, the quality of voice traffic might be inferior as compared to Bluetooth technology, which delivers voice packets in an expedited, high-priority manner and uses a robust voice encoding scheme that is quite tolerant of lost packets. Perhaps more important, though, is the notion that LAN technologies are not particularly well suited for the kinds of interactions that typically occur in PANs. In a WPAN, devices may come and go frequently and the PAN may join or collaborate with other networks in proximity as the WPAN user moves about. LANs tend to be better suited for stationary networks, or at least networks where the participants move rather infrequently. Bluetooth technology, on the other hand, is based upon proximity networking. The Bluetooth specification includes methods for detecting new devices that come into proximity and allowing these devices to join Bluetooth piconets seamlessly. Another consideration in the WPAN domain is that many small personal devices do not include robust networking components such as an IP stack. The common IP-based language of the Internet is widely deployed, but many small devices, often owing to constraints on memory and processing power, speak their own data communications language. Many mobile phones, for example, use protocols developed by the WAP Forum to access networks. Conversely, Bluetooth wireless communication is not a full-blown networking technology. Bluetooth profiles do define methods that allow Bluetooth devices to access networks, but these are limited to the use of point-to-point protocol (PPP) for dial-up networking or LAN access. In version 1.x, there is no support for general IP networking like that used with IEEE 802.11. And finally, although these important WLAN and WPAN technologies are specified by different industry groups (the IEEE and the Bluetooth SIG, respectively), neither organization takes the position that they are competing for the same solution space. Indeed, the IEEE itself makes a distinction between WLANs and WPANs similar to the one in this discussion. It is well known that the IEEE 802.11 working group addresses WLAN solutions, but the IEEE also has an 802.15 working group that deals with WPAN solutions. Moreover, the single WPAN solution seriously considered for adoption as an IEEE 802.15 standard is a subset of the Bluetooth specification! The portion of the Bluetooth technology that is applicable in the scope of IEEE 802 standards (essentially the PHY and MAC layers of the ISO stack) is currently well on its way toward adoption as the IEEE 802.15.1 WPAN standard. This action by the IEEE underscores the differences between WLANs and WPANs and emphasizes the importance of Bluetooth wireless technology as a leading WPAN standard. Conclusion WWANs, WLANs, and WPANs have distinctly different requirements, and the technologies best suited for each of them have different characteristics. IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth wireless technologies are optimized for different purposes in different domains -- WLAN and WPAN, respectively. The same design points that make them well suited for their primary intended purposes make them less well-suited for other applications. Bluetooth wireless technology is not a robust networking technology; IEEE 802.11 is not the preferred technology for WPAN applications (indeed, the IEEE is defining its own WPAN standard based on the Bluetooth specification). The IEEE 802 working groups and the Bluetooth SIG have a cooperative relationship and are working together on the issue of coexistence in the spectrum they share. There is no competition to determine a "winner" and a "loser" here. Both technologies can succeed on their

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-phone/ (4 of 5) [10/11/2001 8:44:56 PM]

developerWorks: Wireless : The phony conflict

own merits without detriment to the other. It's a phony conflict. *Note: The author acknowledges and thanks Chatschik Bisdikian of IBM Research for his review of and input to this article. Resources G Bluetooth has lost, says Intel Executive, by Michael Kanellos, CNET News, August 29.
G G

Bye-bye, Bluetooth, by William Gurley, Fortune magazine, August 13. Bluetooth Revealed: The Insider's Guide to an Open Specification for Global Wireless Communications, by Brent A. Miller and Chatschik Bisdikian, Prentice Hall PTR, Second Edition, November 2001. Bluetooth not at war with 802.11b, Ericsson says, by Matt Hamblen, ComputerWorld, September 10. Intel apologises for Bluetooth gaffe, Andrew Orlowski, The Register, October 9, 2001. Read the following white papers by Brent Miller and other contributors on the IBM Pervasive Computing Web site: H Salutation Service Discovery in Pervasive Computing Environments
H H

G G

Bluetooth Applications in Pervasive Computing Discovering devices and services in home networking

About the author Brent A. Miller is a senior software engineer in IBM's Software Solutions Division in Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. He has led several firmware and software development teams in printers, mobile computers, and network computing. His pervasive computing interests include adaptivity, printing, power management and service discovery; he has published several papers and holds several patents in these areas. You can read other articles Brent has written on Bluetooth technology here on developerWorks such as Bluetooth revealed, Part 1: Where to begin and Bluetooth revealed, Part 2: Is there a Bluetooth killer app? Brent also publishes on the IBM Pervasive Computing Web site. Brent has been involved in several mobile computing industry consortia and task forces including chairing the Service Discovery task force of the Bluetooth SIG's Software Working group. He is co-author of the book Bluetooth Revealed, published by Prentice-Hall in September 2000. He holds a B.S. in Computer and Information Science from Ohio State University. He can be reached at bamiller@us.ibm.com.

What do you think of this article? Killer! (5) Comments? Good stuff (4) So-so; not bad (3) Needs work (2) Lame! (1)

Submit feedback

About IBM | Privacy | Legal | Contact

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-phone/ (5 of 5) [10/11/2001 8:44:56 PM]