Wireless Entertainment Myths Hype and Reality Bill Rose

Memberships • • Chairman, CEA Home Networking Committee (R 7) Chairman, CEA Technology and Standards Council CEA Home Networking and IT Board of Directors Video Systems – R 4 DTV Interface – R 4. 8 VHN (IP over 1394) – R 7. 4 A/V Network – R 7. 5 Digital Entertainment Network (IP over Ethernet) – R 7. 6 • Wireless Entertainment Networking – R 7. 7 • Cable Compatibility – R 8 • IEEE Communication Society © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Consumer Electronics A Brief History Highly Successful Products • • Radio TV Transistor Radio

What Do They Have In Common? • Simple to Understand – Single, targeted functionality • Simple to Use – Works out of the box • Reliable • (Mostly) Interoperable Except for the PC © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

PC – Why The Success? • • • Took 15 Years for Home PC Games, preloaded software Windows 3. 0/98 Apple Functionality – Something for everyone Internet and Porn And it still doesn’t have the installed base of most of the others © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Audience Participation QUESTION 1: • What is the Most Complex Thing in the Home?

Audience Participation QUESTION 2: • What is the Most Complex Thing at the Office?

Audience Participation • Question 3: • Put Them Together In A Typical Home And

What if ABS Brakes Were Designed By Network Engineers? • Menu Driven Options –

Wireless Entertainment: Consumer Expectations • Wired Performance w/o the wires – Real-time A/V distribution without interruptions (Qo. S) – Full resolution - SD today, HD tomorrow – After Overhead, BER / PER, Collisions and Retries, Multi-path loss, Attenuation, …. – Coverage - Everywhere – Premium Content: Copy Protection / DRM – Security © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

A Word About CP/DRM & Wireless Networking • It can be done • It must – Meet minimal content owner requirements – Ensure protection with legacy devices • 3 DES or AES is preferred encryption – Others will need to be examined • 5 C can be extended for wireless 1394 – But issues remain, esp. w/ Wi. Fi • Will probably need to negotiate w/ AP due to timing issues © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Highway or Railroad • Wi. Fi (CSMA/CA) is like a highway Traffic affects access, time of arrival, number of accidents – no guarantees • TDMA/TDD is like a railroad Reserved space, known speed, guaranteed time of arrival © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

The Wireless Highway – CSMA/CA © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

The Wi. Fi Highway • Cars wait to enter until there is space – Contention Period: No traffic cops, stop and go, delays • Traffic can enter any time • Every vehicle has the same right of way (without priority implemented) • Collisions - due to hidden nodes • Traffic flow can become unstable - traffic jams © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

The Wi. Fi Highway • With “TGe” (depending on the options selected) – Adds traffic cop – Hybrid Coordinator – Traffic enters based on need/priority • Emergency vehicles (everyone else waits) – Smaller but still variable spacing between vehicles to minimize collisions (jitter, delay) – Increases overhead reducing bandwidth – Traffic can still become destabilized © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

The TDMA RAILROAD © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

The TDMA Railroad • Every train (frame) runs on a schedule • Space is reserved • No spacing between cars (no variable backoff/wait) • Arrival times are guaranteed (latency, jitter) • Space can be assigned long term or for a single trip (Isochronous, asynchronous) • No collisions or hidden nodes – fully managed system • No traffic jams © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

802. 11 Throughput Analysis Assumptions • Favorable – Ideal Conditions (no attenuation) – No Bit Errors/Packet Errors – No Contention (no hidden nodes) – Large Packet sizes (1300 bytes) • Unfavorable – TCP Traffic – Ack for every packet © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Throughput Analysis Technology Raw Throughput Actual TCP payload throughput 11 b 11 Mbps 5. 6 Mbps 11 a 54 Mbps 27. 3 Mbps 11 g, no protection 54 Mbps 29. 0 Mbps 11 g, CTS-to-self protection 54 Mbps 13. 4 Mbps 11 g, RTS/CTS protection 54 Mbps 8. 9 Mbps © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Reductions to Throughput • Hidden Node/Collisions – reduce “b”, “a” and non-protection “g” by 25 -50% • “g” protected mode required for “b” nodes • Bit/Packet Errors - 3 Solutions – Retransmit packets – 25 -50% – Reduce Packet size – 25 -50% – FEC: Not built in, app layer • Real World attenuation/noise, other networks © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Additions to Throughput • UDP not TCP likely to be used for A/V – No Acks but leaves bit-error issue to Applic. • If TCP used, “g” can group Acks • FEC can be added in app layer but requires more resources • Buffering can minimize delay/jitter effects Bottom line – Data, music, Yes; Video, No © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Throughput Analysis Technology Raw Throughput Real World payload Throughput – est. 11 b 11 Mbps 1 -2 Mbps 11 a 54 Mbps 5 -10 Mbps 11 g, no protection 54 Mbps 4 -12 Mbps 11 g, CTS-to-self protection 54 Mbps 4 -8 Mbps 11 g, RTS/CTS protection 54 Mbps 3 -6 Mbps © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Other Wi. Fi Solutions - Vi. XS • Trans-code, Trans-rate solution – MPEG 2 <-> MPEG 4, etc. – Varies resolution on-the-fly to deal with variable bandwidth – Can operate with any wireless solution • Diversity antenna to maximize signal © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Vi. XS - Issues • Cost – multiple CODECs – Vi. XS code/ICs – more device resources • Variable resolution may not be suitable for service providers • Consumer blames CE device for loss of resolution © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

IEEE 802. 11 x – The Bottom Line • Many in CE/MSO industries believe 802. 11 x cannot deliver adequate Qo. S for streaming video due to its reliance on CSMA/CA • No Copy Protection/DRM (5 C? ? ) • Great for Data, maybe music (point), not video • Industry shake-out has begun © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) • MAC Frame consists of time slots • Allocated by central control point • Typically there is one contention slot where devices can request a time slot – Also used for asynchronous data • Qo. S, reserved bandwidth • Most include encryption, key exchange, FEC © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) Advantages • Most support both Isochronous streams, asynchronous IP/data • Guaranteed bandwidth • Determinant latency, jitter • Enables improved RF performance (distance/throughput) © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

TDMA Network Examples • Magis AIR 5 TM • Hiperlan 2 • 802. 15.

Magis Networks AIR 5 • Designed for Entertainment networks – Full Qo. S – Security – 3 DES, public and private key exchange (copy protection/DRM) – Support for wireless 1394 – Multiple MPEG 2 SD streams – HDTV whole-home throughput – Simultaneous TCP/IP, video, audio • TDMA MAC, subset of Hiperlan 2 MAC • 802. 11 a phy - Coexists with 802. 11 x © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Magis AIR 5 TM • 42 Mbps real throughput • Enhanced Phy/RF/Antenna design for extended range – Multiple Antennas for diversity – Multi-path improves performance – 15 -20 d. B improvement over typical 802. 11 a implementations – >30 Mbps over 50 Meters in home environment © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Magis AIR 5 TM • PER: 10 -10 after FEC, minimizes lost packets • Power and Frequency agile • Adjacent Channel Utilization • MPEG 2 input port reduces software requirements, overhead, resources • Strong CE support • Working with SIG, CEA for standards © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Hyperlan 2 • European TDMA based standard for 5 GHz RF networks – derived from access side – Support for roaming – Adds cost to devices through complexity • >50 Mbps raw throughput (similar to 802. 11 a) • >40 Mbps payload throughput • Includes excellent Qo. S, adaptive power, agile frequency control, 3 DES security • Currently not being used in US • Appears to be dying in Europe as well © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

TDMA Solutions - IEEE 802. 15. 3 • Also developed for A/V apps – Qo. S, FEC, etc. • Wireless PAN solution - <10 meters – Potential for longer distances • • Operates in the congested 2. 4 GHz band IEEE / Wi. Media focusing on UWB Complex implementation at app layer No products / ICs available at this point © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) – 802. 15. 3 a • Uses 802. 15. 3 MAC • Potential (Claims) – Huge potential bandwidth (400 Mbps? ) – Inherently more secure – Low power – Low or no interference with other RF implementations • If true, then why go to multi-band? – Still 2 -4 years off © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) – 802. 15. 3 a • (At least) 2 Approaches – Multi-channel • Adaptive approach to avoid bands where other radios are operating – 802. 11, etc. • Strong support by Intel, others • More costly, more power, more flexible – Single channel • Uses 1 (or 2) wide band for all communications • Less support among “Bigs” © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

Ultra-Wide Band • Issues – Standard in process but contention at IEEE 802. 15. 3 a, Wi. Media on approach – FCC approved for use at 3. 1 – 10. 6 GHz w/ further review possible • 10 meters/30 feet, indoor use • Large drop off in throughput w/ distance – Must take total cost into account – US only: Europe/Japan pending © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

RF - Conclusions • Wi. Fi is for PC/Data (802. 11 g) • A/V is the next Killer App • What to watch: – Magis Networks AIR 5 – Products at CES • UWB for PANs • Wireless and wired are both needed • Security issues – Wireless devices are behind the firewall • Ignore the Wi. Fi hype payload at app layer is what counts © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

CEA and Home Networking Standards • R 7 is Home Networking Committee • 5 Subcommittees working on HN – R 7. 1: Controls (Lon. Talk) – R 7. 4: IP over 1394 for Backbones – R 7. 5: A/V Networking higher layer issues – R 7. 6: IP over Ethernet for Entertainment – R 7. 7: Wireless © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

R 7. 4 – Versatile Home Network • VHN is IP over 1394 b backbone – Connects cluster networks to each other – Proxy non-IP networks • WG 10 – VHN Rewrite – V 1. 0 Released – Rewriting to include UPn. P for • Discovery, Addressing, Others – IPV 4/IPV 6 issues – Others © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

R 7. 5 – A/V Networking • WG 1 Architecture – Adapter Standard: CEA 2005 Draft • Adapting Ethernet 1394 – Architecture • Discussions ongoing on approach • WG 3: CEA 931 b (approved) – Man-Machine interface – Specified in MSO/CE Plug and Play Agreement, recent FCC NPRM © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

R 7. 5 – A/V Networking • WG 8 Qo. S: CEA 2007 DRAFT – 8 Priorities based on 802. 1 d • 2 -3 Best Effort • 2 -3 Parameterized • Created to allow connection to isoch networks • UPn. P looking at similar approach © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

R 7. 5 – A/V Networking • WG 10 Power – Looking at issues

R 7. 6 – Digital Entertainment Network • CEA 2008 (Released) • IP over Ethernet – Specifies UPn. P for discovery, addressing, etc. – Mandatory and optional media formats – May be broken out into architecture common across R 7. 4/R 7. 5/R 7. 6, plus Phy/MAC (in discussion in all S/Cs) © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.

R 7. 7 – Wireless Entertainment Networks • Currently looking at application needs and mapping to technology solutions • Future work may include – Std testing of wireless solutions – Wireless standards if needed • R 7. 7 Candidate Table © 2004 WJR Consulting Inc.