Pulse Link have been doing this for a while - and they also have a single chipset for wireless, coax, twisted pair and cat5 (which is what I assume is meant by 'ethernet'). They claim (and achieve) similar data rates.
Personally, I've never really seen the point. Why introduce all the complexity and cost of UWB when a few cables (and some well thought-out concealing of those cables) can do the same job?
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Ho hum.
Pulse Link have been doing this for a while - and they also have a single chipset for wireless, coax, twisted pair and cat5 (which is what I assume is meant by 'ethernet'). They claim (and achieve) similar data rates.
Personally, I've never really seen the point. Why introduce all the complexity and cost of UWB when a few cables (and some well thought-out concealing of those cables) can do the same job?
Note: My brief rant was directed at UWB over air. I totally approve of UWB over coax/cat5.