Bluetooth 3.0 + HS gets official, adds speed with 802.11
by Darren Murph 
posted Apr 21st 2009 at 2:00PM
We asked Mike what the major differences between v3.0 and Bluetooth 2.1 were, and we also prodded for any hints on what the future may hold. In regard to power consumption, he did confess that sending massive amounts of data over Bluetooth 3.0 would use more power (naturally), but given that the 802.11 radio -- which is partnered with a Bluetooth module -- can remain off until a transfer takes place, the idle power usage is actually remarkably low. Also of note, Mr. Foley admitted that a low-power specification of Bluetooth 3.0 was on the table, and we should be hearing more about that within the next year or so.
We also took the opportunity to ask about firmware upgradability, and we were quite surprised with the answer. In theory, at least, it is possible to upgrade certain Bluetooth 2.1 modules to v3.0, but you can pretty much forget about it happening on portable devices (cellphones, PMPs, etc.). Computers, on the other hand, stand a mild chance of being upgraded so long as they're equipped with a Bluetooth 2.1 module and an 802.11 WiFi radio. He couldn't elaborate on which system makers would look into rolling out firmware upgrades for consumers, but at least there's an off chance that your existing system could get upgraded.
As for end products, we can definitely expect Bluetooth 3.0 dongles for adding it to systems that are currently operating without, and while next-generation cellphones, PMPs, UMPCs, etc. will obviously transition to BT 3.0 in due time, we could also see it infiltrating camcorders, cameras, televisions, projectors and external hard drives (among other things). As of today, Broadcom, CSR and Atheros have all agreed to join in on getting getting silicon solutions to device manufacturers, and if development and testing goes well, consumers can expect wares to be on the market within 9 to 12 months.
BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY GETS FASTER WITH BLUETOOTH 3.0
Bluetooth SIG Adds Speed, Bandwidth via 802.11 with Version 3.0 of the Global Wireless Standard
TOKYO – April 22, 2009 – From its annual All Hands Meeting in Tokyo this week, the Bluetooth SIG <http://www.bluetooth.com> formally adopted Bluetooth Core Specification Version 3.0 + High Speed (HS) <http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Products/Bluetooth_High_Speed_Technology.htm> , or Bluetooth 3.0. This latest iteration of the popular short-range wireless technology fulfills the consumers' need for speed while providing the same wireless Bluetooth experience – faster. Manufacturers of consumer electronics and home entertainment devices can now build their products to send large amounts of video, music and photos between devices wirelessly at speeds consumers expect.
Bluetooth 3.0 gets its speed from the 802.11 radio protocol. The inclusion of the 802.11 Protocol Adaptation Layer (PAL) provides increased throughput of data transfers at the approximate rate of 24 Mbps. In addition, mobile devices including Bluetooth 3.0 + HS will realize increased power savings due to enhanced power control built in.
"Like Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights, this latest version was 'born to go fast,' said Mike's Blog <http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/SIG/Mikes_Blog_1.htm> , Ph.D., executive director of the Bluetooth SIG. "Utilizing the 802.11 radio was a natural choice as it provides efficiencies for both our members and consumers – members get more function out of the two radios they are already including in devices, and consumers with Bluetooth 3.0 + HS products will get faster exchange of information without changing how they connect. We are excited to expand the possibilities of the PAN."
This newest version of Bluetooth technology builds on the inherent qualities of the current 2.1 + EDR version, including Simple Secure Pairing and built-in, automatic security. And as with all versions of theBluetooth specification, v3.0 + HS provides developers, manufacturers and consumers with the benefit of backwards compatibility, enabling both the expansion and enhancement of this technology with every new specification release. Once products reach the market, the easiest way for consumers to learn which devices are compatible with other Bluetooth enabled devices is to visit the Bluetooth Gadget Guide <http://gadgetguide.bluetooth.com/> .
Applications
With the availability of Bluetooth version 3.0 + HS, consumers can expect to move large data files of videos, music and photos between their own devices and the trusted devices of others, without the need for cables and wires. Some applications consumers will experience include:
· Wirelessly bulk synchronize music libraries between PC and music player or phone
· Bulk download photos to a printer or PC
· Send video files from camera or phone to computer or television
Availability
The Bluetooth SIG's formal adoption of the specification is only the first step in the product lifecycle. News out today from wireless chip manufacturers and Bluetooth SIG member companies Atheros <http://www.atheros.com> , Broadcom <http://www.broadcom.com> and CSR <http://www.csr.com> shows the second step – getting silicon solutions to device manufacturers – is already underway. End products for consumers are expected to be in the market in 9 to 12 months.
Technical Specifications
This new specification release includes several major enhancements (learn more here <http://bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Technology/Basics.htm> - page requires member login):
· Generic Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP)
· 802.11 Protocol Adaptation Layer (PAL)
· Generic Test Methodology
· Enhanced Power Control
· Unicast Connectionless Data
About Bluetooth® Wireless Technology
Bluetooth wireless technology is the global short-range wireless standard for personal connectivity of a broad range of electronic devices. The technology continues to evolve, building on its inherent strengths – small-form factor radio, low power, low cost, built-in security, robustness, ease-of-use, and ad hoc networking abilities. More than eight new Bluetooth enabled products are qualified every working day and more than 19 million Bluetooth units are shipping per week. There are over two billion Bluetooth devices in the marketplace and that number climbs daily, making it the only proven wireless choice for developers, product manufacturers, and consumers worldwide.
About the Bluetooth SIG
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG), comprised of leaders in the telecommunications, computing, consumer electronics, automotive and network industries, is driving development of Bluetooth wireless technology and bringing it to market. The Bluetooth SIG includes Promoter group companies Ericsson, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba, along with over 11,000 Associate and Adopter member companies. The Bluetooth SIG, Inc. headquarters are located in Bellevue, Washington, U.S.A. For more information please visit www.bluetooth.com <http://www.bluetooth.com> <http://www.bluetooth.com/ <http://www.bluetooth.com/> > .
The Bluetooth word mark and logo are registered trademarks and are owned by the Bluetooth SIG, Inc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
rudolphe @ Apr 21st 2009 2:04PM
Does the range increase any? The range it's at now is pretty abysmal.
Templarian @ Apr 21st 2009 4:12PM
The point of bluetooth is to remove wires, it is not really meant to replace the longer range wireless technologies.
Bryan Seigneur @ Apr 22nd 2009 9:25AM
I consider the range a feature. Bluetooth is already insecure enough without increasing the range, and already complicated enough with out complicating it. Unfortunately, I assume if they are using the 802.11 standards then they are also upping the range. Why in the hell are they getting rid of the bluetoothiness of bluetooth? If you need a long range connection, you use 802.11, or something else. This is crazy. You should have addressed this in like the 3rd paragraph of the article.
JSWinston @ Apr 23rd 2009 11:36AM
BT3.0 does not necessarily improve the range. In reality the phone manufacturer has the choice of output power (Class 1, 2, or 3 device). and most use the lowest and cheapest possibility.
Of course Bluetooth won't have the range of WiFi, but it isn't suppose to either.
caz @ Apr 21st 2009 2:07PM
How about audio quality?
DR House @ Apr 21st 2009 2:24PM
It can stream up to 24Mbps/s and Stream HD from camcorders to HDTVS "AVCHD camcorders can record up to 24mbps max~"
So yeah Audio Quality should be good but dont take my word for it, but so far Bluetooth 3 seems like a huge jump from bluetooth 2
Chad @ Apr 21st 2009 2:11PM
It will probably be ok
Graeme Smith @ Apr 21st 2009 2:11PM
So can you still be connected to a Wifi network on a computer (or iPhone/iPod touch) when using this new Bluetooth spec? Will computers include 2 wifi antennas, 1 for normal wifi and 1 for Bluetoothwifi?
John Doe @ Apr 21st 2009 2:23PM
May be MIMO wifi-n antennas could be made to work with this.
Just thinking.
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:13PM
am I reading this wrong or did they just make bluetooth almost the exact same thing as wifi? Why not just do away with bluetooth devices and make everything wifi?
johnsenmartin @ Apr 21st 2009 2:17PM
"Normal" wifi needs a router, this does not.
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:20PM
ad hoc?
Jebus @ Apr 21st 2009 2:21PM
It uses Wifi to transfer and Bluetooth to connect. Pretty much just combines both. I think it's a good idea because Wifi seems to be working out well.
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:24PM
24Mbps suuuuucks for wifi though. Still think handling everything through adhoc wifi is a better option.
Jebus @ Apr 21st 2009 2:40PM
from what I remember, ad-hoc isn't the easiest to setup for end-users. I guess they could program that but why if they already have the bluetooth brand name.
matt @ Apr 21st 2009 3:08PM
power consumption - 802.11 radios suck down power like it's going out of style, while Bluetooth is very low power. The Bluetooth radio manages the connection, allowing the 802.11 radio to be on only when higher throughput is needed. Pretty good idea actually.
I just hope you can turn off the 802.11 as I find myself relying on BT more for power consumption than anything else.
joey @ Apr 21st 2009 3:31PM
from the way its described i dont think we should take it as bluetooth+wifi, or bluetooth using wifi, rather a new bluetooth spec which has file transfer capability based on the 802.11 radio protocol.
MegaBite @ Apr 21st 2009 5:38PM
Yeah, this completely defeats the purpose of bluetooth. I always figured that bluetooth was meant to be low bandwidth and low power, like for wireless mice and keyboards. Or Wii remotes. Attaching bluetooth to 802.11 will only raise its price while adding features that wifi can do better.
fikhl @ Apr 22nd 2009 11:36AM
I agree with Mark.
I currently use Wi-Fi for transfering pictures, videos from PC to PS3. Even at 54mbps speed, it still takes a long time to move large files around which is pretty annoying. I don't know what they're going to achieve with this? I don't see the point of this Bluetooth 3.0 when nearly everyone has the tried-and-true and also FASTER WiFi (adhoc). Isn't it better to have a single,universal wireless standard for everything? 802.11 N looks really promising.
JSWinston @ Apr 23rd 2009 12:49PM
This is just a potential speed increase, it is not a WiFi replacement. Look at it this way, the Bluetooth in your phone today is most like BT2.0+EDR or BT2.1+EDR (unless you have some cheap junk phone). The EDR is Enhanced Data Rate which allows a real world connection of about 2Mbps, but most of your Bluetooth connections are voice and you don't need that speed. So in reality the BT3.0+HS doesn't effect you except it gives you the possibility for a higher speed when you need it.
chanmanplanet @ Apr 21st 2009 2:13PM
will it at least double the normal range of operation w/o consuming more power
will it stream well with hd content
.
.
.
will it run crysis... sry had to wonder...
Richard @ Apr 21st 2009 2:38PM
"will it run crysis... sry had to wonder..."
No, no you didn't.
Jinto @ Apr 21st 2009 2:16PM
So how will USB3 compare to SATA, eSATA, FireWire, mind to mind psychic connections, excreta?
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:21PM
USB? This is bluetooth, brother.
DR House @ Apr 21st 2009 2:34PM
Current SATA drives in the market is between 1.5Gbit/s and High end = 3Gbit/s (300 MB/s~)
USB 3 = 5.0 Gbit/s (625 MB/s)
There is plans to release new SATA 6GB for the end of 2009 or early 2010 but i think only SSD drives gonna benefit from this
Normal hard drives never read the 300MB/S speed~ Fastest hard drives in the market can barely reach the 100MB/S "7200RPM~)
To make it short USB3 is amazing and Intel Fully support it and every other company, once it get released it will take over everything just like USB1/USB2 which sold Billions of products that use USB
loosely_coupled @ Apr 21st 2009 2:25PM
I thought they were going to use ultra-wideband in future bluetooth?? It could be way faster than 24mbps.. Whatever happened to that idea? I know they made wireless USB out of that tech, but I figured UWB bluetooth was good to go as well..
Sporkinum @ Apr 21st 2009 2:32PM
Another fake Obama pitchman. You see quit a few of these on TV nowadays. They are guys with the same general features and haircut as Obama.
thedesolate1 @ Apr 21st 2009 2:40PM
I was expecting a much faster speed. By the time this rolls out there will be other faster and more efficient wireless standards. You can bet your headset on that. 24 mbs? LTE is hitting 100 mbs, we have frickin wireless hdmi and that new standard they are working on for phone to phone transfers that is supposed to be 100 mbs I forgot the name, wireless USB, UWB etc.... Well I guess as long as it doesn't drain the battery quickly it will be alright..
ben @ Apr 21st 2009 2:42PM
I am really not sure why?
So instead of one bluetooth chip, now you need both the bluetooth and 802.11 chip?
Why don't 802.11 just adopt Zeroconfig as a standard?
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:43PM
my thoughts exactly. Sounds like a cop-out to me.
Chris @ Apr 21st 2009 2:53PM
so lets see, enter name and passcode on 2 devices, or setup adhoc networking names, encryption keys, and then assign ip addresses on both sides.... umm wow you guys really dont understand crap about how this works?
LTE is f*cking large scale metropolitan network scale shit not phone to phone etc. UWB and WUSB are great but expensive...
98% of bluetooth devices already have wifi chips as well, and from what i've heard the bluetooth3 devices will have the option of wifi+bluetooth or just blue3 ...
it comes down to cost effectiveness and thats where bluetooth3 with pull ahead of the rest...
for those people saying why not just wifi, because wifi isn't for hassel free intradevice connectivity. even adhoc is a hack i mean realistically how many poeple have you seen doing adhoc between pc's or devices?
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 2:56PM
Really? Cause wifi-tether on my phone is done ad-hoc and just requires choosing it and typing in the password. Boom, done, 54Mbps connection.
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 3:01PM
Oh and just to show how perfectly obtuse your post is:
networking names: umm sure, this is basically just naming the device, which you do on bluetooth too. Most have a default name anyway.
encryption keys: if by that you mean a password, which, again, is there in bluetooth, then sure.
assign ip addresses: please, most devices handle this automatically by default.
Honestly, it sounds like you're trying to choose the hardest and most totally configured ad-hoc connection possible to compare it with bluetooth. Just about everything you said already has default values and/or is also necessary in bluetooth connections.
cuñao @ Apr 21st 2009 5:20PM
Last time I checked, wifi networks did not support file sending, audio or video transfer, handsfree calling, peripherals (GPS, mice, keyboards...) and so on.
Of course most of these can be accomplished using the right software or protocols over a wifi network, but they are not part of the wifi standard.
This in turn, would combine the simplicity of use of bluetooth with the high speed transfer of wifi for devices that have both, which at the time bluetooth 3.0 is available, will be quite a few.
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 5:46PM
"Last time I checked, wifi networks did not support file sending, audio or video transfer, handsfree calling, peripherals (GPS, mice, keyboards...) and so on."
wifi networks don't support file sending or audio or video transfer? What networks are you using? That's pretty much everything that wifi does.... In fact those are pretty much the only things networks in general do. As for handsfree calling and peripherals:
1: Handsfree sets are peripherals so these are really the same thing and
2: DSi, 'nuff said. All its peripherals use wifi to connect to it through an ad hoc connection.
This in turn, would combine the simplicity of use of bluetooth with the high speed transfer of wifi for devices that have both, which at the time bluetooth 3.0 is available, will be quite a few.
That's precisely the problem. The "high speed transfer" of real wifi is significantly faster than this. 54Mbps for wireless G as opposed to 24Mbps. When implemented correctly(really not that hard to do, many devices do this already) an ad hoc network can be used exactly like what this is describing, but with better speed.
Cocoliso @ Apr 21st 2009 7:23PM
Next time i suggest you read and quote the whole post.
"Of course most of these can be accomplished using the right software or protocols over a wifi network, but they are not part of the wifi standard."
There is no simple way of, say, sending files from a wifi equipped device to another. Of course you could set a network, share a folder with permissions so that a friend can acces to the file you want, but that is not SENDING and, anyway, I dont think that you could even do that with most mobiles phones.
For the average joe it is much simpler to send a file via bluetooth and let the device take care of the means of transmission.
Same goes with wireless printing, which is mentioned in the article. I dont remember any phone havig the possibility of printing via wifi, but there are quite a few that support bluetooth printing.
And i don´t know about the DSi, but probably those peripherals use some proprietary protocol over an ad hoc wifi conection and, thus, will be unusable out of the box with anything but the DSi. In contrast, bluetooth profiles provide standards to make accesories and peripherals compatible out of the box without the need of installing any particular software or drivers.
And, regarding the transfer speed, there is not reason for the specification to evolve to 3.x and support higher speeds. Anyway, 24 Mbps seems a significant improvement over bluetooth 2 and more than enough to share your pictures or videos with your buddies.
Of course, they could make a standard to work in a similar fashion over just wifi, but that is another story
Cocoliso @ Apr 21st 2009 7:26PM
btw i am cuñao
and it is your post which is obtuse, not chris´
batmon @ Apr 21st 2009 2:58PM
This is just sales talk. They are different protocol doing pretty much the same thing so end-users have to buy all different devices to work with all different gadgets.
This is not as bad since it is wireless so there is no "special cable" involved. What's worst are those connectors such as DVI, HDMI, VGA, USB, serial, etc... why not just all use CAT6 cable? It's all sending digital anyway.
BH @ Apr 21st 2009 3:12PM
Suppose we see this on a new iphone this summer?
Mark @ Apr 21st 2009 3:15PM
For what purpose? iPhone doesn't support transferring files at all let alone through bluetooth and everything this would enable can already be done easier through wifi...
sireg2 @ Apr 21st 2009 10:12PM
@mark... yoru forgetting Bluetooth stereo headset, i got jaybirds and man does it suck with bluetooth 2.0(range wise)
ScottishDan @ Apr 22nd 2009 11:27AM
@BH : Given Apples traditional slow adoption rate with Bluetooth, I wouldn't expect to see it this summer (although anythings possible)
@Mark: iPhone OSv3.0 supports P2P services for things like transferring files and local multiplayer gaming but uses Apple’s Bonjour ZeroConf autodiscovery protocols for no fuss set up
nic_barnes @ Apr 21st 2009 6:12PM
Wouldn't it be nice if Apple provided firmware updates for some of their recent kit AND enabled this on the new iPhone AND allowed for wireless syncing with iTunes. Oh the power! Sadly this might be too distant a wish...
Graeme Smith @ Apr 21st 2009 5:32PM
If they ever do wireless syncing I hope its over wifi 802.11g. That gives 54 mbps while bluetooth 3 is limited to 24...
And 802.11g is supported on the 1st gen iPod touch... Not that Apple cares about 1st gen owners though.
Jacob @ Apr 21st 2009 3:26PM
24 Mbps? I was expecting 480 Mbps. Darn that's going to look slow compared to 3.2 Gbps Firewire, 6.0 Gbps ESATA, and 5.8 Gbps USB. I can see wireless being more convenient, but still. On the upside, it might mean more Wifi+Bluetooth chips. If Intel has anything to do with it, it'll also have Wimax.
fj.engadget @ Apr 21st 2009 4:36PM
BT is still a pain to set up. It is not easy at all for the non-techie, and slow to set up. I'd rather they had included RFID touch-to-pair tech in the spec.
JSWinston @ Apr 23rd 2009 11:36AM
RFID touch to pair is already part of the Bluetooth spec. In BT2.1 it is called Simply Pairing. The chips are capable of it today, whether your phone can do it though it another story. Sorry, you will probably have to wait for NFC to be added to phones before this feature is used.
boe @ Apr 21st 2009 5:31PM
I predict HTC with BT 3.0 specs and BT 3.0 headsets will still sound like your talking to someone on the moon using a cheap AM radio. Why is it free phones have better BT than $500 HTC phones?
anonymous @ Apr 22nd 2009 3:55AM
Because they use QC Bluetooth chip :)
boe @ Apr 22nd 2009 10:31AM
Is that why? I've never known why the suck so much just that nearly EVERY HTC model sold in the US had crappy BT - snap, crackle, pop or worse - such as the mogul which took several firmware updates until they got it so you were understandable to your callers. I have the Touch which has one of the better BT stacks.
I think on xda developer they were working on a widcomm stack or something that improved the sound quality but then it wouldn't work with voice command and other apps.