The History of Bluetooth A long time ago (historians differ on the exact dates, but it was sometime in the

10th Century C.E.) in a country far, far away, (which was mostly Denmark, with a little bit of Norway added in for flavor,) there lived a Viking king who was principally noted for converting to a foreign religion called Christianity. He was known as Harald Bluetooth, son of Gorm the Old, and he united most of Denmark before his estranged son, Sven Forkbeard, sent him to Valhalla and took over the family business. A little more than 1000 years later, succumbing to an attack of Scandinavian pride, the giant Swedish telecom manufacturer Ericsson decided to honor old, weird Harald by naming its new wireless networking standard after him. It convinced founding Special Interest Group co-partners Nokia, Toshiba, IBM and Intel that Bluetooth was the right name for the thing and, together, they set off to conquer the air. By December 1, 1999, 3Com, Lucent, Microsoft and Motorola had joined the Promoter Group -- the folks that were willing to spend money to hype the standard -- and in the neighborhood of 1200 other companies had joined the SIG. (Signing up for membership costs nothing, so it isn't exactly an exclusive club.) Between them, they manged to generate a lot of coverage about Bluetooth in the trade press. Since the computer trade press mainly consists of English and journalism majors with no hands-on technical background, most of whom make a living re-wording press releases, the fanfare meant very little, however. Meanwhile, actual consumers waited for actual products actually to emerge. As is often the case with consortium-driven standards -- even "open" ones like Bluetooth -- that took a while. And, as is also often the case, the majority of the early products were aimed not at consumers, but at developers. While the world waited, grass-roots programmers and engineers began playing with a brand new wireless standard: an offshoot of good, old Ethernet called 802.11b. Like Bluetooth, it used the unlicensed 2.4 - 2.48GHz portion of the radio spectrum, so 802.11b products would work anywhere on the planet without any special license from the local authorities. And it was

fast -- much faster than Bluetooth's nominal 1Mbps -- and it had about 10 times the range that Bluetooth's Class 3 devices could boast. Time passed and soon it was 2001, the beginning of a brand-new millenium. The clumsysounding 802.11b moniker had since been supplanted by the less-tongue-twisting name "Wi-Fi" and the cost of its hardware was plunging like a dotcom stock option. The world was still waiting for Bluetooth -- and, to its SIG partners' dismay, Microsoft announced that the initial release of its forthcoming Windows XP would not include Bluetooth support. Microsoft's stated reason for omitting the Viking technology from the next release of its flagship OS was the lack of a critical mass of Bluetooth-enabled devices demanding Windows support. That basically translated to the Redmond behemoth simply acknowledging a conspicuous worldwide lack of user demand for the namesake of Gorm the Old's son. That's not the only problem with Bluetooth, however. The Unfaithful Servant First of all, there's the issue of cost. The low end of the cellular phone hardware market is savagely price-competitive and Bluetooth silicon is still much too expensive to be included in the "gimme" phones that entice a substantial segment of cellular consumers to take the plunge. That creates a chicken-or-egg conundrum, since Bluetooth must become ubiquitous in order to achieve the enconomies of scale that would make it affordable to average consumers -- but first it must universally be adopted in order to achieve those very economies of scale. Then there's the question of Bluetooth's security -- or, more properly, the gaping holes therein. Although some have tried to wish the problem away, others have taken a more skeptical view of the fundamental weaknesses in Bluetooth's PIN-based generation of a device's initialization key. Juha T. Vainio of the Helsinki University of Technology's Department of Computer Science and Engineering quite rightly points out [4] that a 4-digit PIN offers only

10,000 total possible combinations -- making 4-digit PINs highly susceptible to brute-force cracking techniques -- and the problem is further exacerbated by the well-known user laziness factor that results in a large number of 4-digit PINs being set to 0000. There's also the possibility that one Bluetooth device may use its exchange of unit keys with a second device and third device to eavesdrop on their "private" conversation -- or even falsely to authenticate itself to the one, masquerading as the other. That's because, when the first two devices exchange unit keys, they can "decide" to use one or the other as a shared "secret" to generate their link key. When a third device then enters into a key exchange with the second device, and also opens a session with the first device, it reveals its unit key to both. The first device now knows both of the others' "secrets" -- and their entirely-public 48-bit BD_ADDRs -- and it's also synched to the same master clock. Now, merely by faking one of the other box's BD_ADDR, it can generate the public keys necessary to listen in on its two neighbors' "private" traffic. Assuming that the first device can eavesdrop on their conversations, it can also authenticate itself as either device to the other, since that imposture requires no additional data. The above problem is more than simply theoretical. Bell Labs scientists Marcus Jakobsson and Susanne Wetzel demonstrated exactly that scenario in the lab, as ZDnet reported on the 8th of September, 2000. No Expectations And, of course, even the weak security Bluetooth currently offers is part and parcel of the techology's price problem. Encryption, decryption and key generation all require significant processor power -- especially when the encryption in question has to take place on the fly and simultaneously be at all robust -- and that doesn't come cheap, particularly when the market is still small. Of course Wi-Fi has its own security issues -- I'll address them another time -- and it can be just as much of a pain in the posterior to configure as is its Scandanavian competitor. But the

distinction between the two technologies is perhaps best illustrated by taking a look at their deployment in the real world. On that score, Wi-Fi wins, hands down. Oh sure, RegistryMagic (now known as VoiceFlash) and the Wall Street Holiday Inn made a big fuss last February about their demonstration of Bluetooth for guest check-in during the Internet World Wireless conference, but a quick check of the current Holiday Inn Wall Street Web site shows nary a mention of the thing today. Perhaps the Venetian resort/hotel/casino will be more enthusiastic about Harald's namesake after it tries its own pilot Bluetooth demo during Fall 2001 Comdex in Las Vegas. Perhaps not. Now We're Getting Somewhere Meanwhile, Wi-Fi networks are springing up like mushrooms in a cow pasture after a warm Spring rain. Starbucks now has one in every store -- albeit with access priced to discourage all but the investment banking crowd. Likewise, airport terminals around the country are installing 802.11b nets to capture traffic from the hordes of passengers waiting for their too-often delayed or canceled flights. Businesses are also discovering that Wi-Fi makes a lot of sense in office suites where rapid staff expansion -- or contraction -- causes frequent moves and changes. And there is also a rapidlygrowing assortment of free nets, mostly built by the open source community with pooled resources, eager to offer access to all comers. And that really exemplifies the difference in my mind. There aren't any plans for Bluetoothbased open-access-point networks of which I'm aware. The gear itself remains painfully scarce, prohibitively expensive and seemingly destined to wind up joining ISDN in the Museum of Little Techologies that Couldn't. Which may explain why developers are turning off to Bluetooth in droves.

Bring it on home There are, of course, those who disagree with my gloomy assesment, including some right here on dW Wireless. Big Blue itself is still extremely big on the technology. It offers a Bluetooth PCCard for its latest laptops and it has even gone so far as to release a Bluetooth protocol stack for Linux, to enable the Penguin People to make Tux talk Viking. The thing is, I still can't help but think that, like Harald, the modern Bluetooth is just going to wind up teeing off so many people who are crucial to its survival that, again like him, it will wind up face-down in a muddy field with an arrow in its back. That would leave Wi-Fi, starring as Sven Forkbeard, to inherit Harald's kingdom of the air -- and to go on to overthrow HomeRF, in its role as Ethelred the Unready. But that's another story altogether.

Bluetooth is a wireless technology that is built into electronic gadgets. It lets you talk and share information like music, voice, and videos wirelessly. Bluetooth technology uses radio waves just like mobile phones, television, and FM radio. The difference between those devices and Bluetooth technology is distance. Radios and television broadcast too many people over many miles. Bluetooth technology just sends information to your personal space. This personal space is called PAN, Personal Area Network. This goes up to a distance of 33 feet. If you read in a product's description the word Bluetooth, this means the product has a piece of hardware or a small computer chip that contains the Bluetooth radio. It also contains software that lets the user, the person who has the product, connect that product to other products that are using Bluetooth technology. This connection is wireless. The technology used by Bluetooth relates back to discoveries pioneered in the 1940's by the military. The engineers at a Swedish company called Ericsson invented the Bluetooth technology in 1994. A group of companies, in 1998, worked together to connect their products using Bluetooth technology. Seeing that the Bluetooth technology worked, the companies formed the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). This organization is devoted to maintaining this technology. Bluetooth technology is not owned by a single company but the members of the Bluetooth SIG all work together to develop the technology. When SIG came into existence, Bluetooth was the code word for SIG. They designed Bluetooth technology to allow collaboration between different industries.

History of Mobile Phone

Nowadays, mobile phone is one of the most essential things of people. It takes much convince for people. The technology of mobile phone is increase rapidly everyday. Form 1st generation up to now, people want to build up a mobile

1G 1G (First Generation) is the name given to the first generation of mobile telephone networks. These systems used analogue circuit-switched technology, with FDMA (Frequency Division Multiple Access), and worked mainly in the 800-900 MHz frequency bands. The networks had a low traffic capacity, unreliable handover, poor voice quality, and poor security.

1G - First Generation mobile phone networks were the earliest cellular systems to develop, and they relied on a network of distributed transceivers to communicate with the mobile phones. First Generation phones were also analogue, used for voice calls only, and their signals were transmitted by the method of frequency modulation. These systems typically allocated one 25 MHz frequency band for the signals to be sent from the cell base station to the handset, and a second different 25 MHz band for signals being returned from the handset to the base station. These bands were then split into a number of communications channels, each of which would be used by a particular caller.

2G 2G - Second Generation mobile telephone networks were the logical next stage in the development of wireless systems after 1G, and they introduced for the first time a mobile phone system that used purely digital technology. The demands placed on the networks, particularly in the densely populated areas within cities, meant that increasingly sophisticated methods had to be employed to handle the large number of calls, and so avoid the risks of interference and dropped calls at handoffs. Although many of the principles involved in a 1G system also apply to 2G - they both use the same cell structure - there are also differences in the way that the signals are handled, and the 1G networks are not capable of providing the more advanced features of the 2G systems, such as caller identity and text messaging. In GSM 900, for example, two frequency bands of 25 MHz bandwidth are used. The band 890915 MHz is dedicated to uplink communications from the mobile station to the base station, and the band 935-960 MHz is used for the downlink communications from the base station to the mobile station. Each band is divided into 124 carrier frequencies, spaced 200 kHz apart, in a similar fashion to the FDMA method used in 1G systems. Then, each carrier frequency is further divided using TDMA into eight 577 uS long "time slots", every one of which represents one communication channel - the total number of possible channels available is therefore 124 x 8, producing a theoretical maximum of 992 simultaneous conversations. In the USA, a different form of TDMA is used in the system known as IS-136 D-AMPS, and there is another US system called IS-95 (CDMAone), which is a spread spectrum code division multiple access (CDMA) system. CDMA is the technique used in 3G systems. 2.5G 2.5G (Second Generation Enhanced) is a generic term used to refer to a standard of wireless mobile telephone networks that lies somewhere between 2G and 3G. The development of 2.5G has been

viewed as a stepping-stone towards 3G, which was prompted by the demand for better data services and access to the Internet. In the evolution of mobile communications, each generation provides a higher data rate and additional capabilities, and 2.5G is no exception as it is provides faster services than 2G, but not as fast or as advanced as the newer 3G systems. Some observers have seen 2.5G as an alternative route to 3G, but this appears to be short-sighted as 2.5G is several times slower than the full 3G service. In technical terms 2.5G extends the capabilities of 2G systems by providing additional features, such as a packet-switched connection (GPRS) in the TDMA-based GSM system, and enhanced data rates (HSCSD and EDGE). These enhancements in 2.5G systems permit data speeds of 64-144 kbps, which enables these phones to feature web browsing, the use of navigation and navigational maps, voice mail, fax, and the sending and receiving of large email messages.

3G

3G - Third Generation mobile telephone networks are the latest stage in the development of wireless communications technology. Significant features of 3G systems are that they support much higher data transmission rates and offer increased capacity, which makes them suitable for high-speed data applications as well as for the traditional voice calls. In fact, 3G systems are designed to process data, and since voice signals are converted to digital data, this results in speech being dealt with in much the same way as any other form of data. Third Generation systems use packet-switching technology, which is more efficient and faster than the traditional

circuit-switched systems, but they do require a somewhat different infrastructure to the 2G systems. Compared to earlier mobile phones a 3G handset provides many new features, and the possibilities for new services are almost limitless, including many popular applications such as TV streaming, multimedia, videoconferencing, Web browsing, e-mail, paging, fax, and navigational maps. Japan was the first country to introduce a 3G system, which was largely because the Japanese PDC networks were under severe pressure from the vast appetite in Japan for digital mobile phones. Unlike the GSM systems, which developed various ways to deal with demand for improved services, Japan had no 2.5G enhancement stage to bridge the gap between 2G and 3G, and so the move into the new standard was seen as a solution to their capacity problems. It is generally accepted that CDMA is a superior transmission technology, when it is compared to the old techniques used in GSM/TDMA. WCDMA systems make more efficient use of the available spectrum, because the CDMA technique enables all base stations to use the same frequency. In the WCDMA system, the data is split into separate packets, which are then transmitted using packet switching technology, and the packets are reassembled in the correct sequence at the receiver end by using the code that is sent with each packet. WCDMA has a potential problem, caused by the fact that, as more users simultaneously communicate with a base station, then a phenomenon known as cell breathing can occur. This effect means that the users will compete for the finite power of the base stations transmitter, which can reduce the cells range W-CDMA and cdma2000 have been designed to alleviate this problem. The operating frequencies of many 3G systems will typically use parts of the radio spectrum in the region of approximately 2GHz (the IMT-2000 core band), which were not available to operators of 2G systems, and so are away from the crowded frequency bands currently being used for 2G and 2.5G networks. UMTS systems are designed to provide a range of data rates, depending on the users circumstances, providing up to 144 kbps for moving vehicles (macrocellular environments), up to 384 kbps for pedestrians (microcellular environments) and up to 2 Mbps for indoor or stationary users (picocellular environments). In contrast, the data

rates supported by the basic 2G networks were only 9.6 kbps, such as in GSM, which was inadequate to provide any sophisticated digital services.

4G As the limitation of the 3G, people are try to make new generation of mobile communication, this is the 4th generation. This 4G system is more reliable, Nowadays, some companies have started developing the 4G communication system, this technology can have a high uplink rate up to 200Mbps, more data can transfer in the mobile phone. So the 4G mobile can have more function such as work as the television. Some telecommunication companies claimed that they would applied this 4G system to the business and it will bring more convenience to people.