Yes, the WiMedia Alliance promotes multiband OFDM (MB-OFDM) which conforms to the FCC definition for UWB. It not only retains the benefits of OFDM but its wide-band nature allows for very high data rates and its low power enables coexistence with other technologies without causing harmful interference. Coexistence is indeed a regulatory issue but, as the article states, the US, Japan, Korea, EU and China have now given their approval, and available UWB solutions now support worldwide operation.
Impulse-based UWB solutions have been compared to the MB-OFDM approach many times before. For example, here is an overview from 2003, which argues for multiband OFDM:
The advantages of MB-OFDM for short range, low cost, high bit rate applications were recognized by the industry and adopted by the WiMedia Alliance and Wireless USB. There is still some work done on impulse radios in academia, but there don?t seem to be any commercially available products.
This is no knock on UWB, but here's the question: Isn't the current form of UWB, as delivered by the WiMedia Alliance and it's supporters, just low-power, 'wideband OFDM' carved to meet the FCC spectral mask? As such, it has all the benefits -- and problems -- of regular OFDM -- but with many more regulatory issues? The original impulse UWB had inherent characteristics that helped it stand out and differentiate it in the market, vs the current form. Anyone have any thoughts, comments on this? Does it even matter anymore if impulse UWB seems to be dead in the water? Does anyone care for the characteristics of the original, pre-FCC-standard definition of UWB?
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.