In short, the headline reads: "New Bluetooth to Use Wi-Fi Protocol". Nothing new there. The deck reads: "Reversing an earlier decision, Bluetooth backers choose Wi-Fi over UWB for the technology's next version." Ah, that's interesting. But wait: the source quoted is John Barr, of Motorola. And that's where it gets messy.

Let's try to keep this as simple as possible. As I wrote here, the Bluetooth protocol is moving toward a command-and-control architecture, where the Bluetooth protocols are designed to run over a number of different radios. Put extremely simply, think of Bluetooth as music, which can be played over AM, FM, HD Radio, satellite radio, and even the Internet.

In much the same way, Bluetooth can be run over UWB, Wi-Fi, and other radio technologies. In my earlier story, did I mention Wi-Fi? No, I did not, although the SIG did. At the time, UWB was considered to be a more effective, high-bandwidth means of transmitting information.

And is it today? On paper, yes. Judge and Barr are absolutely right in stating that to date, UWB has whimpered, rather than roared. On the other hand, Barr is a biased source.

What happened? Well, with all due respect, Judge makes it even more confusing than it actually is.

Here's what happened: as a spinoff from Motorola, both Freescale and Motorola were essentially allied. Motorola supported Freescale's development of UWB's DS-UWB "standard", which competed with rival Intel and its MBOA technology for control of the officialstandards body, the IEEE 802.15.3a committee. The IEEE's rules decree that a new standard must be approved with a 75 percent supermajority. Since neither side could manage a win, the group essentially reported a "hung jury" and disbanded, leaving both companies to establish a standard by way of the market (in much the same way the Blu-ray/HD DVD battle is being fought).

Here, Intel won, and although Freescale formed a "Cable Free" group to push its technology, the movement was basically dead in the water. Companies like Belkin, which initially marketed wireless hubs based on the Freescale technology, switched to WiMedia.

And now you see why Barr's comments are essentially sour grapes.

Judge is right on one thing, though: UWB has just not delivered, period. The technology is expensive, and at its current price point, superfluous. The problem with Wi-Fi is its power consumption.

How you know that there's something fishy here is the fact that the executive director of the Bluetooth SIG, Mike Foley, takes issue with Judge's story.

"Recently there have been some stories published by media regarding the roadmap for Bluetooth wireless technology which have generated questions," Foley said in an emailed statement. "I'd like to take this opportunity to answer those questions publicly. In 2008 the Bluetooth SIG intends to release a new specification to enable high-speed applications. Architecturally this will be accomplished by a feature we call the Generic Alternate MAC/PHY or AMP for short. This feature defines how different transports can be utilized by the Bluetooth profiles. As the name implies, this is a generic feature for which any MAC/PHY can be plugged into the system. This allows existing as well as future MAC/PHY to be easily integrated into Bluetooth.

"However, the AMP alone is not enough to enable high-speed applications. There must also be specific technologies under the AMP. Currently work is underway in the Bluetooth SIG to define how UWB and 802.11, two independent MAC/PHYs, can be plugged into the AMP and utilized as high-speed channels. The current plan is to release specifications for both of these technologies along with the AMP in the Seattle core release late next year."

So here's what it boils down to: the Bluetooth spec can accommodate both Wi-Fi and UWB, as well as a host of other protocols. The Bluetooth market, though, may not. It's tough to say that UWB is being reversed, however, when it's never been there in the first place. Whether it will in the future is the correct question to ask, and one that Judge (and I, based on my own reporting) can't answer yet.