The additional functionality (in the form of a radio transceiver) will result in additional costs. The current cost of adding such functionality is regarded by many as still relatively high—typically $10, depending on the volume of the purchase.

As the cost comes down, which it undoubtedly will, the number of devices that can be economically interconnected will increase rapidly. Some developers have already suggested that the unit cost of a Bluetooth-enabling device could be as little as $1 per unit. There is no reason why any electronically controlled device cannot be connected via Bluetooth. Of course, the ubiquitous mobile telephone will also be connected to most electronic devices via Bluetooth.

With myriad applications for Bluetooth technology, its ultimate usefulness lies in its ability to allow these electronic devices to interconnect. For example, it will allow the control of any device using a mobile telephone. On arrival for a conference at a hotel, one could be guided via a mobile phone to the correct conference room. The hotel's guest system would recognize the attendee's mobile phone number and guide the attendee accordingly.

Bluetooth technology provides tremendous flexibility because it has the potential to allow all electronic devices to be interconnected.

Indeed, mobile telephones that incorporate Bluetooth technology provide a fruitful source of potential applications. Today when visitors walk into an office building, their presence is announced by a receptionist. Using Bluetooth, a mobile telephone could do this automatically with a message on a monitor announcing the visitor—no need for human intervention. Of course this could also work the other way around. If someone didn't want to see the visitor, he or she could become unavailable.

Another possibility introduced by Bluetooth technology is the ability to subdivide components of electronic equipment. For example, a manufacturer could build a mobile telephone with a remote earpiece. The earpiece could communicate to the telephone network via the telephone base using a Bluetooth radio link.

One of the best-publicized effects of Bluetooth will be the aesthetic effects: namely the removal of cables in offices and homes. Bluetooth technology replaces the need for such cabling. Bluetooth can also be combined with other technologies. It can be used in conjunction with triangulation technology, which determines the precise location of a mobile phone. In a building, such technology could be used to track the whereabouts of visitors. Alternatively, a Bluetooth device could be built into children's clothing so that if a child wandered away, the Bluetooth transmitter would signal a warning.

Bluetooth technology has not been formally adopted as a standard by any standards body. It is, however, a de facto standard. Given the amount of support, it is highly likely to be a successful standard. Nine companies are the primary promoters of Bluetooth technology: 3com, Ericsson Inc., IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Lucent, Microsoft Corp., Motorola, Nokia, and Toshiba Corp.

The official Bluetooth Web site (http://www.bluetooth.com) indicates that more than 2100 companies have indicated an interest in using Bluetooth. There are, however, alternative technologies. One is known as HomeRF, which stands for home radio frequency. In addition, IEC and ETSI have relevant accredited international standards, and IEEE has published 802.11b. Indeed, the IEC standards and the Bluetooth standard can potentially conflict in certain areas. The consequence of this is that, in theory, Bluetooth would conflict with European Union (EU) legislation.

The EU CE marking legislation is linked to the use and adoption of standards. Those European standards, which are adopted via CEN and CENELEC, are usually identical to ISO, IEC, or ETSI standards. In this instance, it is hard to see how CENELEC could ignore the existence of Bluetooth. In practice, it is to be expected that a standard actually adopted would not conflict with Bluetooth. Certainly, manufacturers should not to be concerned about this technical inconsistency between the theory and practice.

Another technology worth mentioning is a product produced by Time Domain Inc. (Huntsville, AL). It is based on ultrafast, ultra-low-power transmissions in the very wide frequency bands. This technology, known as PulsOn, uses transmissions of 500 picoseconds and is said not to interfere with radio communications. It is, however, a far riskier technology. It has not been widely adopted. And although it supposedly does not interfere with radios, the technology is, in fact, unlawful in some countries because it transmits in frequencies reserved for terrestrial radio services.

Bluetooth transmitters will be subject to compliance in the EU with the Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment and the Mutual Recognition of their Conformity (Directive 99/5/EC of 9 March 1999, Official Journal L 091, 07/04/1999, pages 10–28) (commonly referred to as the R&TTE Directive). This EU directive replaced an earlier directive (TTE-SES Directive 98/13/EC).

The R&TTE Directive is the CE marking directive that applies to radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment as defined in the directive. The definition of telecommunications terminal equipment encompasses Bluetooth devices. There are several exceptions, the most important of which is for radio equipment that is intended to be used solely for the reception of sound or television broadcasting. This exception does not include Bluetooth devices, since Bluetooth devices are intentional transmitters.

Apparatus within the scope of the R&TTE Directive must:

In addition, the R&TTE Directive allows the European Commission to make further rules relating to interoperability. In some cases, apparatus must meet relevant harmonized European standards and bear the CE mark. Furthermore, manufacturers must maintain records confirming that the apparatus complies with the R&TTE Directive.

Many Bluetooth applications will have important legal ramifications. Most importantly, many uses of Bluetooth are contrary to United Kingdom and European data-protection laws. For example, when people enter a building (such as a shopping center), do they consent to their personal information (including their whereabouts) being transmitted throughout the building to all the shopkeepers?

Unfortunately, the EU has recently taken a strong stance on data-protection legislation as can be seen from the EU Directive on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (95/46/EC OJ No. L281/31 of 23.11.95). Interestingly, it seems that Europeans are, in practice, far more relaxed about the use of their personal data than the law permits. And because people will most certainly want access to Bluetooth technology, it is highly likely that the legal technicalities (such as infringement of data protection) will be overlooked—both by users and providers of the technology. In practice, this would certainly be the best course to adopt, because the dangers of being left behind in the next technological revolution are far greater.

Bluetooth and Cryptography

Telecommunication transmissions are susceptible to being overheard. Accordingly, there will be a need for some encryption to be built into Bluetooth devices. Bluetooth, by design, however, is secure. The United States has given a blanket exemption to all types of encryption technology designed for Bluetooth. Under new U.S. regulations, some items are exempt from a technical review prior to export. Section 15 Part 740.17(b)(3) (vi) of the Code of Federal Regulations states:

The Preamble to the new U.S. regulations provides the following additional guidance:

Unfortunately, no similar blanket exemption has been issued by the United Kingdom or European authorities, which do not treat Bluetooth technology any differently from other wireless technologies. Therefore, whether encryption is allowed in either Europe or the United Kingdom will depend rather upon the level of encryption. So far, the United Kingdom has been fairly restrictive in prohibiting the importation of strong encryption technology for private use.

Ultimately, there is no doubt that Bluetooth will succeed. Many companies have put much money into this new technology. However, it is the speed at which it will become a success that is still open to debate. Current projections have indicated that from the few thousand Bluetooth-enabled devices that were delivered in 2000, several tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, were delivered in 2001. How long it will take before Bluetooth-enabled devices become mass-market items is not yet clear.

One unfortunate development is that despite Microsoft being one of the founders of Bluetooth technology, the company announced in the summer of 2001 that it would not yet be integrating Bluetooth device drivers within its standard Windows operating systems. It is presumably waiting for others to do so first. Given the prevalence of the Windows operating system, this is unfortunate, because it means that to operate Bluetooth-enabled products from a computer, a separate driver would be required. Although an independent driver undoubtedly will be developed in the marketplace, the lack of a driver forces individuals or companies to purchase a separate software driver.

A major issue to address is how quickly the public will take up the new technology. No manufacturer is likely to increase a product's unit cost by including Bluetooth technology until it becomes cost-effective to do so. Manufacturers are currently struggling to compete in the marketplace with less-expensive devices that do not incorporate Bluetooth technology. Clearly, a key issue is how much a product's current technology costs compared to the cost of a product integrating Bluetooth. The assumption, of course, is that the cost of Bluetooth-enabled devices will decrease rapidly as mass manufacture becomes common. Certainly by 2005, one would expect the vast majority of electronic devices to be Bluetooth-enabled.

Dai Davis is a solicitor and chartered engineer. He works for the firm of Nabarro Nathanson (London). He can be reached at d.davis@nabarro.com.