(( I still believe it possible that the government will mandate CDMA 2000 as the exclusive standard ))
The government has up to this time indicated it will likely be a free choice. I think if that is the case, at least one of them will go with NTT's W-CDMA to capture their customers. Right now it is very easy for customers to switch from one service provider to another because they all use compatible technology and the carriers have to engage in price wars to steal away each other customers. If they use incompatable technologies then it will be much harder for their customers to switch once they have invested in equipment.
Korean W-CDMA equipment makers will have entry into Europe's closed market but will have a major disadvantage in having to pay license fees to their competitors Nokia and Ericsson and a host of others.
A useful UMTS phone for Europe will have to be a dual mode W-CDMA and GSM phone because UMTS will not be Universal, not even in Europe, not even in a small country like the Netherlands. There is no universal coverage requirement most of the UMTS licenses, unlike the GSM licenses. In reading about the Dutch UMTS license auction, successful bidders are required to cover only 60% of the population by 2004 and the is no universal coverage provision. European UMTS coverage is likely to be only in the cities for quite some time.
So when you travel out of a W-CDMA cell into a GSM cell your phone has to hand off your call from the 2.0 Mhz high band with the W-CDMA air interface to the 900Mhz GSM air interface without dropping your call. If it is a data call
then it has to transfer the data connection from 2Mbs W-cdma to what? 9600 bps GSM? 56 Kbps GPRS? 300Kbps EDGE? Since Neither GPRS or EDGE will be universally deployed will the phone have to handle the ability to switch to either? Or will it just drop the call?
One of the advantages of CDMA 2000 is you can go from a 3X cell to an 1X cell to an IS-95B cell or to an IS-95A cell with out your call being dropped. Data calls are supposed to be transfered with just the data rate being adjusted as you travel through cells of different generations. 1Xev is supposed to add smooth handoff between 1X and HDR to the mix.
If there are 17 patent holders demanding royalties totaling 15% for a GSM handset and ther is only Qualcomm asking for 5.2% for a cdmaOne handset then you can see why GSM has such an effective lobby. Their are at least 17 patent holders lobbying for it verses the Q.
A dual mode GSM/W-CDMA handset could easily have royalties running to more than 20% before even considering the Q's IPR. Hence, with several dozen companies hoping to get royalties out of ESTI/NTT W-CDMA, it's all of them and their propaganda machine and their governments verses the Q. Also with most of the royalties going to Europe and maybe a billion cell phones to be sold in the next few years, you can see why it is such a big thing for the Europeans. We're talking potentially tens of billions flowing to Europe for IPR. CDMA 2000 means 5.2% royalities going to San Diego, not Europe which is why the Euro's make such a big deal about Qualcomms royalties but never mention the 15% Taiwanese and Korean GSM handset makers have to pay.
Because of the extensive cross licensing between European firms for GSM IPR, they have a cost advantage in IPR over makers in other parts of the world. Because Qualcomm charges all makers, with a few exceptions, the same rate, the Europeans have no IPR cost advantage over Asian manufacturers for CDMA products based on Qualcomm technology. ETSI W-CDMA attempts to use as much European IPR as possible and avoid as much Qualcomm IPR as possible to create a CDMA standard that restores an IPR cost advantage for the Europeans and their NTT ally.
Its true, as you point out, that SK Telecom's and LG Telecom have no GSM network core to connect to W-CDMA which is one of the reasons GSM operators claim for choosing W-CDMA, but then neither has NTT.
>> In light of these considerations, it seems so irrational to me, <<
This is not the politics of light and reason, but the politics of big money and GREED. Don't expect rational arguements to win the day.
>> Does an actual conversion to wCDMA seem more rational and plausible to you? <<
Anything is possible. We don't know what NTT and the Euro's have been promising and offering behind closed doors to SK Telecom and LG Telecom. Easy financial terms? Capital infusions? Entry or a piece of the Euro and Japanese markets? For them to get two out of three in Qualcomm's strongest market would be a victory in the psychological warfare againt Qualcomm's CDMA. Make it look like Qualcomm is being rolled back and defeated even in Korea. Everybody better get on the ETSI/NTT W-CDMA bandwagon. |
