Benjamin,
<< I think you focus too intently, and attribute far too much importance, 3GPP and ETSI >>
Perhaps, but as important as technology development, applications development, and business development are, to the success of evolved wireless technology implementation, standards development plays an important role in technology adoption and commercial deployment of technology.
Certainly, Qualcomm and CDG attach some significance to participation in 3GPP, as they have tried to obtain participation since it was formed, and the total denial of entrance at first, and (evidently) the terms that are now offered as the price of admission, have been the source of deep frustration for both Qualcomm management and CDG.
3G standards development is being carried out proactively in 3GPP, and, in my opinion, somewhat reactively in 3GPP2. In addition, the role of ETSI has significantly changed the last 2.5 years, since it was decided to adopt wideband cdma as the air interface of UMTS and it continues to change.
Fortunately we have the 3GPP2 Organizational Partners - ARIB (Japan), CWTS (China), TTA (Korea), and TTC (Japan) participating along with TIA (USA), in 3GPP2 standards development, and as a result we now have "cross-mode" specifications based on the recommendation of OHG, that will enable operation of cdma2000 on an evolved GSM-MAP network and W-CDMA on an evolved ANSI-41 network being included IMT-2000. We also finally now have a standard for a "physical" cdma R-UIM that will facilitate global roaming which (as you pointed out in a post a few days ago) minimizes the difference between CDMA and W-CDMA and a potential barrier to adoption of CDMA MC.
Note that ETSI along with TSACC (Canada), has recently been granted "Observor status" in 3GPP2. Harmonization, is having an effect.
Also note that ARIB, CWTS, TTA and TTC (along with ETSI & T1) are the Organizational Partners of 3GPP. 3GPP is not a European organization any more than GSMA is a European association or community. It is a "Global Initiative", (somewhat lacking American participation other than that of the US oriented UWCC at the moment).
Whether or not, Qualcomm and CDG ever join 3GPP, remains be seen. It does remain at the top of MY wish list. I personally think it is inevitable, and as I have stated before, I have confidence Qualcomm management will properly time their entrance, should it occur.
<< QCOM, its right mind, will never allow ETSI "maintenance" of CDMA2000 >>
You could be entirely right about this, but I did NOT say that ETSI would maintain cdma2000 standards. I referred to the consideration that is currently being given to ETSI maintaining the standards for all IMT-2000 radio interfaces, not the end to end standard, of which the radio interface is a component.
Whether or not, ETSI ever maintains all the IMT-2000 radio interface standards remains to be seen. It is an interesting notion, it is in play, and it could provide a key to cdma revenue out of Europe (and maybe even the largest GSM market the world - China). I would not rule it out, but nothing may ever come of it.
<< The ETSI, along with Europe general, will lose, are losing, significance directing wireless standards. For wCDMA, look to Asia >>
It may be that (North) America that is "losing, significance directing wireless standards" and in particular CDMA standards (any flavor). I attribute that partially to an inability to participate in 3GPP.
If Europe is losing, significance directing wireless standards, it appears be by their own choice. W-CDMA was from its inception, a joint proposal to ETSI made by an Asian carrier and a European manufacturer. The IMT-2000 effort has evidenced a spirit of cooperation and compromise amongst carriers and standards bodies of various countries and across technologies that is unparalleled the history of wireless mobile telephony.
<< as the ETSI tediously authors the 2000, 2001 and 2002 and 2003 revisions >>
ETSI is not authoring the 2000, 2001 and 2002 and 2003 revisions of UMTS UTRA anymore than TIA is authoring the 2000, 2001 and 2002 and 2003 revisions of cdma2000 1x/3x. That is not their role.
<< Already, according to Gilder, NTT is ignoring superfluous portions of the specification that were borne from the ETSI's communal, committee-based IP land grab >>
If I recall, that reference related to NTT planning to ignore some features necessary for backwards GSM compatibility to earlier GSM-MAP networks, and that is not surprising given the flexibility of the UTRA specifications, and the fact that NTT does not currently operate a GSM-MAP network. The same could apply to Korea if SK-Telecom follows through with plans to implement an evolved GSM network. The case is potentially different in China where there are existing GSM networks and backwards compatibility is potentially as important as it is in Europe.
<< Euro telecoms will demand HDR over EDGE for data. The telecoms will dictate >>
That would be nice. Bonus $ for us QCOM investors.
If they do implement HDR, ETSI will most assuredly maintain the standard and EU regulatory bodies will have to bless (unfortunately). I guess I should be less dogmatic about this and add the obligatory, "IMO". <g> I will change my tune on this when I see any one of the 366 GSM Networks in any one of the 135 countries where they are operational, implement a data or voice and data overlay not approved by ETSI, on anything other than a trial basis. Could happen. Hasn't yet. Forget those "Self-inflated ... bureaucrats" from the EU and ETSI for a moment, the GSM Carrier community is pretty darned tight. Perhaps the "new blood" and carriers that have feet in both the CDG and GSMA camps will change this, but I'm not so sure.
As for GSM-EDGE (as opposed to TDMA-EDGE) I'm not sure it will ever see the light of day, but to some degree that will probably depend somewhat on how Qualcomm and CDG play the standards game.
Qualcomm has long touted an overlay strategy for CDMA, and as we approach standardization of HDR, touting same for it. At this time last year Perry La forge in his enthusiasm for cdma was leading the investment community to believe that 1x would be widely implemented in Europe and elsewhere as an alternative overlay GPRS. That high tech dream. has given way to the low tech reality, that the vast majority of Revenue $ that will flow out of the wireless community over the next 3 years will be for network reuse packet data overlays and associated terminals, and the majority of these $ will not have a cdma component. Standardization efforts or lack of same, lie at least to some degree at the root of this reality.
Bring on those cdma (or HDR) overlays. They have been all too scarce. I'm still waiting see one (last one I saw was a brief trial 1997 the UK).
<< Self-inflated ETSI bureaucrats and associated wCDMA IP tagalong leaches will be directed to play in the corner, quietly, by themselves >>
Right now, my impression is that Qualcomm and CDG are over in 3GPP2 playing "in the corner, quietly, by themselves".
<< Europe, and the GSM "community", have lost >>
As "michael_pdx" commented yesterday on the Nokia thread regard GSM, "It reminds me of a quote from Mark Twain,'Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated'."
GSM one again this year is running well ahead of new subscriber growth forecasts. At the conclusion of this year, once again, GSM annual subscriber growth will exceed the total subscriber base of CDMA. At the beginning of this year, I would have projected differently, and I would have bet the farm that IS-136 TDMA would NOT grow faster than CDMA through the first calendar half of this year, with anyone dumb enough (?) to take the bet. Heck, 18 months ago, I would have bet that we would see cdma overlays of GSM networks implemented year 2000 or at least 2001, so please take anything I predict with a grain of salt (as I'm sure you do <g>).
BTW: GREAT to see QCOM moving with the NAZ rather than against it and perhaps we are seeing more than just a "Gilder Effect", or maybe that is the "John Brewer (of Vincio Group fame) Effect". Sure is nice to see $60+ again.
Regards and Have a GREAT QCOM day!
- Eric - |
