Ben,
re: All-IP RAN
Hey, it's Memorial Day. Get outdoors. Drive a ball. Sail a boat. Grill a steak.
<< Further, and perhaps, in my view, more importantly ... "a single All IP specification which is independent of radio technology. They want to push for common development between 3GPP and 3GPP2" >>
Good clip, thanks for sharing. In my view as well ... and most certainly in Jorma Ollila's.
If you happened to listen to Nokia's CEO Roadshow - or reviewed the slides -you will most certainly have picked up on his comments about the All-IP Radio Access Network being the next big discontinuity. I commented on that recently:
Message 15844679
<< Its strikes me that OHG's proposal may make the GSM Guild (aside perhaps from Vodafone) rather nervous >>
If what you call the "GSM Guild" were nervous, they would not have put so much work into, or emphasis on the development of Release 2000, and now Release 5 which focuses on the all IP-Network and the high speed extension of WCDMA.
Evolution to an all IP core has been the goal of 3GPP from the outset. I still have the original completed framework document for 'R2000' on my hard drive (replacing the earlier drafts) published March 2000 with 'R99'. If I can find the original ETSI link, I'll furnish it. I have quoted frequently from it in the past.
Release 2000 (now divided into 'R4' & 'R5') was intended at the outset to complete Phase 1 of the UMTS standard.
<< flavors that were so deliberately constructed into the wCDMA standard >>
Only one flavor in WCDMA - 2 terrestrial flavors of CDMA in UMTS - both serving a purpose and most certainly deliberately constructed into the standard, and as it relates to WCDMA pursuant to the January 1998 decision on radio interfaces which set up the 5 Points reaction from QUALCOMM.
<< In my view, it's in the vested interest of the Guild to try and maintain these differences, while it is only helpful to Q's strategy to minimize or eliminate them... >>
My view is slightly different. What else is new, eh? <g>
<< radioOne and the 6000 series chipsets may well render the issue moot >>
They do not render the issue moot, IMO. ZIF/NIF technology and multi-mode chipsets are important for the medium near term however. It is unclear how much interoperability will be achieved as a result of the 6000 series family as it evolves up the roadmap. The significance of the 6000 series is that it will allow 3G roaming for those carriers that have selected cdma2000 as their technology migration path. It does not have much significance for those that have not, since GSM/3GSM roaming will be available in virtually every country in the world that uses mobile wireless.
It would seem to me that the OHG ad hoc has got to be wondering if there is really a need for two 3G Partnership Projects. The original intent was to have a single converged standard. The compromise was harmonization 2 network standards and 5 radio interfaces.
We could wind up with one BIG committee yet. Right now there is certainly a lot of redundancy.
I have stated before that the majority of work on network evolution seems to me to be taking place in 3GPP. I have always had the impression that since the going forward harmonization plan was established in May or June 1999 that 3GPP is the dog that is wagging the 3G tail (with the assistance of OHG).
All of this of course leads us to 4G and the vision (which is all 4G now is) of seamless operation of a multiplicity of radio interfaces, when base stations will be as common as light bulbs.
What did Dr. Jacobs say a few months back? ... "Forget about 4G"? ... or something to that effect (and why would he say that). Some conjecture it will be reality before 3G.
You have been doing a yeoman job watching standards evolution of late in both houses. Your interest in 'R5' has seemed to focus on HSDPA, and you were, if I recall the first individual to spot it. While HSDPA is significant, its significance pales somewhat, IMO, to the significance of the All-IP RAN on which 'R5' is primarily focused.
I think it is very significant that WMF joined both Partnership Projects as an MRP in the same month.
BTW: a few weeks ago I reviewed the 3GPP2 on the all-IP core. It seemed to be a little lean. Looking for some meat on its bones. In all honesty however I have not done a scan of the recent 'R5' documentation to see how much it has fleshed out.
On a related topic - I was just rereading some additional recent Peter Rysavy material about GPRS bearer service:
"The next stage for GPRS [ed: beyond GRX and new coding schemes] is even more interesting. Though originally intended as a data service operating parallel to voice services, standards groups are defining how GPRS will be able to support voice services using Voice over IP (VoIP) protocols. ..... an end-to-end approach for multimedia over IP will enable many new kinds of applications, and promises to reduce the cost of core networks for carriers."
Finally, If I may, I'd like to comment on a comment of yours from a prior post.
<< It appears you've created you're own little world of science, with physical properties defined and instituted by the committee based standards organization you love so dearly. >>
Let me emphatically state that I do NOT dearly love committee based standards organization(s). Tres contrare.
From an investment point of view, they certainly complicate decision making.
They make it extremely difficult to find that rare company that control's the architecture of a technology within a sector or sub sector the way QUALCOMM has controlled cdmaOne/cdma2000 architecture.
Digital wireless technology architecture however, has always been dominated by committee. GSM set the benchmark for that. The resulting interoperability of that technology platform is the success factor that makes it the benchmark.
As Ericsson concisely states it (backwards from the way QUALCOMM would state it):
"Standards define development efforts. Within the area of communications and information technology standards are vital. Standards define interoperability between equipment and facilitate attractive end user applications. To obtain the necessary interoperability and economies of scale, standards are in many cases a pre-requisite."
All this is a reality. How various companies deal with that reality, in terms of attempting to be market leaders within the broad sector, or subsets of it, is for me the interesting part of watching the sector.
You seem to have caught the bug.
Maybe you have created YOUR own little world. <g>
- Eric - |
