Doug:
What an important question! Let me speak to W-CDMA versus IS-95C and your GSM/TDMA question. First, GSM is a network standard, currently designed around a TDMA (time division multiple access) air interface. Think of TDMA as the method by which digital information is transported between the handset and the base station. Remember, however, that there are several TDMA based digital network STANDARDS, including GSM and IS-136 (used by ATT's network). The standard (GSM/IS-136 etc) comprehensively defines the network architecture and is therefore an issue that is much broader in scope than selection of the air interface. W-CDMA and IS-95C both rely on direct sequence spread spectrum (i.e. CDMA), but have different network architectures, just as GSM and IS-136 both use a TDMA air interface, but have different (and incompatible) network architectures.
The promulgation of W-CDMA by the GSM community (led by Ericsson) is profound because it is a tacit admission that the CDMA air interface is superior to TDMA. Having said this, Ericsson is not about to happily hand its GSM franchise over to Qualcomm and the cdmaOne community. So what we have is standards battle where the IS-95 community (led by Qualcomm and Lucent) is promoting a third-generation standard (IS-95C) that provides a straightforward and easy migration for existing IS-95 network operators. Ericsson meanwhile is trying to create a W-CDMA standard sufficiently different from IS-95 that it would eliminate any migration advantage available to IS-95 operators (and require equipment vendors for the latter to substantially reengineer their equipment to achieve compatibility with W-CDMA). Ericsson clearly would like to split the CDMA standard so that it would not be at any competitive disadvantage versus existing IS-95/CDMA vendors (i.e. Qualcomm, Nortel, Lucent, Motorola et al).
The good news is that Qualcomm's IPR position is extremely strong and the company has been able to say "no" (i.e. refused to license its IPR under unfavorable circumstances) and make it stick. QC has expressed a willingness to alter the IS-95C standard to the extent that proposed changes have technological merit.but the company will not accept changes made simply to improve Ericsson's relative competitive position. Given the stakes, it's not surprisingly that this has become a rather hotly contested and emotional issue.
So where do we go from here? Well, the GSM community has a problem, because they have promised their customers a CDMA-based third generation solution and it is necessary to define a standard before one can deliver compliant hardware. Since IS-95 is already in deployment, its marketshare gains relative to GSM should accelerate, particularly as customers increasingly understand how and why TDMA-based GSM is scheduled to become obsolete. From this perspective, time in on Qualcomm's side because anything that delays development or deployment of a competing CDMA-based standard should benefit IS-95. On the other hand, nothing would prevent QC from developing and marketing W-CDMA hardware were Ericsson to somehow prevail in the standards setting process. So under either circumstance, QC will see its royalty stream expand as CDMA displace TDMA-based technologies. The downside to the latter outcome is that QC would need to develop equipment and support compliant with two standards and this is both wasteful and unnecessary.
Best Regards,
Gregg |
