To the keepers of this site:
As head of the CDG, I generally do not contribute to threads, but I must say you all do a wonderful job following the CDMA2000 and W-CDMA debate. I would like to add a few comments.
The pressure is mounting, although I do think the ITU will be delayed for some months. It took the European operators too long to get serious on this issue. Perhaps they were misguided by their GSM NA counterparts and by their vendors. They believed the argument that 1) 3G IPR was not an issue 2) harmonization did not matter 3) the W-CDMA spec was developed to the point that it was impossible to change parameters 4) the changes to the W-CDMA parameters that the cdmaOne camp were suggesting were an effort to weaken the W-CDMA specification.
It is clear the vendor's PR play last week of suggesting a different chip rate backfired. It did not shine a bright light on Qualcomm. Instead it left many analysts wondering if what they had been told before was untrue. It shook the confidence of even the W-CDMA backers that believed the 4 items above were true. They can not hide behind the "performance advantage mantra" any longer. We have proven that 4.096 will not work -- they have no choice but to change (see CDG ETSI contributions and white paper on CDG website www.cdg.org) As you can see from Nortel's comments last week, no one believes that 3.84 provides any advantage. It doesn't. Its very hard for even the staunchest W-CDMA backer to rationalize 3.68 vs. 3.84. The spotlight is now in their eyes.
This leads us to today's comments. I was encouraged that a group of companies got together to support harmonization. This was many of the same players that we have been meeting with over the last half-year. After a number of trips to Europe and elsewhere our conclusion was that these players were not serious about harmonization. We have had a number of meetings with European operators on convergence. Our conclusion was that delay was inevitable until the other side came to a realistic view of the situation. They acted as if there were no consequences to their actions. The ITU message changed all that. I hope we see meaningful discussions, not just more of the same.
While significant, I would not read too much into today's announcement other than a number of operators are getting worried, and well they should. NTT requires an ITU specification to get spectrum from the MPT; a delay is hurting them. They are having real capacity problems.
We too want to work within the ITU process. I did not fly around the world with a bunch of cdmaOne operators this year for fun. We tried to resolve this issue. We were the only ones. At least we increased awareness of the issue if anything.
I am convinced that until we get beyond the "other side" trying to stop cdmaOne's progress, that we will not resolve this debate. I have been involved in this battle since day one, at least ten years now, and have seen every possible tactic used to slow cdmaOne down. It is not over yet. I am waiting for the next tactic.
You are right as well regarding the GSM NA group's silence. Usually the most vocal group against convergence! They have backed themselves into a corner. They try to portray this as a free market issue -- they say let multiple standards exist, while the markets are closed to cdmaOne in Europe. They tried to portray this as a performance issue; but now they are learning that there is not a performance advantage and even their vendor is abandoning the 4.096 parameters. They too have lost credibility. Instead of constructively working on this issue they spun release after release. I had the GSM MOU interested in resolving this issue in February of this year (I flew to France in a secret meeting to work a compromise), but the GSM NA group in their infinite wisdom had the issue tabled. The MOU could not address the issue. Well, GSM NA is getting what they asked for -- a delay, one that could mean that they have NO 3G evolution path. The water is rising on the island of GSM in the US and they have no one else to blame but themselves. I have no idea how they explain this to the investment community. They thought they could use this as a way to slow down Sprint and other cdmaOne operators. What faulty logic! While they might delay Sprint and others slightly, their gamesmanship has ensured that GSM customers will not have a growth path to 3G in the US. Do you really think this IPR issue is going to be ignored in the US. I can tell you Washington is all over this. Oh well, perhaps GSM NA can migrate to IS 136 or IDEN or dust off the old savior.... remember this one.... E-TDMA?
Meanwhile cdmaOne evolution is progressing at a blistering pace. The CDG has done a great job working with the TIA to ensure the timely delivery of the 1xRTT(1.25 MHz channel). Look for this early in 1999, with trials very soon. CdmaOne will be the high-speed wireless internet connection. We are micro-managing the progress on this one. It will be the future of wireless, 3G or not.
So with that I wish you all a great holiday season. I enjoy your insights and your enthusiasm. Whether we know it or not we are all a part of an important movement, one that will have profound implications on the future of communications and computing.
Look for more on the CDG's website www.cdg.org. and keep on slugging.
Perry LaForge |
