Siemens and Alcatel did not initially back W-CDMA, because they fought for their own, TDMA-based 3G solution. However, after the ETSI vote selected W-CDMA, both S and A announced in press releases that they respect the ETSI decision and will back a single European solution. I wouldn't expect them to sprinkle rose petals on W-CDMA, since it defeated the Siemens/Alcatel proposal for 3G... it's enough that they seem to tacitly support it.
This B-CDMA seems to be the Korean revenge on Qualcomm. They can't wiggle out of the IS-95 IPR payments... but they can attempt a Hail Mary run to outflank Qualcomm with B-CDMA. I think it's really interesting that Nokia is now showing support. I don't see why there wouldn't be room for W-CDMA as the mobile solution and B-CDMA as the fixed solution. This way, if W-CDMA bogs down in a legal fight, the B-CDMA development can continue independently.
There is so much maneuvering going on to short-circuit Qualcomm: Ericsson fights the Qcom claims on W-CDMA IPR, Koreans and now some European companies try to boost B-CDMA, some GSM operators are using GPRS to boost the ordinary GSM network data transmission rates above 100 kbps, some GSM operators are opting for HSCSD to deliver video streaming for their networks. GPRS and HSCSD seem to be "2,5G" solutions that attempt to realize most of the benefits of 3G without the exorbitant costs of building W-CDMA networks. It will be extremely interesting to see whether the "2,5G" benefits can be achieved by simply revamping the existing GSM networks. GSM could deliver WWW faster than current home modems by next winter if everything goes as planned.
I like the new direction this thread is taking... it seems only appropriate that more room is used to discuss perhaps the most compelling novel phenomenon in the mobile telecom field. I'm leaving this comment open to interpretation.
Tero
|
