Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (11791)	5/22/2001 10:05:01 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 34857

Why? ---------- "They (the problems) were (solved) in IS-95A weren't they, Ben." Yes. In a totally different context. One company, in control of a specification, developing a technology - without the politics of committee based proceedings - without members' competitive self interests outweighing interests in best technology. "This (changes to the UMTS standards) will go on, through the various revs, for a long long time, just as these types of changes went on through the various phases of GSM standards development, that has resulted in worldwide GSM proliferation." Different world now than then. Now, within 3GPP, there are geometrically more players. Geometrically more complex political dynamics. Geometrically more opportunities for bad technology to be integrated into specifications. Geometrically more proprietary contributions to the process. Geometrically more proposals for proprietary corrections and modifications to standards. An inability to test or confirm science prior to inclusion in standards specifications. With members' priorities clear - to increase their advantage with the standard first and foremost. Committee based standards development has changed since the inception of GSM - and dynamics are different now for UMTS than they were for GSM then. I recently read an article (for which I can frustratingly can not now find the link) accounting the GSM wars. There were only 2 factions, from generally different geographic regions, proposing 2 different flavors of GSM, for which the respective parties perceived respective technologic advantages as regards their research and development. The decision between the 2 was perceived at the time as political, with the winning faction having historically better contacts. I do recall that German vendors were part of the defeated faction. It's not hard to guess who was part of the winning one. After the winning flavor was determined, GSM was free to develop, with the influence of dramatically fewer participants, and only a few dominant giants wrestling to divvy up the spoils - with no possible alternate technologies, and no object lessons from alternate, superior performing technologies elsewhere in the world. Now, there are alternate flavors within imt2000 to Europe's UMTS. Now, there are object lessons of superior performing technologies elsewhere in the world. The dynamics are not at all the same. "...(standard problems will be resolved) Because EVERY major telecommunications vendor in the world is participating in the development of the standard, and participating in its commercialization." I view this as potentially it's greatest liability. EVERY major major telecommunications vendor in the world is also trying to push, pull, tug and modify the standard with its proprietary contributions, corrections and modifications every month within 3GPP, with these corrections and modifications receiving the same scant scrutiny as the original standard (to be further modified with additional corrections and modifications next month).... 3GPP's size and voluminous member roster has become its greatest asset as a political entity. 3GPP's size and voluminous member roster has become its greatest liability in creating viable technology. This is one very important way that standards development has changed since the inception of GSM - the destructive effects of scale. "The process works." The process worked. "I can't help but notice that the meeting attendee list at major 3GPP2 meetings are pretty sparse, compared to 3GPP. Since you are into "why" ... Why the lack of interest?" 3GPP2 continues to accept new members. Of course, compared to 3GPP, membership is small. Vendors flock to 3GPP because they perceive, rightly, that their opportunity to influence standards with their proprietary technology is far greater, as the process of building standards is far less rigorous in 3GPP. 3GPP has become something of a free for all. Contributions are vetted through a political process (no time for anything more) with approval contingent on political actions of committees, factions and cliques. Much like you, vendors also congregate with the majority on the inference that the majority must be true and correct and on track and on schedule. "What is your take on the article about 1xRTT in the Korea eTimes last week?" MSM5000. Also, the eTimes makes entertaining reading, in no small part because they have a bent toward sensation. I would be interested to see a similar account in the Korea Herald or the Korea Times. <I<"Do you think that 1xEV-DO (particularly when shared with will debug quicker?)" Infinitely. Time was taken for the technology to be tested and verified prior to inclusion in the specification. This is standard procedure within 3GPP2. The cultural and procedural chasm between 3GPP and 3GPP2 for constructing a specification is made evident by recent correspondence within 3GPP2 regarding 1xevdv development, which is behind schedule. MOT/NOK/TI/Philips (who are far more at home in 3GPP) are clearly frustrated with the prospect of cross verifying the science behind proposals prior to constructing the standard, wish to simply assure 3GPP2 that 1xtreme is the "best-in-class" standard for 1xEV-DV and propose having it accepted as the foundation technology without further deliberation. In doing so, schedules can then be easily met. But who can say what the specification would be worth? Within 3GPP, this concern simply doesn't appear to exist. "Do you think the MSM5105 will enable a satisfactory AOD/VOD experience?" Yes. Before the end of the year. "How do you think Qualcomm will fare developing chipsets to a standard (standards) for a technology they did not develop ... for virtually the first time?" Quite well. GSM is a known quantity - and as you've stated, it's evolved for a long time. Everyone can do GSM. So can Q.