|
(COMTEX) Despite Compromise, 56K Battle Not Over Yet
Despite Compromise, 56K Battle Not Over Yet
Jan 5, 1998 (INTERNET WEEK, Vol. 4, No. 1) -- Just when you thought
it was safe to buy a 56K remote access server (RAS) concentrator box,
Internet Week has learned a draft specification agreed to by major
manufacturers may not be chiseled in granite, as vendors had hoped.
The industry representatives tasked with achieving compromise on a 56K
standard at last month's meeting of International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) Study Group 16 in Orlando, Fla., announced they had finally
reached consensus on the specification-to- be.
But, engineers from 3Com [COMS] and Rockwell Semiconductor Systems
[ROK] are each claiming victory, that their intellectual property
dominates the 56K standard.
Continued jockeying could delay action on a standard even longer, and
the lack of ISP and consumer confidence in 56K gear will almost
certainly cut further into modem makers' profits .
The standard appears to lean toward 3Com modem operations, but
naturally Rockwell says the reverse is actually true.
If actually settled by the ITU group this month, the final agreement
would mean manufacturers of connectivity gear could sell a standardized
modem product to ISPs previously forced to choose between incompatible
56K Flex (Rockwell/Ascend [ASND]) or X2 (3Com) solutions. Additionally,
ISPs using existing 56K boxes - and there are many in place worldwide -
will theoretically receive a free software upgrade to the spec.
Experts say a market heretofore asphyxiated by counterproductive
competitive maneuvering would breath for the first time.
"The remote access industry was paralyzed in 1997, it saw a major
revenue drop-off," said Brad Baldwin, director of remote access
research at International Data Corporation (IDC). The analyst said the
market went from $2.76 billion in 1996 to a projected $3.3 billion in
1997 - a 19 percent growth. "I point my finger squarely at the Flex/X2
issue," Baldwin said.
Baldwin was not surprised to learn that Rockwell and 3Com are still
battling to win a marketing advantage. "If this standard comes out,
I'll be surprised. I still think there's room for some sort of glitch
to happen," Baldwin said.
The seemingly endless bickering between the two companies has gone
beyond healthy competition and has seriously stunted the growth of the
remote access marketplace; Baldwin said a standard is desperately
needed in order for the sales of 56K modems and client- side boxes to
flourish.
It is puzzling to many, given the clear advantages of adopting an
industry-wide standard free of intellectual property claims, why
engineers on both sides are still insisting their side is the "clear
winner" and claims to the contrary are "lies." At the ITU meeting, a
compromise favoring 3Com's X2 technology and a "contribution" by
Motorola [MOT] (but including some of Rockwell's Flex elements) was
presented by Intel [INTC] in a document signed by 20 other
manufacturers.
Dead on Arrival?
After two secret ballots the proposed compromise survived. Study
Group 16, Question 23 chairman (or "rapporteur") Les Brown of Motorola
refuted analysts' doubts about the draft standard's chances for
ratification.
"We have a technically stable documentI'm extremely confident we're
going to get this thing determined at the January meeting in Geneva,
Switzerland," he said.
Brown acknowledged that there were attempts to bump Motorola's
contribution to the spec in favor of Rockwell intellectual property.
3Com sources say Rockwell's representatives loudly denounced the
Intel-proposed compromise, voting against it. Rockwell officials
refused to reveal their vote on the issue.
Participants in the ITU study group say the debate has invoked a
strong emotional response in them, which is perplexing given that
Rockwell's Flex and 3Com's X2 technologies aren't terribly different.
When pressed, both sides concede this is true.
"There are subtle technical differences but Flex and X2 are very
similar," said Glen Griffith, who represented Rockwell at the ITU think
sessions.
While vehemently denying Griffith's insistence that Rockwell's
technology firmly dominates the 56K standard, 3Com officials don't pass
up a chance to nail their competitor.
"The critical issue coming up is the software upgradability of the
Flex platform," said Neil Clemmons, VP of marketing at 3Com. While that
may be true, his Rockwell counterpart doubts it and others say it is
unlikely to be an issue.
Another IDC analyst, Abner Germanow, said it would be "a p.r.
nightmare" if Flex is hard to upgrade. "The market doesn't need that
right now, and I don't think it would help 3Com either."
Under pressure, 3Com's Clemmons reversed his spin on the agreement,
having said earlier that 3Com's Total Control client-side 56K RAS box
was the "clear winner" in the fight to get a standard.
"This wasn't a win for X2 or Flex, this was a compromisewe want to get
the product out there," he said. The latest consensus backs that.
"The fact that this is still a story means it's a painful situation
for everybody, and it means manufacturers need to get on with their
lives and sell some product," Germanow said. (Brad Baldwin, IDC,
650/962-6473; Les Brown, Motorola, 905/507-7361; Neil Clemmons, 3Com,
847/676-7010; Abner Germanow, IDC, 508/935-4146)
-0-
Copyright Phillips Publishing, Inc.
*** end of story ***
|
