SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: dougjn who wrote (10985)6/1/1998 1:44:00 AM
From: Caxton Rhodes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
ETSI and Qualcomm may haggle over IPR
CINEWS
May 26, 1998

By Lynnette Luna

The European Telecommunications Standards Institute may be at a crossroads now that Qualcomm
Inc. has outlined the terms under which it will grant intellectual property rights to wideband Code
Division Multiple Access technology.

ETSI in January chose W-CDMA technology, based on a Global System for Mobile
communications platform, as a third-generation technology choice for mobile networks and has
been determining which companies own key IPR to the new specification. While other vendors have
indicated they will cooperate in offering up their IPRs under ETSI policy, Qualcomm in April said it
would do so only if the ETSI proposal is converged with W-cdmaOne, a wideband technology
based on Interim Standard-95 technology. This solution provides for backward compatibility.
Qualcomm is an innovator and license-holder of cdmaOne technology, which has yet to make an
entrance into Europe. Qualcomm claims to hold key patents to CDMA technology regardless of
bandwidth.

ETSI, backed by the powerful GSM MoU Association, so far has resisted heavy lobbying efforts
from U.S. manufacturers and interest groups that want to see a converged proposal come out of
ETSI. Convergence, proponents say, results in economies of scale for products and components,
and many argue GSM-centric Europe is working to protect the interests of its own vendors.

ETSI, along with standards bodies in the United States and Japan, must submit a 3G open standard
to the International Telecommunications Union by June 30. The ITU is looking to institute a single
world standard that would provide for global roaming and high-speed data rates, among other
things.

Qualcomm indicated in its April letter that it believes some companies are attempting to make
W-CDMA purposefully incompatible with cdmaOne technology. The efforts to accomplish
compatibility, said Qualcomm, appear to result in a W-CDMA standard that reduces performance
and lowers quality and spectrum efficiency.

Qualcomm outlined several technical changes that must be made to ETSI's proposed standard,
including lowering the chip rate from 4.0 Mcps to 3.68 Mcps for 5-megahertz bandwidth. The chip
rate has become the point of contention for many who do not want to converge W-CDMA with
W-cdmaOne technology. They argue a lower chip rate will compromise system quality, while
convergence proponents say no technical problems exist in lowering the rate.

ETSI has given Qualcomm 90 days to clarify whether or not it is prepared to grant licenses
according to the terms of its IPR policy, which simply requires manufacturers to grant licenses on
fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions for manufacturing, selling or repairing
equipment.

``They just want a yes or no answer, and in asking for that, they're obligating us to say no,'' said
Dan Pegg, senior vice president of public affairs with Qualcomm. ``Certainly going forward,
convergence is in everyone's best interest. The marketplace would be the greatest beneficiary of
that. A single standard for worldwide roaming is really what the end user wants, and it seems rather
short-sided to protect old technologies and existing markets and deny a solution that would create
much larger markets for everyone.''

Whether ETSI will compromise is unclear. The standards body could not be reached for comment
despite repeated attempts. ETSI must present a proposal to the ITU that is clear of any IPR
hurdles.

Some people argue that L.M. Ericsson and others may hold licenses that would preclude
Qualcomm's intellectual property rights.

Ericsson is the only major vendor that has not licensed IS-95 technology from Qualcomm, and
Qualcomm has indicated that all its current IS-95 CDMA licensees would be granted access to its
intellectual property used in the third-generation standard without being charged any additional
upfront fees. This could give IS-95 licensees that are ETSI members incentive to get the issue
resolved. But Ericsson, as many have pointed out, has a strong influence with its GSM carriers in
Europe, and Ericsson says the majority of operators worldwide want to move ahead with ETSI's
W-CDMA proposal and aren't interested in backward compatibility.

The million-dollar question is whether a huge technical disadvantage really exists when converging
the two technologies, or if the entire issue is simply political posturing by companies that want to
gain an upper hand and preserve their current investments around the world. It may come down to
compromises in the 11th hour.

``As you go to 3G, why would you not want to have backward compatibility with cdmaOne?
You're expanding the market. That justification would have to be very strong,'' said Ira Brodsky,
president of Datacomm Research Inc. in St. Louis, Mo. ``You would have to show how that really
translates into a key edge for the consumer. You need to translate that into real issues of throughput
and coverage, or network costs, anything along those lines.''

Bo Piekarski, vice president of development and strategic planning with Ericsson Inc. in Dallas, said:
``With the issue of harmonization, the bottom line is that the majority of the world's operators
support a W-CDMA proposal that is a more advanced version of CDMA than the current version.
And they don't want the technical issues and baggage of having to have backward compatibility of
any standard, be it GSM, D-AMPS or IS-95. Plans are to have dual-mode phones to solve this.''

Piekarski maintains major differences remain between the two CDMA proposals that will help the
end user, including increased range of handsets with the use of an adaptive antennas and the ability
to mix micro and macro cells.

``The problem is, [the cdmaOne group] has not submitted enough technical contributions in these
other standards bodies,'' he said.

The cdmaOne camp maintains that many operators are interested in convergence as long as the
proposal is not technically disadvantaged. Japan's standards body has indicated there was no
technical reason not to adopt some of the key parameters-specifically the chip rate-specified
within the w-cdmaOne specification, the CDMA Development Group has noted.

Similar arguments over convergence are occurring in the United States, which is likely now to
submit multiple standards to the ITU. Qualcomm's claims to IPRs also could become an issue in the
United States because one Telecommunications Industry Association working group plans to push
forward with W-CDMA. Japan reportedly is looking for a way to harmonize the two CDMA
proposals.

The continued feud over standards will only hurt carriers, say analysts.

``Unless there is a good feeling of some single standard in place that will give their suppliers
economies of scales on a worldwide basis, carriers will take a wait-and-see attitude,'' said Bob
Egan, research director with the Gartner Group in Stamford, Conn.



To: dougjn who wrote (10985)6/1/1998 1:45:00 AM
From: Caxton Rhodes  Respond to of 152472
 
From the June 1, 1998 issue of Wireless Week:

Vendors, Groups To Testify On 3G

By Peggy Albright

The third-generation wireless standards debate will receive its first hearing before Congress
this Thursday.

Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., chair of the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on
Technology, has scheduled a two-hour hearing to review, in detail, the debate surrounding
efforts to create a 3G standard, according to a spokesperson for the committee.

Thursday's hearing is part of a session on the impact of the international standards-setting
process on the digital economy, which is evaluating how the process has worked for U.S.
users and manufacturers of electronics.

June 30 is the deadline for submission of 3G technology proposals to the International
Telecommunication Union, which aims to identify a single global standard by Sept. 30.

The Telecommunications Industry Association and Qualcomm Inc. said they have been
invited to testify. Ericsson Inc. and the Information Technology Industry Council also appear
on the witness list.

Dan Pegg, senior vice president at Qualcomm, said he did not know what Qualcomm's
comments would be. However, he said, Qualcomm continues to oppose the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute's proposal for a single air interface based on a
version of wideband code division multiple access that is not backward compatible with
Interim Standard-95 CDMA or cdmaOne. That approach presents a "non-tariff barrier"
against cdmaOne "and all those who have licensed and paid good money to be licensees," he
said.

Mike Houghton, a spokesperson for GSM North America, said he couldn't confirm whether
the group had been approached or asked to testify. However, he said, the group "would
welcome the opportunity to express the opinion of the U.S. GSM operators. GSM North
America supports multiple standards, and we believe that the marketplace should decide
what those standards should be." He added, "But that does not mean that we support the
effort to harmonize W-CDMA with w-cdmaOne."

Chris Pearson, a spokesman for the Universal Wireless Communications Consortium, which
represents time division multiple access vendors and network operators, said UWCC had not
been invited to testify. "We're supportive of open competition and open standards, and
wherever we're asked to go to discuss this, we would," he said.

Morella scheduled the hearing after requesting opinions from selected government officials
about the 3G standards development process. Among other things, she asked the officials if
single or multiple standards would best serve U.S. interests in a global marketplace and if the
international standards-setting process gives unfair advantage to European companies.

In his response to Morella, FCC Chairman William Kennard said, "Two to four proposals
are likely to be advanced by the United States," and that the U.S. government is "likely to
support multiple standards unless U.S. industry reaches consensus on a single standard in the
coming months."

Kennard, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Communications and Information Larry Irving all said they do not believe
American companies have the same influence in the development of European standards as
European-based companies have in the development of U.S. standards.



To: dougjn who wrote (10985)6/1/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
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