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: DaveMG who wrote (11141)6/4/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: David Andersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Stolen from the Motley Fool Board: (Part 2 to follow)

Subject: Testimony before Congress 01 (6/4/98)
Date: 6/4/98 3:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Horselist
Message-id:

Renby, Ajit, Chaz, Mike and all, I would like to share the following information with you. Please enjoy your reading.

Excerpt from house.gov

Testimony of John Major
Executive Vice President, QUALCOMM Incorporated
Before the House Subcommittee on Technology
June 4, 1998
ÿ
Thank you, Chairwoman Morella, Congressman Barcia and members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today on the subject of
third-generation wireless standards.
Headquartered in San Diego, QUALCOMM develops, manufactures, markets and
operates advanced communications systems and products based on its proprietary
digital wireless technologies. One of these technologies, Code Division Multiple
Access or CDMA, is now marketed around the world under the trade name cdmaOne.
CdmaOne is an American invention, and is the fastest growing digital wireless
standard in the world. Less than three years after its first commercial
deployment in Hong Kong, cdmaOne is the dominant digital technology in the
United States, Korea and Mexico, and has been deployed throughout Asia, Latin
America, Africa, Russia and Eastern Europe, with commercial launches in Japan
and Australia later this year.
QUALCOMM, along with other CDMA equipment manufacturers, has worked with the
CDMA Development Group, a trade industry organization representing 91 CDMA
operators and manufacturers, on a third-generation version of cdmaOne that will
be known as Wideband cdmaOne. Wideband cdmaOne has been submitted to various
standards bodies around the world for consideration and eventual
standardization. Wideband cdmaOne will allow consumers to send and receive more
than 2 Mbps of data and access the Internet, while continuing to enjoy the best
voice quality of any digital wireless technology.
QUALCOMM believes in certain principles with regard to the process of setting a
third-generation standard.
First, we believe that the world's standards bodies, under the auspices of the
ITU, should move toward a converged third-generation standard that respects
existing second-generation investments made by wireless operators around the
world by insuring backwards compatibility with those systems, and allows for
world-wide roaming;
We believe that the third-generation standards process should recognize and
respect the intellectual property rights of patent holders;
We believe that markets, rather than governments, should guide the timing and
deployment of third-generation services;
And, we believe that standards and technology decisions should be made based on
what is best for wireless customers and operators, not what is best for wireless
manufacturers or governments. We believe in full and fair competition among
technologies. We do not believe in protectionism or in industrial policy that
places manufacturers ahead of consumers.
QUALCOMM is not alone in espousing these principles. They represent the
historical approach that the US Government and US standards bodies have taken
with respect to wireless telecommunications standards. Chairman Kennard's
responses to the questions you posed, Chairwoman Morella, are consistent with
these points.
Recent actions of the European Commission, the European Technology Standards
Institute (ETSI) and others promoting the W-CDMA standard do not meet these
principles. In January of this year, ETSI announced its decision to submit a
European version of a third-generation CDMA standard to the ITU, known as
W-CDMA, which adopts many of the features of the CDMA air interface, but has
been made intentionally incompatible with cdmaOne.
A small group of manufacturers and their partner governments whose actions are
motivated by industrial policy rather than consumer choice appear to be
operating in concert, outside of the ITU consensus-building process, to set
preemptively a standard for third-generations service. These efforts would place
the majority of US operators and manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in
the global wireless market.
QUALCOMM believes that all parties can and should work together toward a
converged third-generation standard that treats existing investments fairly and
provides significant benefits for operators and consumers. I want to assure this
Committee that QUALCOMM takes its obligations as a corporate citizen in this
global market very seriously. Our senior management is willing to devote its
personal time and attention to finding a sound solution for the introduction of
a third-generation standard that will benefit everyone. We welcome discussions
with both companies and governments involved in the process. The obstacles to
this goal are not insurmountable, but our common task will be easier if the
European Commission and European manufacturers reconsider the philosophies that
have restricted their markets to competition and limited consumer choice.
Historical Perspective
Before I continue, let me provide a bit of background on the wireless standards
process that will help you better understand our current dispute.
Around the world, standards are developed by wireless manufacturers, operators
and, in countries other than the United States, government regulators. In
addition to ETSI and the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB)
in Japan, major standards bodies involved in the development of third-generation
standards include the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and
Committee T1/P1 in the United States, and the TTA in South Korea. The ITU also
sets standards, but frequently attempts to coordinate the standards decisions of
these regional groups.
In 1982, the European Conference of Posts and Telecommunications (CEPT)
administrations formed a committee known as the Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM) to
develop a second-generation pan-European cellular system. The main reason for
the CEPT action was that its member countries were using a number of
incompatible analog cellular standards. It is important to remember that the GSM
was not trying to develop an advanced cellular system; it was only trying to
develop one that would facilitate pan-European roaming. Innovative technologies
that offered significant technical benefits, such as CDMA, were rejected because
the European planners concluded that such systems were not mature enough to meet
the planned 1991 target date for GSM. The operators from the CEPT countries
signed a Memorandum of Understanding, later called the GSM MoU, in which they
all agreed to deploy the new GSM standard in the same frequencies to facilitate
roaming between European countries. In 1989, CEPT transferred the GSM committee
to ETSI. ETSI completed the specifications of the system in the late 1980s and
the commercial service was initiated in 1992.
Once Europe had its common cellular standard, it changed the game from
legitimate technical standard setting activities to an exclusionary industrial
policy that would enable European manufacturers to market GSM around the world
from a protected home market base. The first thing it did was to redefine the
term GSM. The new name was Global System for Mobile communications. It then
changed the nature of the GSM MoU, expanding the membership to include all
operators "committed to building and implementing GSM-based systems and
government regulators/administrations which issue commercial mobile
telecommunications licenses," and broadening its scope and objective to promote
GSM as a standard around the world.
More significantly, it embarked on policy of denying competitors to GSM entry in
the European market. Nowhere was this policy more evident than in the emerging
personal communications services (PCS) marketplace. When the various European
governments began allocating spectrum for PCS, each had the opportunity to allow
the new operators to offer service using any available technology including
CDMA. Did they encourage ETSI to open its process to consider new technologies
such as CDMA? Did they even allow the new operators to use non-ETSI
technologies? They did neither. Instead they urged ETSI to upband the now old
GSM technology to the new frequency band and mandated that the new operators use
this upbanded GSM technology.
Why? Europe already had met its goal of pan-European roaming by deploying GSM
for cellular systems. The introduction of PCS was intended to foster competition
among service providers. What better way to foster competition than allow
multiple operators to offer services through multiple technologies? The reason
was that Europe did not want to allow a non-European technology to compete with
GSM. Such competition would have weakened the position of the GSM manufacturers
who would no longer have a protected market at home from which to export
European technology.
By contrast, the United States welcomed competition between digital standards.
TIA standardized GSM for the United States in a few short months. There was no
consideration of protecting the US market from European technologies. The only
consideration was to give the new PCS service providers a wide choice from among
available standards. Today, American consumers benefit from a choice between
cdmaOne, GSM and a third digital option, TDMA. Several other technologies were
also standardized in the United States, but have not seen the same market
success as cdmaOne, GSM and TDMA, including one that was given a huge tax-payer
subsidy in the form of a Pioneer's Preference award yet was never deployed
commercially.
Although the goal of pan-European roaming has been met, ETSI and the European
Community once again are insisting on a single standard for Europe - one that is
incompatible with competing standards like cdmaOne and TDMA. This closed
unilateral standards process ignores and squelches efforts to standardize
non-European technologies for third-generation.
Guiding Principles
At the beginning of my testimony I mentioned some principles that QUALCOMM
believes should guide this process. Let me explain each in turn:
Fairness
It is important that operators that have made investments in their current
generation system have an evolutionary migration path to third-generation. The
W-CDMA approach, unfortunately, fails to provide such a path for cdmaOne and
TDMA operators - including the majority of US cellular and PCS operators and
dozens of others in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Russia and elsewhere. Were
W-CDMA to become the single third-generation standard, and these operators
wanted to provide global roaming for their customers, they would literally have
to rip out the guts of their existing systems and purchase new equipment
compatible with the new standard - coincidentally manufactured by the dominant
European manufacturers.
By contrast, the Wideband cdmaOne approach espoused by QUALCOMM and the vast
majority of US telecommunications equipment manufacturers would present cdmaOne,
TDMA and GSM operators with a clear and fair migration path to third-generation
service. Those who currently deploy IS-95 CDMA will simply add on to their
systems. Operators deploying TDMA or GSM could retain their existing networks
and affordably adopt a cdmaOne interface that will allow them to migrate into
third-generation CDMA.
In an attempt to cast aspersions on the Wideband cdmaOne backward-compatibility
emphasis, the Europeans have characterized their approach as "revolutionary" as
opposed to "evolutionary." Certainly for Europe, the switch to CDMA is
revolutionary. For those who have already embraced cdmaOne, however, a
third-generation standard based on W-CDMA provides few system capabilities that
exceed those currently offered by cdmaOne and its anticipated enhancements.
Certainly, the W-CDMA chip rate proposed offers no improvements to the one
currently used in cdmaOne and offered in Wideband cdmaOne. In fact, the W-CDMA
chip rate reduces system capacity and prevents backward-compatibility with
current cdmaOne systems. This supposedly "revolutionary" European approach
effectively precludes more than half of the world from their "revolution" by not
providing a migration path to the next generation. We believe an inclusive,
evolutionary approach will better serve consumers the world over.
Intellectual Property
Another consistent principle of US policy has been that, simply put,
intellectual property matters. Congress has consistently protected the
intellectual property rights of all companies and has recently taken steps to
protect American companies from software infringement and outright piracy around
the world.
Intellectual property is at the center of the third-generation debate as well.
QUALCOMM holds more than 130 patents relative to CDMA, has approximately 400
patent applications pending around the world, and has licensed 55 companies to
manufacture equipment based on this standard. The only major manufacturer of
wireless equipment in the world who has refused to obtain a license is Ericsson.

Now, the European manufacturers profess that they are developing a variant of
CDMA, which: 1) will provide technical benefits that Wideband cdmaOne will not;
2) will be less costly to consumers because it will not infringe upon QUALCOMM's
patent rights to the same degree as Wideband cdmaOne. These claims are untrue.
The W-CDMA standard offered by ETSI provides no technical advantages to Wideband
cdmaOne and will only raise the cost to consumers. The reason is that W-CDMA
will not provide an evolutionary path for current cdmaOne systems and those
cdmaOne operators will have to deploy entirely new third-generation systems
rather than leverage existing investments in second generation equipment.
Moreover, QUALCOMM has equal claims to intellectual property in both W-CDMA and
Wideband cdmaOne, which means that there is no economic justification based on
intellectual property for choosing one standard over the other.
The Europeans refuse to discuss the technical merits of the Wideband cdmaOne
proposal, choosing instead to frame the debate in terms of QUALCOMM's
intellectual property rights. Their claim is that we are holding hostage
third-generation development with our intellectual property rights in CDMA. The
Europeans' intellectual property argument is merely a red herring, though,
because QUALCOMM is prepared to license our intellectual property on fair and
reasonable terms for third-generation standards that achieve compatibility with
cdmaOne without sacrificing capacity and quality. We have outlined to both ETSI
and ARIB the specific conditions that will achieve this goal and allow us to
license our intellectual property for a third-generation standard.
We would hope that the integrity of intellectual property and the WIPO process
will continue to protect innovators and their inventions. Moreover, we hope that
the standards organizations involved in the development of a third-generation
standard will follow their own policies respecting intellectual property rights.

Big Government
The broader question, of course, is why the European Community is, in effect,
making exclusionary decisions in 1998 about technology deployments that will not
occur until after 2000.
It has been observed that governments rarely make good technology choices. A
decade ago, European governments decided unilaterally to build the future of
data networking on Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) and not on the
Internet. They are still playing catch-up with the rest of the world. Japan
selected an HDTV standard well before the market for that technology had
developed. HDTV-MUSE, as a result, was a disaster. In mobile phones, the
Japanese again moved quickly and unilaterally to select standards that were
incompatible with the rest of the world, in order to gain the early edge in
technology. Those standards are largely abandoned today.
The message of these mistakes is that standards should respond to markets, not
the other way around.
Spectrum policy is another tool that is being used by European governments to
enforce adherence to a GSM third-generation standard. Largely due to the
spectral inefficiencies of GSM, the European Community believes that
third-generation service will require the allocation of new spectrum to
prospective operators. In the United States, the FCC believes that
third-generation service can be accommodated in existing spectrum, largely due
to the advantages in spectrum efficiency offered by CDMA.
Europe, predictably, is moving quickly on new spectrum auctions - the United
Kingdom announced two weeks ago that they plan to auction third-generation
spectrum beginning in early 1999 - well in advance of the IMT-2000 deadline, let
alone the commercial deployment of third-generation services. In this rush to
assign new spectrum, even pro-competitive regulators have bought into a
"Catch-22" logic that blunts competition. For example, the Radio Authority in
the United Kingdom announced that it will not grant a license to any carrier
that plans to use a non-ETSI-approved technology that does not permit
European-wide roaming. Of course, if would-be new entrants sought ETSI approval
for an alternative technology, they would be rejected. New entrants face enough
difficulties without taking on this additional problem. So, they don't.
Regardless of which technology one prefers, I think the Subcommittee would agree
that the granting of new spectrum by governments ought not to be used as a
device to exclude technologies from the European marketplace. Unless someone
stands up to complain, however, that is exactly what the European nations are
prepared to do.
Next Steps
Europe will no doubt continue to race far ahead of consumers in their attempts
to seal off much of the third-generation market to not only QUALCOMM, but to
every operator and manufacturer in the world who is not willing to deploy
European technology. The result would be bad for US wireless manufacturers and
operators and for innovation in the wireless industry.
As I mentioned earlier, QUALCOMM remains hopeful that all parties - including
standards bodies in Asia, the Americas and elsewhere - can agree on a converged
third-generation standard that treats existing investments fairly and provides
significant benefits for operators and consumers. QUALCOMM has engaged
manufacturers, operators and government officials around the world in pursuit of
this goal.
We would ask the Congress and relevant federal agencies - principally the FCC
and the US Trade Representative - to monitor carefully the evolving
third-generation discussion, and insist that the world community follow some of
the basic principles I have outlined here today.




To: DaveMG who wrote (11141)6/4/1998 9:14:00 PM
From: David Andersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Also stolen from the Motley Fool Board. Note the ERICY position on backwards compatibility

Subject: Testimony before Congress 02
Date: 6/4/98 3:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Horselist
Message-id: <1998060422432200.SAA24254@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Renby, Ajit, Chaz, Mike and all, please enjoy your reading.

Excerpt from house.gov

TESTIMONY OF
BO PIEKARSKI
VICE PRESIDENT,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC MARKETING,
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION,
ERICSSON INC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
ÿ
JUNE 4, 1998
ÿ
INTRODUCTION
Good Morning:
Madame Chairwoman Morella, Ranking Member Gordon
and other distinguished members of the House Science Subcommittee on Technology,
Ladies and Gentlemen.
My name is Bo Piekarski. It is an honor to represent Ericsson Inc. before your
Committee today in my role as Vice President of Business Development and
Strategic Marketing for the Wireless Communications Division of Ericsson, Inc.
My testimony will address the principal issues as outlined in your letter of
invitation:
The role of industry standards, in particular the North American and
international wireless standards process, as well as
Ongoing industry-led efforts to create further harmonization of various global
wireless telecommunication standards.
But first, I would like to begin with a few words about Ericsson Inc.
ÿ
ERICSSON GLOBAL
Founded in 1876, LM Ericsson combines global expertise in fixed and mobile
networks, mobile phones and infocom systems to provide leading edge
telecommunications equipment to customers worldwide. LM Ericsson has over
100,000 employees active in more than 130 countries. Sales in 1997 exceeded $21
billion. LM Ericsson is traded publicly on the NASDAQ.
ERICSSON NORTH AMERICA
The market presence of Ericsson Inc. ("Ericsson"), the U.S. subsidiary of LM
Ericsson, dates back to 1902 when we opened our first sales office in New York
City. Today Ericsson is now the largest LM Ericsson subsidiary--a $3 billion
company, equivalent to a Fortune 250, with over 8,000 outstanding employees in
more than 100 locations throughout the United States.
Ericsson's U.S. corporate headquarters are located right in the heart of the
"Telecom Corridor" in Richardson, Texas. We have our major North American
manufacturing locations in Morgan Hill, California and Lynchburg, Virginia where
we manufacture cellular base stations and telephones, digital private radio
systems, high-end RF chips and mobile data systems. Last year, Ericsson exported
over $500 million of this equipment around the world. Our global R&D center for
handsets is in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Ericsson is also proud to
count among our strategic business partners such American industry leaders as
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Bay Networks and Texas
Instruments.
ERICSSON'S COMMITMENT TO STANDARDS
Ericsson's views on standards echo the words of Ronald Grawert, Chairman of the
TIA Board. "Standards are vital to many industries, where equipment and systems
must interconnect and interoperate, but in the telecommunications equipment
area, we cannot exist without standards." The philosophy and practice of
Ericsson has always been to respect market forces, in particular the mobile
operators within a respective country and/or region, in determining which
technologies will operate in their respective market.
As one of the world's leading suppliers of wireless equipment, Ericsson provides
support to customer networks operating in more than 100 countries. The
technology choice of our customers includes three digital standards that operate
in several bands, specifically GSM 900/1800/1900, IS-136 800/1900 (also known as
TDMA in the United States) and PDC, plus analog standards AMPS, NMT, TACS and
network equipment. We also provide numerous "dual mode/dual band" handsets that
enable network roaming between technologies as well as bandwidths. Thus, a
Sprint subscriber in suburban Washington, D.C. can use his/her home cellular
number to make and receive calls while roaming throughout Europe, and the Asia
Pacific region.
To make all this happen, Ericsson actively participates in all key accredited
standards forums on all levels: countrywide, regionally and globally. We support
only those standardization processes that are:
industry led;
allowing for licensing on reasonable terms of any company's proprietary IPRs;
open to all qualified participants: operators and manufacturers;
fair in terms of not favoring one company, region, or technology; and
customer driven in terms of serving customer needs for ease of deployment,
global compatibility with other technologies, cost efficiency, and with
high-quality, feature-rich services for the end user.
Ericsson actively participates in all key industry-led standards and global
regulatory groups including:
ANSI (American National Standards Institute), USA
TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association), USA
ARIB (Association of Radio Industries and Businesses), Japan
TTA (Telecommunications Technology Association), South Korea
ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), Europe
On the international level, all these regional standards organizations work in
close association with the International Telecommunications Union ("ITU"). As
you are probably aware, the ITU, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is an
organization within which governments and the private sector coordinate global
telecom networks and services. The ITU is comprised of 187 member states,
including the United States and Canada, and over 350 sector members, including
all the leading worldwide manufacturers such as Ericsson, Lucent, Motorola,
Qualcomm and Siemens.
ÿ
ÿ
All the member states and relevant sector members actively participate in the
ITU Standards Committees. These Committees:
define the performance requirements of an ITU technology standard,
evaluate candidate technologies submitted to the ITU and
certify technologies as compliant.
The ITU IS NOT, NOR SHOULD IT EVER BE, in the business of selecting and imposing
a single technology for worldwide deployment. Rather, the ITU should continue to
function as the "international good housekeeping seal of technical approval."
The rigorous scrutiny inherent in the ITU process provides member nations,
private operators, government regulators, and manufacturer's confidence that
they can rely on an agreed upon technology to exceed ITU minimum performance
capabilities.
Recently, the ITU has been in the process of evaluating and certifying for an
approval vote of the entire world membership various 3rd generation technology
wireless submissions from around the globe. These submissions are candidates for
the "IMT 2000" family of standards.
IMT 2000
In 1985, ITU began planning for the future, the 3rd generation, of the wireless
communications industry. The initiative was originally called the Future Public
Land Mobile Telecommunications Systems (FPLMTS). Its name was changed in 1996 to
International Mobile Telecommunications 2000 ("IMT 2000"). IMT 2000 technology
requirements have been established to ensure a feature-rich, bandwidth-rich,
interoperable global solution based on multiple technology alternatives.
Specifically, operators around the world will be in a position to provide their
customers higher data rates, greater communication capacities and enhanced
performance to support the emerging multimedia environment via wireless
networks.
Lucent (AT&T), Ericsson, Motorola, Nortel and Qualcomm have all been part of the
IMT 2000 American preparation meetings, dating back to the early 1990s. With the
support of this group, the United States will be submitting to the ITU for
international acceptance and recognition what my colleagues at Lucent
Technologies refer to as the American "3G family of standards," specifically
TDMA/136 HS, GSM/WCDMANA and cdmaOne/Wideband CDMA. This family represents the
next generation development of all three digital standards deployed in the U.S.
market.
I would like to provide you a little background on the first two. I will rely on
my colleague John Major from Qualcomm to comment in-depth on the Wideband CDMA
proposal, as his company is the primary developer and patent holder of this
contribution.
Before I continue, let me first note that the ITU is expected to accept and
approve all three of these contributions along with others from Europe and Asia.
TDMA/136HS (American standard)
Bell Laboratories created the AMPS technology in the mid-1970s. In late 1987,
Ericsson joined other major manufacturers such as Motorola, Lucent and Nortel in
formally supporting our customers' development of the original American TDMA
standard IS-54. This technology continued to evolve and develop through the
standardization process to its current status as the IS-136 digital TDMA
standard.
Today, TDMA networks have been exported to over 30 countries (representing five
continents). The current worldwide subscriber base exceeds 11 million. In the
United States, AT&T Wireless Services, BellSouth and Southwestern Bell are among
the principal TDMA operators. They have over 5 million subscribers on their
networks. Through standards bodies and our involvement in the Universal Wireless
Communications Consortium (UWCC), a global industry organization consisting of
over 100 carriers and vendors, we are actively supporting these operators in
their development of a next generation TDMA/136 HS technology.
ÿ
ÿ
GSM
By 1985, the European Community ("EC") established by mutual agreement a single,
common wireless standard, GSM. The purpose of this agreement was to end the
fractured picture of different systems that were hindering system
interoperability and continent-wide roaming. Ericsson, together with other major
manufacturers from around the world, including Nortel, Motorola, Lucent (AT&T),
Philips, Siemens, Nokia, and Hughes, supported our respective customers in
developing this GSM standard.
In the wake of the 1993 U.S. PCS (1900) auctions, Ericsson supplied a GSM-based
system modified to meet U.S. requirements in this frequency band. Ericsson is
proud of the fact that we successfully installed the first commercial PCS system
in the United States right here in the Washington/Baltimore area for APC--now
Sprint Spectrum. The system has been both a technical and financial success for
our customer.
Today, GSM systems are installed in over 120 countries serving 82 customers with
100,000 new subscribers signing up every day. In the United States, Pacific Bell
Mobile Services, Powertel, Aeriel, Omnipoint, Western Wireless and Sprint
Spectrum are among the new leading operators in the successful deployment of
this technology, which today has passed the 2 million subscriber mark. The GSM
Alliance of North America, comprised of GSM operators with support from the
North American GSM manufacturers community, has successfully developed the North
American standard WCDMA submission to the ITU as the next step in the evolution
of the U.S. GSM standard.
MANUFACTURERS' STATE OF THE INDUSTRY
Today, the latest statistics on worldwide market share for cellular
infrastructure manufacturing provide a positive picture of intense, robust,
worldwide competition. I am pleased to say that the latest Goldman Sachs
wireless industry manufacturing statistics place Ericsson as the world leader
followed by Motorola with 13%, Nortel with 10%, Lucent with 9%, and Nokia with
7%, respectively. The remainder is split among the remaining manufacturers such
as Siemens, Alcatel, Samsung, and Qualcomm.
On the technology side, all three major worldwide technologies, TDMA, GSM and
cdmaOne, are experiencing incredible worldwide growth rates of 34.4%, 21.3% and
35%, respectively, according to the 1997 CTIA report on subscriber growth
figures. According to the TIA, U.S. telecommunication exports grew at a record
setting 24%. This growth rate represents $21 billion of telecommunications
trade, resulting in a U.S. trade surplus of
$5 billion.
The real competitive challenge for all manufacturers in the future development
of 3G networks will come from many non-traditional suppliers. The 3G network,
like all future data communication networks, will be based on Internet Protocols
(IP). The result is that Cisco, IBM, Microsoft and many other computer
information technology network solution providers will have an opportunity to
enter the global wireless infrastructure market. The good news is that this
means more U.S. company development and continued increase in exports of next
generation networks.
HARMONIZATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
As the world gets smaller and the number of cross-continent operators increases,
the need for global standard harmonization takes on increasing significance.
While Ericsson strongly supports these efforts, we also listen to our operators'
need for regional market variations of such a standard in order to protect their
current investments and allow for a transition to more advanced systems capable
of supporting high speed packet data/internet functions.
Thus, we are working closely with the entire U.S. operator community to support
the most beneficial solutions for the majority of operators and customers in the
United States and around the world. As a result, we are at the forefront of
advocating on behalf of our customers to succeed in this endeavor. This support
includes actively participating in a number of industry-led initiatives around
the world. An example of recent success, not rhetoric, in this area of European
and U.S. 3G harmonization was just completed. A number of the worldwide
operators have just announced, with the support of their respective
manufacturers Motorola, Nortel and Ericsson, an agreement on an international
modulation format to support system compatibility. More efforts are underway to
achieve greater harmony. Ericsson will continue to be in the forefront of these
customer-led efforts.
CONCLUSION
A global wireless telecommunications standard that is feature rich and provides
support for high-speed data/multimedia services is what the majority of
operators would like to see deployed worldwide. Such a standard would reduce the
costs of equipment for operators and allow those savings to be passed on to the
end users (consumers). However, as stated earlier, the standard must enable a
smooth transition from all existing digital standards, e.g., TDMA, cdmaOne and
GSM, to help protect all existing investments and the consumers who use the
current systems for a number of years while 3G systems are being deployed.
Boguslaw "Bo" Piekarski
Vice President,
Business Development and Strategic Marketing,
Wireless Communications Division,
Ericsson Inc.
ÿ
Bo Piekarski is Vice President of Business Development and Strategic Marketing,
Wireless Communications Division, Ericsson Inc., which is located in Richardson,
Texas. Mr. Piekarski's responsibilities include strategic planning, marketing,
and developing strategies for Ericsson's 3rd Generation/IMT 2000 activities as
well as using strategic alliances/external technology provisioning to enhance
the company's business solutions.
Mr. Piekarski has held a series of management positions at Ericsson including
director of PCS and manager of Product Management for cellular systems. Before
assuming his current position, he most recently was vice president of the GSM
Business Unit, U.S., where he was responsible for all of Ericsson's GSM
activities including developing Ericsson's strategies, new product
introductions, product management, product planning and technical support.
Prior to joining Ericsson in 1986, Mr. Piekarski worked for Compucon, Inc. as
manager of terrestrial microwave planning. In this position, he was involved in
designing the Chicago cellular system.
Mr. Piekarski holds both a BS and an MS from The University of Michigan.
ÿ



To: DaveMG who wrote (11141)6/5/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Dave:

In Tero I hear jingoism, with Ericsson and the standards setting bodies, the issue is plainly economics. Europe's early adoption of digital telephony, and the notable success of companies such as Ericsson and Nokia, have helped to revitalize moribund Swedish and Finnish economies (and I say this with admiration). It's ironic that Tero should harp on Korea's "devastated" economy when, for example, Korean unemployment is running in the mid single digits while Sweden's comparable metric is in the low double-digits. I guess economic devastation is a relative concept.

With regard to the chip rate issue, I spoke with one of Qualcomm's top engineers (Chuck Wheatley) yesterday and presented the question in as objective a fashion as possible (i.e. how much of QC's position was negotiating posture and how much was fact-based). Chuck offered some highly technical insights that distilled down to one simple conclusion.... Ericsson's proposed W-CDMA was specifically designed to impede insulate GSM markets from an IS-95-based migration to 3G--not because the techniques employed are better or provide some of demonstrable technological benefit to the network operator. Chuck, being the kind of man he is, would not comment on Ericsson's motivation, but he was emphatic about the technical conclusion.

OK, you might say, I simply found another Qualcomm shill to mouth the party line. And you know what, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I, on the other hand, have known Chuck for almost six years and remember (and still appreciate) his careful, concise and accurate comments back in the days when I was debating Frezza over whether or not CDMA would work. Chuck isn't a stock promotor or a politician, he is a meticulous scientist whose word I take at face value.

Given the current war of words, it's very hard to known who to trust. The concepts are technical, the economic consequences are enormous and emotions are running high. However, I have a long and detailed scorecard, which goes back over six years, tracking who said what (and when they said it). This scorecard is my objective record, the bible I use to know who to trust and when. The most powerful comment I can make is that I have invested more than $210mm based on the my confidence in the honor, integrity and candor of people like Chuck Wheatley.

Best Regards,

Gregg