To: J. Kerner who wrote (21016 ) 1/8/1999 8:40:00 PM From: Ruffian Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
ITU UPDATE> From the January 11, 1999 issue of Wireless Week ITU: The Union That Cried Wolf? By Caron Carlson WASHINGTON--Early last month, the International Telecommunication Union gave Ericsson Inc. and Qualcomm Inc. an ultimatum: If the manufacturers did not resolve intellectual property rights disputes over third-generation standards by Dec. 31, their technologies would be dismissed from further consideration. The deadline passed without resolution, but the threat may prove empty. Having issued deadlines and an ultimatum that were ignored, the ITU declared a deadlock and is now scrambling to prevent a backfire. If the union dismissed code division multiple access proposals and focuses solely on time division multiple accessas it threatened to do last monthit will appear out of sync with much of the world's marketplace. Recommending only TDMA when many markets select CDMA could diminish the union's influence while elevating the importance of regional standards bodies. One way around the predicament would be to revise the Dec. 31, 1998, deadline. However, the union cannot change rules outside of a membership meeting, according to ITU Counsellor Fabio Leite, and the next such meeting is scheduled for early March. Changing the rules at that time could mean altering the entire 3G schedule, because the ITU planned to make its recommendation at the end of March. Alternatively, a special membership meeting could be convened earlier. Between now and March, technical experts will study the potential for converging the various proposals and will discuss options at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur Feb. 2-5. A literal reading of the Dec. 31 deadline suggests that the experts may not study the CDMA-based proposals in that arena, but not everyone is reading the deadline literally. "We have a complex legal problem here," Leite said. "A literal or straightforward interpretation is that we have to neglect these [CDMA] technologies. However, there are legal interpretations that say only the pure rules of the ITU are binding." Leite emphasized that the ITU recently received numerous statements of support from operators and manufacturers around the world. CDMA proponents have not revealed any concern over their technologies' future, within or without the ITU. "This doesn't mean CDMA proposals cannot be resubmitted after the IPR issues are resolved," said Perry LaForge, chairman of the CDMA Development Group, adding that he suspects the ITU will modify its 3G process. It is possible that the union could proceed with the TDMA proposals on schedule and address CDMA proposals later, he said. For TDMA proponents, any scenario disrupting the overall 3G schedule is troubling. "In a fair world, the ITU would dismiss the CDMA proposals," said Paul Meche, chairman for the Universal Wireless Communications Consortium. "These [CDMA] guys are deficient ... Those parties that participated on schedule and in good faith should not be adversely impacted." Extended deadlines and prolonged uncertainty regarding the technologies that will be included by the ITU impose costs on everyone, he said. UWCC is not taking a rigid position nor is it insisting the ITU sustain the Dec. 31, 1998, deadline. "If we can get protection in a few areas in the [standards document], we think we can handle the risk going forward a little while longer, probably until the end of February," Meche said. "As long as [the CDMA camp's] problems do not affect our schedule, the ITU process or the publication of the standards, our members seem to be indifferent. Let the other guys continue to shoot themselves in the foot." The ITU is expected to announce its plans for moving forward on the 3G process this week.