Though most are based on some form of wideband Code Division Multiple Access technology, the proposals submitted to the International Telecommunication Union last month suggest a tough road toward achieving the family of systems concept to allow for global roaming, let alone convergence of W-CDMA with cdmaOne technology.
The ITU has until March to figure out how to converge the 10 proposal variations. Based on experiences with standards bodies to date, some see little hope for extensive convergence. A chance for a family of standards could be to create one family for Interim Standard-41 networks and one for GSM-based networks, suggest some.
“We have not seen, with the exception of Japan and Korea, much flexibility, particularly in Europe and the U.S. My guess is that the ITU will be deadlocked,” said Steve Goreham, director of standards and third-generation business development with Motorola Inc.
Europe’s standards body, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, pushed ahead with its W-CDMA proposal despite being informed by Qualcomm Inc. that the company owned essential intellectual property rights to the technology and would not license them unless convergence with cdmaOne technology was achieved. Japan left the door open to cdmaOne, but officially chose W-CDMA. The United States submitted four proposals, two encompassing W-CDMA along with W-cdmaOne and UWC-136. Efforts to converge the CDMA proposals have failed in the United States, with existing GSM operators claiming convergence would give existing cdmaOne carriers a competitive advantage.
“I don’t see any real benefit to anyone but Qualcomm on cdmaOne convergence,” said Eric Ensor, president of BellSouth Mobility DCS, a GSM PCS operator in the Southeast. “Our belief is that the U.S. decided for PCS licensees to have multiple standards. That process seems to have worked very well … We believe W-CDMA is where we ought to go. It works well for everyone, but doesn’t work well in terms of IPR protection.”
Carriers’ comments
ITU officials say convergence of cdmaOne with W-CDMA now depends on carriers’ participation in the process and their desire for convergence. And it’s a mixed bag.
AirTouch Communications Inc. in recent months has met with carriers and vendors from around the world to converge the two proposals with little success. Most GSM carriers around the world want the fastest chip rate possible, which is too fast to accommodate for backward compatibility to cdmaOne networks.
“We have 35 carriers in the CDMA Development Group and 240 carriers in the GSM MoU,” said Craig Farrill, vice president and strategic technology officer with AirTouch. “Trying to get them to agree is challenging work … This is the first time in human history there has ever been a common radio standard being created around the world.”
“As a group, we are still pushing for convergence, but not at any cost,” said Perry LaForge, executive director of the CDG. “In some camps, there is disillusionment. We are moving weary-eyed toward the process. There is so much gamesmanship.”
Accusations
L.M. Ericsson, one of the largest GSM vendors in the world and a long-time foe of cdmaOne technology, has been accused of strong-arming the standards process in Europe and purposely making the W-CDMA proposal incompatible with cdma-One in order to leverage its investments around the world. But Ericsson says W-CDMA technology is what the majority of its European and Asian customers want.
“We are simply listening to the market and supplying what the market needs. There is huge support amongst the majority of operators,” said Ake Persson, vice president of marketing and sales with Ericsson Mobile Radio Systems in Stockholm, Sweden. “We have deliberately decided that we shall not burden the new technology with any requirement for backward compatibility on the air-interface level. That’s only because it’s a major leap. If you converge with any second-generation standard, that would be to accept a degrading of the standard in terms of capacity, in terms of number of capabilities that are built into W-CDMA, interfrequency handoff and hierarchical cell structures along with others that are very important in order to build efficient networks in a flexible way.
“It’s a tough call to ask the market to sacrifice some of the important new capabilities only to accommodate backward compatibility to one single second-generation standard.”
Convergence proponents say no performance difference exists when tacking on backward compatibility.
ETSI, in particular, has been a large sticking point for convergence proponents, who say the standards body has refused to discuss the possibility. ETSI could influence the way the rest of the world moves toward third-generation technology. While Qualcomm, the CDG and others claim cdmaOne proposals purposely were shelved in ETSI’s standards process, Ericsson claims all participants had an opportunity before January to submit their cdmaOne proposals to ETSI for consideration.
“The proposals being put forward by certain vendors at this late stage is a surprise to us. Not only to us, but everyone who has been involved in this process. There have been numerous occasions where other proposals could have been put forward. The time ran out. It’s a procedure issue,” said Persson. “If you participate, you can submit proposals, and if its supported by others, it becomes a work item and the process is then drafted.”
LaForge said Ericsson’s claim is an excuse. Qualcomm, in particular, is alarmed that ETSI will forever close its doors on
cdmaOne technology. Chairman Irwin Jacobs recently traveled to Europe to build consensus with operators and remind Europe that its refusal to consider cdmaOne technology could turn into a trade dispute. (See related interview with Jacobs beginning on Page 9.) Sources say ETSI is beginning to rethink its position.
IPR rights
At any rate, Qualcomm holds a trump card in the whole third-generation debate. Many industry insiders agree that the cdmaOne champion owns vital patents to W-CDMA technology, and it’s clear the company will not license them unless convergence is achieved. Sources say this is the sticking point for Ericsson, the only major vendor that has not licensed cdma-One technology. It could agree to convergence if it had to pay little or nothing for Qualcomm’s IPRs. The ITU must come up with technologies that are free of IPR hurdles.
Ericsson chose not to comment on the IPR issue, but said Qualcomm’s position was a very unusual stance. Persson reiterated that if the majority of GSM operators wanted cdmaOne technology, Ericsson would build networks based on cdma-One technology.
“We’re not religious,” said Persson. “If 85 percent of the operators today are saying we would like to see WCDMA more than anything else, how could you possibly impose something other than what they really want?”
