While it’s widely understood that developing technology standards is never an easy road to travel, the recent schism between Intel Corp. and Qualcomm Inc. over the IEEE’s 802.20 Working Group’s activities sets a new standard for companies looking to out-maneuver their competitors and shape the evolution of certain technologies.
In a letter dated June 15, Steve Mills, IEEE Standards Board Chair, stated that as of June 8, the standards board, “directed that all activities of the 802.20 Working Group be temporarily suspended.”
Mills cited two reasons for the suspension. Several appeals filed with the working group have made work in the group “highly contentious,” and an investigation has shown a lack of transparency, possible “dominance” and other irregularities.
Mills explained that the suspension would continue until October, and confirmed that the working group’s plenary July and September meetings would not take place.
Mills added the standards board is obligated to ensure that the draft standard is developed through a fair and open process, and the suspension would allow the board to consider appeals and give participants in the 802.20 Working Group a chance to communicate their perspectives.
That said, consider that 802.20 and 802.16e are similar flavors of mobile wireless broadband access, otherwise known as mobile WiMAX. Both are based on OFDM/OFDMA technology, which Qualcomm acquired the rights to with its $600 million buyout of OFDM technology startup Flarion Technologies Inc. last year.
But make no mistake-802.16e is backed heavily by Intel, while 802.20 is largely supported by Qualcomm.
Jeremy James, director of corporate communications for Qualcomm, pointed out that the 802.20 Working Group received its IEEE charter more than a year before the 802.16e Working Group received its charter. He explained that from its inception, the aim of the 802.20 Working Group was to decide on a standard for mobile OFDM/OFDMA. He asserts that the original aim of the 802.16e Working Group was to develop a standard for “portable” WiMAX, which he said it quite different than mobile WiMAX.
Indeed, the two standards being developed seem oddly similar. The IEEE doesn’t usually grant working group charters to such closely related technologies, but somehow both mobile WiMAX groups were given the green light to proceed with standards development.
Ronny Haraldsvik, vice president of marketing for mobile broadband at Qualcomm, noted that the 802.20 team began developing mobile OFDM/OFDMA from a clean slate, whereas the 802.16e team developed mobile WiMAX based on the existing 802.16a standard for fixed WiMAX.
Interestingly, during a phone interview, both James and Haraldsvik consistently referred to the technology behind 802.20 as OFDM/OFDMA. When asked if they considered mobile WiMAX synonymous with OFDM/OFDMA, Haraldsvik, a former Flarion executive, said “the marketing behind WiMAX has created this illusion that anything OFDM is WiMAX-WiMAX is nothing but a marketing term, the underlying technology for mobile broadband is OFDM/OFDMA.”
As far as the battle between Intel and Qualcomm is concerned, it’s hard to establish which accusations are legitimate and which ones are motivated by market positioning.
Intel declined to comment on the situation, but the company did mention a complaint it filed with Jerry Upton, chair of the 802.20 Working Group. In the complaint dated Feb. 8, Intel alleged that voting improprieties took place within the working group as a standard for 802.20 neared approval.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, Intel engineers said that the 802.20 Working Group included a number of Qualcomm-connected consultants who were voting as a block. The engineers also maintained that Upton, the team’s chairman, violated IEEE procedures. Upton, as it turns out, is an admitted Qualcomm consultant.
Upton’s affiliation with Qualcomm really is not surprising since standards development teams are mostly made up of industry professionals with corporate loyalties of one persuasion or another.
Qualcomm’s Haraldsvik went as far as to say that Intel’s appeals to the IEEE are nothing more than stalling, even hijacking tactics and anti-competitive behavior from a company that hopes to push forward their own version of mobile broadband.
The only clear point is that the IEEE is in the middle of this technology chaos, and its promise to dole out a just and fair verdict will not be easy to keep. The trickiest part of decision-rendering over this matter could be garnering enough objectivity to see through the fog of intense competition all around.
