OXFORD, United Kingdom-Unseemly and ongoing disputes over intellectual property rights seem to have hijacked the current debate about third-generation (3G) cellular. Posturing by radio manufacturers continues to dominate the news in the air-interface standards-selection process. But the real issues lie elsewhere.
The real issues are nothing less than the vision for wireless communications in the next century, encapsulated in the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (UMTS) proposals to the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU’s) IMT-2000 standardization process.
This lack of focus is nowhere more evident than in the operator community. An extreme polarization of views is becoming apparent. Existing cellular operators, particularly GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) operators, are viewing 3G technology as a mere extension of their current networks, as a mechanism for getting hold of more spectrum. Putative 3G operators, particularly those from the fixed network or broadcasting communities, are concerned about the dilution of the UMTS vision.
“UMTS should be a forward step for the 21st century,” said Julie Harmer, project manager for mobile communications at BT Laboratories. “It is not simply GSM with UMTS radio access.”
Mike Callendar, chairman of ITU-R Task Group 8/1, responsible for the radio aspects of IMT-2000, would agree. He noted the ITU is attempting to develop a flexible standard for wireless access to the global telecommunications infrastructure that will serve both mobile and fixed users in both public and private networks.
“The third generation is a flexible pipe within which users’ needs can be managed dynamically,” said Callendar. “Flexibility, not 2 Megabits per second, is the driver.”
Callendar points to flexibility in service provision, network evolution and spectrum management as key requirements. The desire for flexibility has resulted in the ITU’s “family of systems” concept, a concept that has been widely misinterpreted, according to Callendar. “The family of systems concept originated from the networks side,” he said. “Because of the dollars invested, it is sensible to allow networks to evolve. The family concept was never intended to apply to the air interface.”
The ITU always envisaged a set of radio interfaces. Different environments, such as indoors or with picocells, could well be best served by different access mechanisms. But the IMT-2000 vision is for a global standard for that set of radio interfaces.
GSM operators also would like to see a single global standard, as long as it meets their specific requirements.
“UMTS will support mobile multimedia services,” noted Adriana Nugter, managing director, European public policy with AirTouch International and immediate past chairwoman of the GSM MoU Association. “But I’ve not yet seen any great answers as to what those mobile multimedia services will be. Fundamentally, UMTS offers operators additional capacity to support their future needs.
“UMTS is not a new technology. It is an add-on to current services, and, therefore, current GSM operators should have access to UMTS spectrum. Did you ever see a fixed operator needing a new license to upgrade its network?”
Manufacturers involved with UMTS tend to disagree. UMTS most certainly is a new technology, they say, and forcing backward compatibility with second-generation systems is not straightforward.
Callendar goes even further, tending to discount the backward-compatibility argument. “Today’s mobile population is less (than) a 10th of that forecast for 2015,” he said. “A current global investment of 10 percent should not be allowed to prejudice the future.”
The ITU does not intend to let the current IPR controversy over the air interface prejudice the future either. It added the requirement that submissions of candidate radio interfaces for IMT-2000 had to include lists of known IPRs with their proposals. “There were pages and pages with the UTRA proposal (selected by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute),” said Callendar.
In addition, a further requirement recently has been imposed. By 31 December, 1998, all candidates must submit a written statement that any known IPR is either free or available on reasonable terms. Otherwise they will be thrown out.
Initial evaluation of the 10 terrestrial and five satellite proposals is due to be completed in September 1998, with a target of 31 March, 1999, for the final decision. Twelve evaluation groups have been registered, most of which are involved with at least one of the proposals. Essentially, the candidates are being tasked to judge each other. “Peer review will keep people honest,” said Callendar.
The 10 terrestrial proposals are really only six. South Korea submitted two proposals, one supporting cdma2000 and the other supporting the ETSI UTRA proposal. Both China and Japan submitted a single proposal, again supporting UTRA, a major blow to the cdmaOne camp, which had expected Japan’s support.
So four proposals were essentially the same, described by Callendar as UTRA in disguise. Mailing the same proposal from four different countries caused some raised eyebrows but seems to have had the desired effect: The UTRA proposal certainly is perceived as having a high degree of support.
While the technicalities of the air interface are being thrashed out, the regulatory and licensing authorities in Europe are having their own battles. Polarization is becoming apparent here as well. Most countries are waiting until the whole picture of UMTS becomes clearer, but the United Kingdom controversially has decided to auction between three and five licenses in the summer of 1999. Finland also will act early, allocating spectrum to current GSM operators.
The United Kingdom’s decision to hold auctions incenses Nugter. “One regulator starts auctioning and encourages new entrants, the other allocates spectrum to current players. Is this evidence of a single European telecommunications market?”
Spectrum scarcity is a myth, says Nugter, pointing to the disparity between allocations to broadcasters compared with mobile communications. “It is simply being used to generate money for the financial markets.”
Countries such as France argue that such actions are far too early. “Given the aim of introducing these systems after 2001, there is no urgency to deliver licenses three years in advance,” said Gilles Crespin, head of the mobile operators unit of ART, the French telecommunications regulatory authority. Crespin also points to the fact that a European regulatory review is underway, and, therefore, any predetermined licensing scheme for UMTS could have little value.
Pierre Delmond, director of strategy and planning at France Telecom Mobiles, emphasized the basic licensing conditions that should apply to UMTS are not yet agreed. “Will UMTS be a new network with nationwide coverage offering new services to every customer?” he questioned. “Or will it have a limited rollout, extending capacity in dense areas and offering new services if they match a demand at a price operators can afford?”
Callendar probably would agree with the French approach that it is too early to reach a decision on licensing. In fact, he is not really in favor of licensing at all. “There should be a pool of spectrum,” he said, returning to his concept of IMT-2000 as a flexible system providing bandwidth on demand.
Nokia’s Juha Rapeli, chairman of ETSI SMG5, is credited with a definition of UMTS that neatly summarizes the current situation: “UMTS is a set of services which we cannot imagine today, with a technology that does not exist, for user needs which we don’t know.”
