Explaining logic behind 3GSM
Dear Editor:
Regarding the opinion article “Happy Families” in the May-June 2001 issue, no one should leave Stuart Sharrock “disturbed” for too long. However, I would like to offer some constructive feedback.
The fear of obfuscation at the 3GSM World Congress I believe could have been overstated in your Global Wireless article as well. However, there is also some logic in using the term 3GSM for the following reasons.
Evolution-most GSM operators are evolving toward 2.5G, and subject to license conditions, 3G and beyond.
Interoperability-clearly 2G/3G interoperability also needs to be worked on in applications, infrastructure and roaming terms, to name only three.
Learning zone-any congress has to look to the future to support its exhibitors/delegates.
I therefore feel, with the inclusion of a range of 3G technologies on the agenda, that the GSM Association “hijack” point is probably overstated. Furthermore, the ITU 3G compromise is not being undermined by one event, but being implemented by market reality. I agree that ignoring the U.S. market is not really a wise option, even if it is sometimes difficult to follow.
Mike Short
VP, Industry Relations & Standards
BT Wireless
