Every day does not produce news about the 3G standards process; it just seems that way. The basic reason, as Jimmy Durante once succinctly put it: “Everybody wants to get into de act.”
There seems to be consensus that if “convergence” or “harmonization” is good, then things are better than they were a year ago, or better than they were prior to the TABD Conference in Washington, D.C., in February. At the conference, representatives of the operators set forth their goals and expectations.
There would be three variants of CDMA standards. There would be continued work to minimize or remove the differences among those three, but not at the expense of delaying the schedule that the International Telecommunication Union had set for completing the third-generation standards process. Once it was also agreed that Time Division Multiple Access technology should be included as a potential 3G standard, everyone, manufacturers and operators alike, signed on. Oh, there was one additional subject of agreement at this TABD summit by the U.S. participants: The U.S. government should NOT initiate any trade action on 3G standards.
By and large, the essence of these provisions has remain intact. In fact, in some respects they have progressed beyond what was expected in February. The operators, notably at the OHG meeting in Toronto, have pressed for compromise on the key technical differences among the various Code Division Multiple Access technologies. Already, a number of differences had been reconciled. Now, for example, thanks in large measure to OHG’s insistence, the chip rate variances seem to have been resolved.
Yesterday, the CDMA battle seemed to be between wideband-CDMA (a European/Japanese standard) vs. cdma2000 (a standard developed, if not invented, in the United States). Yesterday, the argument was whether an operator proposing to employ cdma2000 could get a license in a European Union country. Much was made of the fact the European Telecommunications Standards Institute had sanctioned only W-CDMA. This was of great concern to the U.S. government, in particular to the United States Trade Representative. Let’s not rule out the Federal Communications Commission, National Telecommunications Industry Association, State Department and the White House, however. When the opportunity arises to `get’ those bad Europeans for limiting market access (`yes, we have no bananas’), our government is in an attack mode.
As far as most operators and manufacturers are concerned, however, the 3G standards issue has been-or rather, could be-put to bed. Rather than W-CDMA vs. cdma2000, the choice facing most CDMA operators is direct sequence vs. multimode. The former is better where new spectrum will be used for 3G; the latter is needed where 3G will be overlaid on existing spectrum.
Seemingly, this distills the choice an operator must make to the essence of simplicity. In Europe and probably in Japan, direct sequence will be favored because new spectrum will be employed. In the United States, since no new spectrum presently is being contemplated for 3G, multimode probably will be employed.
With this background, it is not surprising that virtually all the 3G applications in Finland proposed direct sequence W-CDMA systems. It also is not surprising that governments such as in the United Kingdom (which will be auctioning 3G spectrum early next year) intend to be technology neutral. If a successful bidder in the United Kingdom elects to operate a multimode cdma2000 system, so be it. Would such an operator be at a competitive disadvantage in being able to offer continentwide roaming? Probably.
It also is not surprising, albeit somewhat depressing, that we have had a telecom minister from the Netherlands declaring there only will be one standard for 3G in Europe and it will be direct sequence W-CDMA.
As a prediction, it is undoubtedly accurate. As a government mandate, it arouses all the hackless suspicions the U.S. government only barely keeps under control.
“Only barely” is the operative phrase. In a letter signed by USTR Ambassador Charlene Barchefsky and Secretary of Commerce William Daley to the European Union, the U.S. government warned it would be monitoring the award of 3G licenses in Europe and would be displeased (read: trade action?) if applicants were not free to choose any ITU-approved standard.
It seems to us that this is a perfectly appropriate letter for the U.S. government to send. While we believe the initiation of a trade action would be a grievous mistake given the present 3G situation in the United States, we support our government’s advocacy of technical neutrality.
Of course, so does the EU, at least on paper. So, predictably, the EU response said: Of course, we will be fair; all standards will be acceptable, BUT one must recognize the need for intra-Europe roaming, which means that one standard will be present everywhere in Europe. (Guess which one?) Others will be welcome as well.
Does the U.S. government believe this response? We are told that a segment of U.S. industry believes the favored position of direct sequence W-CDMA disadvantages them.
What’s our government to do? Probably move closer to the brink of a World Trade Organization trade action, to the consternation of many.
In the meantime, the basic problem, the “present 3G situation” we referred to earlier, is that the United States is out of sync in both spectrum and standards with the rest of the world.
The nation has prevailed toward a single standard because it makes sense for operators and manufacturers in a global economy. It has embraced spectrum aside at WRC ’92 for IMT 2000 (read 3G) systems and is about to pursue further allocations at WRC 2000. The United States has no 3G allocation; it has no single standard. It has no real plan for either. It is understandable, therefore, that each U.S. operator wants to migrate from digital 2G to 3G as economically as possible. If we throw auctions into the mix, overlaying existing spectrum and using whatever 3G standard is easiest to implement comprise an almost irresistible “solution.”
Of course, it isn’t. It only postpones the day when additional spectrum is essential; it continues to fragment the U.S. market and it may well put those U.S. carriers seeking to expand overseas at a competitive disadvantage.
U.S. government sabre-rattling appeals to our American psyche: Muscle-flexing is easier than brain-flexing.
Isn’t it time for the United States to develop a cohesive telecommunications policy that deals with international and domestic realities? It won’t be fun; it will require courage on the part of our government, but we submit that the end result will make the gain worth the pain.
Michael Kennedy is corporate vice president at Motorola Inc. Leonard Kolsky is a former Motorola executive currently working as a consultant for the manufacturer, and also serves as counsel to Steptoe and Johnson L.L.C.
