My 3G Ah-Ha

Every once in a while, I have an "ah-ha," a moment of overwhelming enlightenment. These usually arise after I step back from something I have been too close to. You know, the not-seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees condition. I had an ah-ha at Wireless 1999, mecca of every wireless vendor and nearly every carrier. After all, rubbing elbows with that many RF specialists should produce at least one moment of realization.

My realization was this: The wireless industry is not going to reach a single standard within 3G.

My second ah-ha was that it is probably just as well.

I held fast to the genuine hope generated during the CDG conference in Los Angeles last year that a single standard was within our grasp. However, since then, the standards battles and target deadlines have proved in my mind that it simply has been too big of a task to pull off. There are too many different and equally important parts.

One highly visible part is the IPR stalemate. I understand a little bit more what is at stake here. If I created a technology, I would want some appreciation for that development. Regardless of which company truly is due what amount, this is an issue that must be hashed out, unless we want an abundance of lawyers suddenly hanging around.

Then there are the differences that are there simply for the sake of being different, according to some. For example, chip rates are a little different, not because of carrier efficiency or higher-quality deliverance, but because they are "different." In being different, the chip-rate champions could conceivably force the competitors to kowtow to the other way of doing business. Although at this point, "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" holds comparable appeal, more time needs to be spent searching for and finding reason for change. Different is good when it is different and better.

Backward compatibility is another important part. It is one thing for a W-CDMA system to be backward compatible with its GSM predecessor. But it appears to be something else altogether to get a W-CDMA system to be backward compatible with cdmaOne. It shouldn't make any sense to anyone to abandon those analog customers and certain digital customers who were unlucky enough to pick the digital flavor without the greatest potential.

Then there is the power struggle. The power players between the standards bodies and even between trade unions of various countries have traded volleys of what is fair and what isn't. When I saw that Madeleine Albright was involved, I knew it had to be serious. If the 3G decisions are going to affect trade among the world's technological powerhouses, why in the world would we want to rush the process?

OK, I've realized and accepted that the single standard isn't going to happen with 3G. Why might that be a good thing? We've all made snap decisions that ended up causing regret. Although the standards work thus far hardly qualifies as "snap," everyone has put a mighty push on the process. Has it been happening too fast?

In a "Truman Story" kind of world, it would be great to magically create a single, perfect standard that embraces all of the desired capabilities and benefits. Then the world could proceed on a single footpath to the IMT 2000 horizon, happy in the knowledge that we have the best.

However, carriers need capacity today. Carriers need features today. Carriers need to begin transitioning their networks today. Because no carrier is required to wait for standards, each will proceed with whatever version of 3G works for it. It only makes business sense. In this mode of pushing forward, each carrier will be able to test the muscle and potential of each technology. If one party claimed that another digital technology didn't have "legs" to move ahead into 3G, this free-choice period will prove that out. So let's just push forward with the separate standards that exist around the world. Let'smilk as much life out of each digital technology until one technology clearly stands above the rest. Ah-ha.