The Quest for a Global Standard

Sometimes I wonder if I am from another planet. Like when I hear some of the announcements from European technocrats concerning the search for a third-generation (3G) wireless standard.

Take the statement issued on January 12, 1998, by the chairman of the GSM MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) Association, Dr. Adriana Nugter. Nugter called on rival 3G technology camps to "find a solution to the current technology war." She went on to say that "the battle is serving no constructive purpose in the search for one universal mobile standard."

Try as I might, I can't bring myself to understand what is so awful about competing technologies. I have heard two basic arguments, neither of which impresses me. The first is that if we allow competing wireless technologies, users will be forced to carry different devices for use in different cities.

I can't deny that has happened. But the culprit wasn't too much competition -- it was not enough. Prior to the build-out of GSM networks, cross-border roaming was almost impossible in Europe. The problem was that most European countries had only one licensed mobile telephone operator.

I am convinced that if those same countries had licensed five operators and given them the freedom to use whatever technology they pleased, some (if not most) would have joined together to ensure cross-border roaming. After all, businesses make money by serving customers' needs.

But don't take my word for it -- look at the United States and Canada. We have four major competing mobile telephone technologies, yet no one is forced to carry different phones to use in different cities. Granted, this was originally due to the selection of a single analog standard. CDMA and TDMA service now is available in most major cities, and PCS 1900 (GSM) is expanding its footprint. More important, there are plenty of dual-mode networks and handsets; end-users no longer have to rely on a single standard.

The other popular argument is that competing technologies confuse consumers, thus causing slow acceptance. I am willing to admit there may be some confusion at first, but this confusion is vastly outweighed by competition's benefits. With a single standard, competition is generally restricted to how vendors implement the specification. With multiple standards, there is more incentive to improve the specification.

Europe continues to treat competing technologies as anathema. On January 29, 1998, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) breathed a sigh of relief, announcing that members reached a "consensus agreement" for a 3G wireless standard. ETSI was so eager to approve a single standard that it simply combined the two leading proposals and proclaimed victory.

The two proposals were wideband CDMA (W-CDMA), primarily sponsored by Ericsson and Nokia, and time division CDMA (TD-CDMA), mainly backed by Alcatel, Motorola, Nortel and Siemens. The way ETSI "combined" them was by deciding that W-CDMA will be used outdoors, and TD-CDMA will be used indoors. Whether the two technologies can be integrated cleanly, or whether ETSI members have agreed merely to pretend the two technologies are one, remains to be seen.

The result is so complex, naming it required an acronym within an acronym. The standard is called UTRA, or UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access, which stands for Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access.

The Political Angle Is UTRA practical? As an unwavering technology optimist, I am certain they can make it work. But the desire to placate opposing camps is not a good reason for embracing complexity. I'm not saying technical complexity must be avoided at all costs, just that there should be a clear performance benefit. In this case, the benefit appears to have been purely political.

But there's more to the story. When ETSI members came up with a CDMA-based 3G standard, it suddenly dawned on them that Qualcomm may possess crucial intellectual property rights. They asked if this is the case, to which Qualcomm responded yes. They also pressed Qualcomm to pledge non-discriminatory and affordable licensing, to which Qualcomm responded (in effect), "We need time to think about that."

ETSI is pressing Qualcomm to help it move forward with its 3G standard at a time when Qualcomm is preparing to release results from the CDMA-GSM overlay trial conducted by Voda-fone in the United Kingdom. During the GSM World Congress in February, ETSI wanted to focus all eyes on its 3G standard; Qualcomm hoped its GSM overlay would attract the most attention.

While Qualcomm should benefit by the adoption of a CDMA-based standard in Europe, ETSI may go out of its way to ensure the new standard is not backward-compatible with IS-95 CDMA. The last thing the GSM industry wants to do is encourage new operators to select IS-95 CDMA by leading them to believe it will play a role in Europe's 3G wireless standard.

Qualcomm, meanwhile, will not want to give the impression it is trying to stymie European cooperation. But it also will not be eager to help the GSM industry develop a competing CDMA standard. At least, not unless it believes it can become a major UTRA equipment vendor.

Europe leveraged its GSM standard to become the global leader in wireless telephony. Competition forced the GSM industry to incorporate CDMA in its future. And competition -- not politics -- will continue to drive technology forward.