COSTA MESA, Calif., Dec.10, 1998 - The CDMA Development
Group (CDG) today released a statement commenting on recent
announcements concerning harmonizing third generation mobile
technologies (3G) for the International Telecommunications
Union's (ITU) IMT-2000 proposal.
Perry LaForge, executive director of the CDG said, "The
CDG is not surprised by the ITU's recent announcements regarding
harmonization. On Monday, the ITU warned the global wireless
industry that CDMA-based proposals could be excluded from
further consideration if the Intellectual Property Right (IPR)
issue is not resolved by the end of this year. Historically,
the CDG has been the only voice promoting harmonization and
has attempted to facilitate dialog and compromise on the 3G
issue on numerous occasions throughout the past year. In fact,
for the last year, we have warned that an impasse on 3G IPR
will lead to substantial delays if not curtail the ITU effort.
The CDG strongly supports the work of the ITU and calls on
the various parties to seek true compromise so that 3G systems
can be deployed on a timely basis."
LaForge also noted, "While the ITU may proceed forward
on a TDMA proposal for 3G, it is clear that the market demands
a CDMA-based solution. We do not see much support for a TDMA-based
3G proposal, but we are not discouraging the ITU from completing
its work on TDMA proposals. We believe that the marketplace
will decide whether or not it desires a TDMA 3G proposal."
He added, "We must note that independent of whether or
not the ITU resolves the 3G debate, the CDG stands firm on
our commitment to the rapid evolution of cdmaOne to CDMA2000.
We will be working with standards bodies around the world
to ensure that we meet the timetables that we have put forward
and will deliver on the promise that CDMA holds. We plan to
deliver high speed Internet access (144 KBPS) and other 3G
related services with existing cdmaOne systems in the next
18 months. We are on track in our development and standardization
LaForge continued, "On the heels of the ITU announcement,
Ericsson has now announced its attempt to harmonize W-CDMA
and CDMA2000. While the CDG is interested in compromise, and
in fact has offered compromise proposals on numerous occasions,
we find it frustrating that Ericsson says it is trying to
compromise, but again chooses a chip rate (3.84) that is made
purposely incompatible with the CDMA2000 proposal. The CDG
views this move as purely political and is clearly anything
but a compromise. As we have pointed out in our 3G white paper
on the CDG website (www.cdg.org), as well as in technical
contributions to ETSI and the TIA, the original chip rate
selected for W-CDMA will not work within the 5 MHz frequency
allocation in many countries. This requires the developers
of W-CDMA to change to a lower chip rate other than 4.096,
say 3.8 or lower. Given that they have to change, it is a
perfect opportunity to achieve harmonization because chip
rate is a key issue for existing CDMA operators. Unfortunately,
to then suggest, as Ericsson does, a rate different than the
chip rate we have proposed-just for difference sake-only continues
to foster the sense of division on this issue. Clearly there
is no difference in performance between 3.68 and 3.84 Mcps.
There is no IPR associated with 3.68 or 3.84 Mcps. The implementation
for GSM users going to W-CDMA is no more complex if the chip
rate is 3.68 than if it is 3.84 or 4.096. Chip rate only matters
to existing CDMA operators. So how then is 3.84 a compromise?
It isn't. We believe that until we get beyond this issue of
trying to make W-CDMA purposely incompatible, then it will
be difficult to resolve the current stalemate."
"While there are also a number of other technical parameters
to achieve harmonization, chip rate remains the key issue,"
added LaForge. "Chip rate is important because it clearly
shows the intention to make W-CDMA incompatible with CDMA2000.
There are already credible proposals in place for harmonization
to resolve the few other differences between W-CDMA and CDMA2000.
We have shown great flexibility on those other parameters
and encourage further dialog on these differences."
LaForge concluded, commenting on the benefits of harmonization,
"We still believe in harmonization. Harmonization provides
the wireless industry economies of scale and a competitive
environment that focuses on features and services, rather
than technical standards. Additional benefits of harmonization
include lower research and development costs, worldwide roaming,
stronger wireless competition with landline telecommunications
systems, fulfillment of the ITU IMT-2000 goals and, most importantly,
increased consumer satisfaction."