CDMA Technology
Members Sign-In
CDMA Development Group Releases Statement Welcoming Support of cdma Technology for 3G Evolution Process

Foundation In Place For Harmonization Of Technologies And Unified Global 3G Standard

COSTA MESA, Calif., May 6, 1998 -- The CDMA Development Group (CDG) today released a statement welcoming the recent announcement of support for CDMA technology by GSM interest groups in North America. Perry LaForge, executive director of the CDG said, "We are pleased that the North American GSM community has vocalized its support of the CDMA air-interface as an element of 3G wireless systems. Discussions among worldwide standards bodies have shown that cdmaOne™ (ANSI-95) CDMA is the basis of wideband CDMA proposals currently under consideration. For GSM operators to express support for CDMA is a long-awaited and welcome development, as it lays the groundwork for joint efforts toward harmonization of W-CDMA with Wideband cdmaOne."

"In contrast to some perspectives," LaForge added, "harmonization is a definite advantage to both GSM and cdmaOne operators and their customers. It will provide global economies of scale, thereby driving down prices for operators and, ultimately, consumers. Furthermore, it will provide an atmosphere where features and services, not technologies, are the basis of competition. This will be a powerful stimulus to innovation. Many of the European and Asian GSM operators expressed support for harmonization at the recent GSM World Congress, and we have been working with them. Unfortunately, a few North American GSM operators appear concerned that harmonization will give North American CDMA operators a competitive advantage and have attempted to undermine harmonization efforts. It is incongruous to see this small group of GSM North American operators arguing against integrating the North American network standard ANSI-41 with GSM (i.e. the Family of Systems Concept). They do so only to undermine their IS-136 and cdmaOne competitors. Such gamesmanship will create an atmosphere of hostility and will very likely lead to substantial delays in the deployment of 3G systems by GSM operators in North America, which will impact 3G migration worldwide. This will be detrimental for the GSM and cdmaOne communities alike. We need to cooperate on this issue, as the entire 3G debate is at a critical juncture. The possibility of extensive delays due to protracted intellectual property debates is looming on the horizon."

LaForge continued, "Further, there seem to be some misconceptions regarding third generation standards efforts. Harmonization does not lead to a weakened proposal -Ð to suggest so is to insult the hundreds of individuals working internationally with the regional standards bodies, such as ARIB (Japan), TTA (Korea) and TIA, to produce a harmonized proposal. This has been a technical review that has led to agreement on all but a few technical parameters. There has been compromise on all sides, resulting in a better, combined air interface proposal. For example, one of the last remaining differences between W-CDMA and Wideband cdmaOne is the chip rate. We originally stated that the ETSI proposed chip rate of 4.096 MHz would not work when attempting to implement the system in a 5 MHz block of spectrum. It is now recognized that, indeed, this is true. ARIB has studied the chip rate issue and has concluded that the choice of this parameter value has no bearing on overall performance. Agreeing on a common chip rate parameter does not reduce performance, but it does create economies of scale. Harmonizing chip rates sounds like an obvious solution, but if you want harmonization to fail for competitive reasons, you fight it. You attack it by incorrectly claiming that it would have a ‘significant performance impact.’ This is the situation that we have for 3G. There appears to be no technical rationale for not achieving consensus, unless it is in your interest to destabilize the harmonization efforts."

"Another extremely important aspect of the 3G debate is the evolution of the core network and the Family of Systems," added LaForge. "Although the Family of Systems was not fully supported by all technology proponents when it was first outlined in the ITU, the CDG has continued to emphasize the benefit of this concept and has actively participated in its definition. We are pleased to see now that this concept is being actively defined in the ITU. We are hopeful that those who initially resisted the Family of Systems will constructively add to the specification. If core networks are defined equally within the Family of Systems, and a robust, open interface exists between these networks, the best possible environment will exist for implementing 3G services."