Cingular cell phone service - NEWS: Telcos switch from CDMA to GSM

Author

NEWS: Telcos switch from CDMA to GSM

John Navas

2006-07-28, 3:33 pm

<http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/...tory=n&id=31859>

CDMA technology is fast losing favour with telecom companies and
handset makers who are switching to GSM, as it is less expensive to
operate.

When Reliance communications shows signs of abandoning its CDMA
backbone it is a clear that the technology is running into serious
trouble.

And on Thursday, Qualcom, the world's biggest CDMA chip maker, gave
Indian CDMA players one more reason to switch to GSM.

Qualcom said it would continue to charge seven per cent royalty from
India operators, while it charges only two per cent in China, and
zero royalty in USA.

CDMA market to shrink

Operators say this high royalty on CDMA sets makes the technology
more expensive to operate and even handset makers seem to agree.

Nokia for instance, says it believes the CDMA market is going to
shrink in the long term. It has ended talks to form a joint venture
with Sanyo Electric Company to produce CDMA enabled handsets.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

William Ahern

2006-07-28, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:57:00 +0000, John Navas wrote:

> <http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/...tory=n&id=31859>
>
> CDMA technology is fast losing favour with telecom companies and
> handset makers who are switching to GSM, as it is less expensive to
> operate.
>
> When Reliance communications shows signs of abandoning its CDMA
> backbone it is a clear that the technology is running into serious
> trouble.
>
> And on Thursday, Qualcom, the world's biggest CDMA chip maker, gave
> Indian CDMA players one more reason to switch to GSM.
>
> Qualcom said it would continue to charge seven per cent royalty from
> India operators, while it charges only two per cent in China, and zero
> royalty in USA.
>
> CDMA market to shrink
>
> Operators say this high royalty on CDMA sets makes the technology more
> expensive to operate and even handset makers seem to agree.
>
> Nokia for instance, says it believes the CDMA market is going to shrink
> in the long term. It has ended talks to form a joint venture with Sanyo
> Electric Company to produce CDMA enabled handsets.
>

Maybe in the developing world. But UMTS, the upgrade to GSM, uses CDMA.
And Qualcomm's patents on CDMA aren't [just] in the session signaling, but
guard the actual CDMA radio technology. My Cingular LG phone has a
CDMA/Qualcomm sticker.

Not only is the CDMA versus "GSM" war a little passe, but OFDM looks like
the path for 4G all around, and by that time I can't imagine the
traditional "CMDA" carriers like Sprint not having something analogous to
the SIM card, which is really the only difference between the technologies
at this point.

John Navas

2006-07-28, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:41:19 -0700, William Ahern
< william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.07.28.20.41.14. 447517@25thandClemen
t.com>:

>Maybe in the developing world. But UMTS, the upgrade to GSM, uses CDMA.
>And Qualcomm's patents on CDMA aren't [just] in the session signaling, but
>guard the actual CDMA radio technology. My Cingular LG phone has a
>CDMA/Qualcomm sticker.

W-CDMA is quite different from CDMA2000.

>Not only is the CDMA versus "GSM" war a little passe, but OFDM looks like
>the path for 4G all around, and by that time I can't imagine the
>traditional "CMDA" carriers like Sprint not having something analogous to
>the SIM card, which is really the only difference between the technologies
>at this point.

That's a long way off.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

William Ahern

2006-07-28, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:42:26 +0000, John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:41:19 -0700, William Ahern
> < william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
> <pan.2006.07.28.20.41.14. 447517@25thandClemen
t.com>:
>
>
> W-CDMA is quite different from CDMA2000.
>

But, they both require patent licensing from Qualcomm, and the point in
the article was that Qualcomm's monopolist pricing model was driving
technology adoption in India away from CDMA (the signaling standard).

And my point was that, in alt.cellular.CINGULAR, it matters not one iota,
because Cingular is actually using CDMA, actually paying Qualcomm
licensing fees for the use of CDMA, and it's a rather recent decision by
Cingular to do so (occuring after, I suspect, Qualcomm began it's--what at
the time seemed like--smothering licensing regime).

The whole CDMA versus GSM issue is at this point a senseless discussion,
because UMTS is the next-generation of GSM, and it employs CDMA radio. So
it doesn't make sense to simply talk about "CDMA vs. GSM" anymore. It only
confuses things, IMHO. Not that the terms were every properly used to
begin w/.

What I take away from the article is that India should stop being so shy
and maybe start challenging these patents that US companies file w/ the
USPTO, and then employ our WTO trade representatives to go around the
globe and stymie the development of local economic markets. A company
shouldn't be granted a 20 year monopoly on something that the next
engineer would've figured out (and w/ the pace of technology these days
inevitably so) in 6 more month's time.

John Navas

2006-07-31, 3:33 pm

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:38:52 -0700, William Ahern
< william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.07.28.23.38.49. 948395@25thandClemen
t.com>:

>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:42:26 +0000, John Navas wrote:

>
>But, they both require patent licensing from Qualcomm, and the point in
>the article was that Qualcomm's monopolist pricing model was driving
>technology adoption in India away from CDMA (the signaling standard).

Contrary to what Qualcomm CDMA2000 ("CMDA") advocates would have you
believe, Qualcomm doesn't even own all the CDMA-Type patents, much less
other necessary patents, and there is no simple answer to your question.

Applicable cell phone patents (including those for W-CDMA/UMTS) run in
the many hundreds, with the majority being held by companies other than
Qualcomm. Qualcomm needs access to certain non-Qualcomm patents just as
other companies need access certain Qualcomm patents, depending on which
particular technologies are being used. That's normally handled by
cross-licensing agreements in which little money changes hands between
the principal players -- it's the smaller players that have to pay to
play. Pretty much everybody plays nice, the notable exception being
litigious Qualcomm, which, not being a major hardware player, tries to
extract usurious patent royalties from others.

Qualcomm has been free to do pretty much what it wants with CDMA2000,
and has set royalty rates so high that CDMA2000 has been severely hurt
in the marketplace, as evidenced by little adoption outside of the USA,
the recent loss of Nokia as a player, and signs that India may switch
from "CDMA" (Qualcomm CDMA2000) to GSM/UMTS/W-CDMA.

The situation is supposed to be different for UMTS, where international
standards bodies require that technology be licensed on "fair and
reasonable rates" to everyone. Pretty much everybody has agreed to do
that, with the major players agreeing to a total royalty cap of no more
than 5%, but again, the notable exception is litigious Qualcomm, which
is trying to extract more than that from a minority patent position. As
a result, it's being investigated by the European Commission (which
recently slapped Microsoft quite hard).

At the present time there's no way to know how this will all play out,
including how much non-Qualcomm CDMA-type patents will be worth, but it
seems unlikely that Qualcomm will get anything like its usual CDMA2000
royalties from UMTS/W-CDMA.

>And my point was that, in alt.cellular.CINGULAR, it matters not one iota,
>because Cingular is actually using CDMA, actually paying Qualcomm
>licensing fees for the use of CDMA, and it's a rather recent decision by
>Cingular to do so (occuring after, I suspect, Qualcomm began it's--what at
>the time seemed like--smothering licensing regime).

Cingular isn't paying any patent licensing fees to Qualcomm. Any such
fees are paid by hardware manufacturers.

>The whole CDMA versus GSM issue is at this point a senseless discussion,
>because UMTS is the next-generation of GSM, and it employs CDMA radio. So
>it doesn't make sense to simply talk about "CDMA vs. GSM" anymore. It only
>confuses things, IMHO. Not that the terms were every properly used to
>begin w/.

Again, W-CDMA is quite different from and incompatible with CDMA2000,
something CDMA advocates disingenuously try to hide by using the term
"CDMA" in ambiguous ways. CDMA the basic technology is only a minor
part of the overall system and isn't the same thing as either CDMA2000
or W-CDMA.

>What I take away from the article is that India should stop being so shy
>and maybe start challenging these patents that US companies file w/ the
>USPTO, and then employ our WTO trade representatives to go around the
>globe and stymie the development of local economic markets. A company
>shouldn't be granted a 20 year monopoly on something that the next
>engineer would've figured out (and w/ the pace of technology these days
>inevitably so) in 6 more month's time.

The point of the article is that Qualcomm continues to shoot itself in
the feet.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot