Open up, here comes the 4GMF by Brian Dolan, Fiercewireless
http://www.fiercewireless.com/ctialive/story/open-here-comes-4gmf/2007-08-31-0
Professor Willie Lu’s 4G Mobile Forum (4GMF) has big plans for the future of U.S. mobile communications. The 4GMF, of which Lu is the founder and chairman, wants to “liberate the whole wireless industry” so that users can personalize their future mobile phones and enable mobile users to navigate the platform as deftly as a mouse-equipped PC user.
“Even though we call the forum the ‘4GMF,’ it doesn’t mean we have a very formal definition of what ‘4G’ is,” Lu says. “I’m a technical person and technical people don’t care about these terms. ‘4G’ or ‘3G’--these are just marketing terms, they are not technologies’ names. We just called it ‘4GMF’ because most people have no idea what something like open wireless architecture is.”
Lu says that the Forum’s goals are threefold. First, the Forum aims to bring “open access” to the U.S. mobile communications market by doing away with locked SIM cards. Second, the Forum wants to make the mobile phone’s interface as simple and easy as possible for users to navigate. Third, the Forum aims to promote an open wireless architecture for 4G networks.
The Forum’s U.S. launch kicks off at the CTIA Wireless I.T. and Entertainment show this October.
“This is our first time in the U.S. so we are not going to launch a conference by ourselves,” Professor Lu says. “We are working with CTIA to see what happens. CTIA was very interested in our proposal so if this goes well this time we should be a part of CTIA shows in the future,” he adds. “We have a very strong, very strong speaker team this time so this is going to be a very, very important event at the show.”
Julius Knapp, the FCC’s chief of engineering and technology, will keynote the three-day event at the CTIA IT Show in San Francisco. Executives from Intel, Oracle, Texas Instruments, Ericsson, Qualcomm and Yahoo will also be participating.
Lu explained that the 4GMF’s vision for 4G technology is very similar to that of the ITU, which is set to launch its 4G program this fall followed by an official standard next year. “ITU’s vision for 4G is very clear: convergence,” Lu says. “It will make use of multiple technologies because there is no single wireless technology that can do everything we need 4G networks to do.”
Lu says he expects mostly wireless engineers, investors and policy makers will attend the 4GMF show. The industry is hungry for more information on the regulatory environment surrounding the 700 MHz auction with its open access provisions. While the debate surrounding the 700 MHz auction certainly ingrained the term “open access” into the telecommunications sector’s collective psyche, Lu says that it was just the beginning of the opening of the U.S. market.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
What a Shame of US Closed Mobile Communication Market?
What a Shame of US Closed Mobile Communication Market?
Now, everyone is talking about the 700Mhz UHF band for wireless and mobile communications. UHF may not be as good as VHF, which operates on even lower-frequency spectrum. But it has the ability to carry information through forests, buildings, even mountains, regardless of the weather, and that makes it ideal for broadband wireless, or for mobile-phone service. Ever wonder why AT&T and Verizon, the biggest and most successful U.S. carriers, can offer more reliable service than Sprint or T-Mobile? Because the big boys already own a large band of spectrum near the UHF band, while the little guys are stuck with spectrum that operates at double the frequency and is far less powerful as a result.
For the same reasons, a broadband wireless network operating in the UHF range would be far more powerful than the municipal Wi-Fi and WiMax networks now being built by Google, EarthLink and other companies. Such a network would be cheaper to build as well. Because radio waves in the UHF band travel much farther than the high-frequency signals used for Wi-Fi and WiMax, a single tower could cover as much as 10 times the area. Of course, nothing is perfect and free. UHF is good for penetration, mobility and large area coverage, but the bandwidth and transmission speed is limited as the frequency-over-bandwidth rate is limited in implementation. High frequency band can provide very high-speed transmission, but lost seamless mobility, coverage, etc.
And because this will be the last auction of unused spectrum for the foreseeable future, it represents the final opportunity to create an alternative to the major carriers. The FCC grants auction winners a license to use spectrum for a number of years, but as these licenses are almost invariably renewed at no additional cost, they are effectively deeds of ownership for the winning bidders. No surprise, then, that the fight has already gotten intense.
But, it is not just spectrum fight, it is more beyond that. Strong pressure from the consumers and users (or I should say General Public), the government is testing the water to open up the US mobile communication market which US has been lagged very much behind the international average. Back to 1998, China law had forbidden any service provider to lock any mobile phone and there are only very few countries still locking users' phone, and most are in Africa. Same as Tobacco industry, the AT&T spent huge dollars in lobbying the congress to monopolize its telecom kingdom. However, I believe it is just a matter of time when locking a mobile phone becomes a public joke on the street.
The real target of such diatribes is Carterfone, the 1968 FCC ruling that opened the wire-line telephone networks to outside devices. Before Carterfone, AT&T -- then the nation's monopoly telephone company -- refused to allow consumers to attach any other company's equipment to its lines. After Carterfone, people were free to plug in all kinds of things, such as fax machines, answering machines and eventually modems and computers. Left to its own devices, AT&T would have strangled the internet in its crib, just as its offspring are trying to stifle wireless broadband.
The movie is just starting! More openness will be on the way. After opening the terminal access to the wireless network (or called unlocking the mobile phone), the wireless architecture will be open which means the user can asemble or upgrade his/her mobile phone by buying different modules from Fry's (someone call it DIY - Do It Yourself), the same way we take care of our PC or Laptop now. It is a very important movement, because currently, the phone architecture is very closed, and you have no other choice but to recycle it or put into trash if it becomes out-of-date.
This OWA (open wireless architecture) technology was invented from a small garage in silicon valley, and deem to be a revolutionary approach to rewrite the mobile communication textbook.
After this important system architecture openness, the final step is to open the spectrum management. UC berkeley, Stanford and other leading Universities in Europe already started this project in integrating the digital GPS map with the digital spectrum map in specific service area, and manage the digitalized spectrum dynamically and flexibly. Spectrum, same as land resource, is very limited and very expensive with at least 50% increase in price every year. I would very much to invest in spectrum property if the law allows. But, spectrum is like a kid who needs education and guidence. If we use it wisely, it will benefit the community, the society and the public. If we ruin it or misuse it, it will become pollution which includes radiation pulluation and distructive pollution, etc.
Both ITU and OECD warned that we must do something to manage the spectrum wisely and dynamically, otherwise all the worldwide mobile phones will stop communicating by year 2050. It becomes the global critical issue and a big challenge for the ICT administration and authority. In other words, spectrum is like air, we need to have it clean, open and green to our environment.
US invented the mobile phone technologies by bell labs, but eventually we are one of the few last ones to use it wisely, because the industry is fully monopolized by AT&T, etc. It is now the time up to the government to rethink about it: Do you want American people buy an unlocked legal iPhone overseas and bring back to the country for service? just an example.
by Willie W. Lu, Palo Alto, CA
Now, everyone is talking about the 700Mhz UHF band for wireless and mobile communications. UHF may not be as good as VHF, which operates on even lower-frequency spectrum. But it has the ability to carry information through forests, buildings, even mountains, regardless of the weather, and that makes it ideal for broadband wireless, or for mobile-phone service. Ever wonder why AT&T and Verizon, the biggest and most successful U.S. carriers, can offer more reliable service than Sprint or T-Mobile? Because the big boys already own a large band of spectrum near the UHF band, while the little guys are stuck with spectrum that operates at double the frequency and is far less powerful as a result.
For the same reasons, a broadband wireless network operating in the UHF range would be far more powerful than the municipal Wi-Fi and WiMax networks now being built by Google, EarthLink and other companies. Such a network would be cheaper to build as well. Because radio waves in the UHF band travel much farther than the high-frequency signals used for Wi-Fi and WiMax, a single tower could cover as much as 10 times the area. Of course, nothing is perfect and free. UHF is good for penetration, mobility and large area coverage, but the bandwidth and transmission speed is limited as the frequency-over-bandwidth rate is limited in implementation. High frequency band can provide very high-speed transmission, but lost seamless mobility, coverage, etc.
And because this will be the last auction of unused spectrum for the foreseeable future, it represents the final opportunity to create an alternative to the major carriers. The FCC grants auction winners a license to use spectrum for a number of years, but as these licenses are almost invariably renewed at no additional cost, they are effectively deeds of ownership for the winning bidders. No surprise, then, that the fight has already gotten intense.
But, it is not just spectrum fight, it is more beyond that. Strong pressure from the consumers and users (or I should say General Public), the government is testing the water to open up the US mobile communication market which US has been lagged very much behind the international average. Back to 1998, China law had forbidden any service provider to lock any mobile phone and there are only very few countries still locking users' phone, and most are in Africa. Same as Tobacco industry, the AT&T spent huge dollars in lobbying the congress to monopolize its telecom kingdom. However, I believe it is just a matter of time when locking a mobile phone becomes a public joke on the street.
The real target of such diatribes is Carterfone, the 1968 FCC ruling that opened the wire-line telephone networks to outside devices. Before Carterfone, AT&T -- then the nation's monopoly telephone company -- refused to allow consumers to attach any other company's equipment to its lines. After Carterfone, people were free to plug in all kinds of things, such as fax machines, answering machines and eventually modems and computers. Left to its own devices, AT&T would have strangled the internet in its crib, just as its offspring are trying to stifle wireless broadband.
The movie is just starting! More openness will be on the way. After opening the terminal access to the wireless network (or called unlocking the mobile phone), the wireless architecture will be open which means the user can asemble or upgrade his/her mobile phone by buying different modules from Fry's (someone call it DIY - Do It Yourself), the same way we take care of our PC or Laptop now. It is a very important movement, because currently, the phone architecture is very closed, and you have no other choice but to recycle it or put into trash if it becomes out-of-date.
This OWA (open wireless architecture) technology was invented from a small garage in silicon valley, and deem to be a revolutionary approach to rewrite the mobile communication textbook.
After this important system architecture openness, the final step is to open the spectrum management. UC berkeley, Stanford and other leading Universities in Europe already started this project in integrating the digital GPS map with the digital spectrum map in specific service area, and manage the digitalized spectrum dynamically and flexibly. Spectrum, same as land resource, is very limited and very expensive with at least 50% increase in price every year. I would very much to invest in spectrum property if the law allows. But, spectrum is like a kid who needs education and guidence. If we use it wisely, it will benefit the community, the society and the public. If we ruin it or misuse it, it will become pollution which includes radiation pulluation and distructive pollution, etc.
Both ITU and OECD warned that we must do something to manage the spectrum wisely and dynamically, otherwise all the worldwide mobile phones will stop communicating by year 2050. It becomes the global critical issue and a big challenge for the ICT administration and authority. In other words, spectrum is like air, we need to have it clean, open and green to our environment.
US invented the mobile phone technologies by bell labs, but eventually we are one of the few last ones to use it wisely, because the industry is fully monopolized by AT&T, etc. It is now the time up to the government to rethink about it: Do you want American people buy an unlocked legal iPhone overseas and bring back to the country for service? just an example.
by Willie W. Lu, Palo Alto, CA
Monday, August 27, 2007
China 3G: TD-SCDMA Behind the Great Wall
As requested by my friend in New Yorks Times, I re-post my Chairman's keynote speech at 3G'2000 in San Francisco, June 14-16, 2000.
------------------------------------------------
"China 3G: TD-SCDMA Behind the Great Wall"
Good morning, Honorable ITU commissioner Fabio Leite, Prof. Don Schilling, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentleman:
It is my great honor to be chairman and co-founder of this historic 3G technology conference in San Francisco, sponsored by Qualcomm, Siemens, Lucent Technologies, Hughes Network Systems and Ericsson.
Today, I am going to talk about 3G in China - my home country, my business base and my market. I organize my talk into 4 parts and will discuss each by each. I believe MOST people may not agree with me on parts of my talk. But I suggest you keep my speeches today, and come back to read it again after five years or even after ten years. I was born in China near Shanghai area, raised up there, educated there and did the first illegal business when I was only ten years old (doing any private business was illegal in China before 80s).
Part 1: Why China was interested in TD-SCDMA?
Many people think China will start 3G industralization based on TD-SCDMA. I tell you it is not true and China is not so stupid to do that.
China was a very closed country until late 70s or early 80s. The first mobile radio came from Japan, and in most of 80s, we only knew everything mobile radios from Japan. That's why, I learned Japanese when I was a colleage student in department of wireless radio engineering of Zhejiang Uninversity, Hangzhou. In late 80s and early 90s, we started to get information about GSM. MPT (ministry of post and telecom) set up several mobile communication institutes in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Xi'an. CATT (China academy of teleom tech) was one of them covering mobile as well.
Wireless communications was belong to semi-military based on former Soviet systems, and so China had no idea how to design mobile communication for the commercial markets. GSM was the first one to learn, then came the CDMA in 1993. At that time, we had lots of materials on GSM, but almost nothing on CDMA. Around 1995, CATT sent delegation to Austin, TX to learn CDMA with UT Austin, and then founded Cwill Telecommunications where Prof. Guanghan Xu (UT Austin) proposed TD-SCDMA for WLL (wireless local loop). Cwill got funds from CATT and late a VC in San Francisco. But in about 1-2 years, they run out of money, and decided to move everything back to CATT in Beijing. However, most CATT engineers did not want to go back to China, and joined other companies such as UTstarcom in Alameda, etc. In 1997, all TD-SCDMA had been transferred back to CATT. Austin trainings on CDMA were extremely important for China's TD-SCDMA. In about 2-3 years, China shifted from almost zero on CDMA to almost all konw-how on CDMA technologies. In 1998, based on CATT's TD-SCDMA WLL prototype, China tried to propose to ITU in response to the open call for contribution of IMT-2000 program. Meanwhile, Siemens joined together (discussion started from Austin time) to propose this TD-SCDMA to ITU.
The another issue is that China was a very under-developed country especially in wireless communications. The world bank loan to third world (underdeveloped country) for information infrastructure construction required ITU approved standards. The IMT-2000 gave China a very good chance to try a new ITU standard, and if approved, billions of dollars will be provided to China which was a very big cake. CDMA was very hot at that time, and we believed IMT-2000 will be something based on CDMA. Then, CATT decided to modify and refine TD-SCDMA for IMT-2000 from originally designed for WLL. I should say Siemens helped a lot both in finance and ITU support.
So, as a conclusion, China was interested in TD-SCDMA is primarily because of two:
a) Learning and Training on CDMA Technologies and commercial mobile communications
b) Proposal to ITU IMT-2000 standards for application of world bank loan
Part 2: Misunderstanding ITU Standard
As I said China was very closed before 80s. In early 90s, China started to attend ITU (formerly CCITT) meetings. However, everyone in the field knew CCITT standards which is an offcial international standards in telecommunications. China began to attend ITU mobile standards meeting from mid 90s, and wrongly translated to the central government that ITU standard is a MUST-adopted and enforced international standard. Yes or no, these so-called "experts" just undertstood half of the ITU standard. For international spectrum, yes, it is enforced. But for radio transmission technology (RTT), no, it is just recommendation.
Following this misunderstanding of ITU standards, people thought as long as we have ITU standard, it is like an international patent, everyone must use our technology and system, and everyone must pay us to use or develop it. Someone even boasted to the high-level government that in one day, TD-SCDMA will become next GSM and will be used by everyone all over the world, and would generate tremendous revenues to China.
Based on this "too optimistic misunderstanding of ITU standard", China decided to MAKE this TD-SCDMA system (to meet the rapidly increasing purchase demands from all over the world) rather than just propose this standard. Again, Siemens and other new comers helped a lot in developing the system.
Part 3: Who Cares about TD-SCDMA
The decision to develop TD-CDMA systems is easy to make. But who is going to pay the project? The central government did not have enough budget for such big project except the annual operating budget for CATT and little bits from local governments. The CATT and its division Datang are all government owned enterprises, and their employees are paid by the government. So basically nobody cares about TD-SCDMA project though orally everyone supports TD-SCDMA and hope to get bonus from that.
To be honest, TD-SCDMA is a very good technology, and the government had decided to develop the commercial system for both domestic and international markets. But the government did not have enough money to support it. The best way is to attract international investment for the "international market" because TD-SCDMA is an international standard. Of course, "international market" as muted because most international companies were more interested in China domestic markets instead of international market. As of today, China does not need TD-SCDMA because GSM is working very well, and the government does not want to invest too much at least in the next five years.
Someone had a big mistake to compare TD-SCDMA with PABX time from 1991-1994, and believed TD-SCDMA will repeat the PABX victory. In the PABX time, everyone made money from PABX business because China had near-zero PABX systems before 1991. But now we have well established GSM networks across the country, why everyone should go TD-SCDMA? Secondly, in PABX time, people just easily copied the brand name PABX systems, reverse engineered or improved the systems (that's why we have Huawei, Eastcom). But for TD-SCDMA, they do not have any system to copy, except a somehow reference from Qualcomm.
So, who cares about TD-SCDMA? Nobody in China, someone out of China.
Part 4: China will NOT issue 3G License before 2007
How many people agree with me on this prediction? Oh! Nobody! Do you all believe China will start 3G service very soon because China's TD-SCDMA is approved as an ITU standard?
This prediction is not just for TD-SCDMA, it is for all three standards - WCDMA, cdma2000 and TD-SCDMA. I do not think there is strong market before 2010, and no idea for long-term prediction.
Sorry I never means any negative issue for our sponsors who hope me to say something impressive, but as a chairman of the conference, I am more focusing on the value of the conference. Of course, small markets are always there, and I should reiterate that TD-SCDMA will be eventually Successful, because as long as China decided to do something, you can not find the word "Failure" from the dictionary.
The reasons of my prediction are based on several facts:
a) There is no big budget for TD-SCDMA in the next six years. The world bank loan and other loans are already planned completely.
b) Nobody really cares about the result of TD-SCDMA. Instead, most people care about the process and take it as a learning process and glory of being ITU standards.
c) Many issues remain unsolved for TD-SCDMA: lack of R&D activity, lack of policy support, network optimization, etc.
d) As long as TD-SCDMA is not ready, China will not open doors for other standards.
e) Mobile multimedia contents are still strictly frozen by the gov't, and will not expect to be released by 2010.
I only have 3 minutes left. So as a conclusion of my talk, please do not expect too much for your 3G business in China, at least before 2007, or by 2010. TD-CDMA will be successful and we should support it, but do not expect too much.
Thank you all for your attention.
Willie W. Lu, chair of 3G'2000, S.F.
Copyright (c) 2000. Delson Group Inc, the organizer of 3G'2000 in S.F.
------------------------------------------------
"China 3G: TD-SCDMA Behind the Great Wall"
Good morning, Honorable ITU commissioner Fabio Leite, Prof. Don Schilling, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentleman:
It is my great honor to be chairman and co-founder of this historic 3G technology conference in San Francisco, sponsored by Qualcomm, Siemens, Lucent Technologies, Hughes Network Systems and Ericsson.
Today, I am going to talk about 3G in China - my home country, my business base and my market. I organize my talk into 4 parts and will discuss each by each. I believe MOST people may not agree with me on parts of my talk. But I suggest you keep my speeches today, and come back to read it again after five years or even after ten years. I was born in China near Shanghai area, raised up there, educated there and did the first illegal business when I was only ten years old (doing any private business was illegal in China before 80s).
Part 1: Why China was interested in TD-SCDMA?
Many people think China will start 3G industralization based on TD-SCDMA. I tell you it is not true and China is not so stupid to do that.
China was a very closed country until late 70s or early 80s. The first mobile radio came from Japan, and in most of 80s, we only knew everything mobile radios from Japan. That's why, I learned Japanese when I was a colleage student in department of wireless radio engineering of Zhejiang Uninversity, Hangzhou. In late 80s and early 90s, we started to get information about GSM. MPT (ministry of post and telecom) set up several mobile communication institutes in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Xi'an. CATT (China academy of teleom tech) was one of them covering mobile as well.
Wireless communications was belong to semi-military based on former Soviet systems, and so China had no idea how to design mobile communication for the commercial markets. GSM was the first one to learn, then came the CDMA in 1993. At that time, we had lots of materials on GSM, but almost nothing on CDMA. Around 1995, CATT sent delegation to Austin, TX to learn CDMA with UT Austin, and then founded Cwill Telecommunications where Prof. Guanghan Xu (UT Austin) proposed TD-SCDMA for WLL (wireless local loop). Cwill got funds from CATT and late a VC in San Francisco. But in about 1-2 years, they run out of money, and decided to move everything back to CATT in Beijing. However, most CATT engineers did not want to go back to China, and joined other companies such as UTstarcom in Alameda, etc. In 1997, all TD-SCDMA had been transferred back to CATT. Austin trainings on CDMA were extremely important for China's TD-SCDMA. In about 2-3 years, China shifted from almost zero on CDMA to almost all konw-how on CDMA technologies. In 1998, based on CATT's TD-SCDMA WLL prototype, China tried to propose to ITU in response to the open call for contribution of IMT-2000 program. Meanwhile, Siemens joined together (discussion started from Austin time) to propose this TD-SCDMA to ITU.
The another issue is that China was a very under-developed country especially in wireless communications. The world bank loan to third world (underdeveloped country) for information infrastructure construction required ITU approved standards. The IMT-2000 gave China a very good chance to try a new ITU standard, and if approved, billions of dollars will be provided to China which was a very big cake. CDMA was very hot at that time, and we believed IMT-2000 will be something based on CDMA. Then, CATT decided to modify and refine TD-SCDMA for IMT-2000 from originally designed for WLL. I should say Siemens helped a lot both in finance and ITU support.
So, as a conclusion, China was interested in TD-SCDMA is primarily because of two:
a) Learning and Training on CDMA Technologies and commercial mobile communications
b) Proposal to ITU IMT-2000 standards for application of world bank loan
Part 2: Misunderstanding ITU Standard
As I said China was very closed before 80s. In early 90s, China started to attend ITU (formerly CCITT) meetings. However, everyone in the field knew CCITT standards which is an offcial international standards in telecommunications. China began to attend ITU mobile standards meeting from mid 90s, and wrongly translated to the central government that ITU standard is a MUST-adopted and enforced international standard. Yes or no, these so-called "experts" just undertstood half of the ITU standard. For international spectrum, yes, it is enforced. But for radio transmission technology (RTT), no, it is just recommendation.
Following this misunderstanding of ITU standards, people thought as long as we have ITU standard, it is like an international patent, everyone must use our technology and system, and everyone must pay us to use or develop it. Someone even boasted to the high-level government that in one day, TD-SCDMA will become next GSM and will be used by everyone all over the world, and would generate tremendous revenues to China.
Based on this "too optimistic misunderstanding of ITU standard", China decided to MAKE this TD-SCDMA system (to meet the rapidly increasing purchase demands from all over the world) rather than just propose this standard. Again, Siemens and other new comers helped a lot in developing the system.
Part 3: Who Cares about TD-SCDMA
The decision to develop TD-CDMA systems is easy to make. But who is going to pay the project? The central government did not have enough budget for such big project except the annual operating budget for CATT and little bits from local governments. The CATT and its division Datang are all government owned enterprises, and their employees are paid by the government. So basically nobody cares about TD-SCDMA project though orally everyone supports TD-SCDMA and hope to get bonus from that.
To be honest, TD-SCDMA is a very good technology, and the government had decided to develop the commercial system for both domestic and international markets. But the government did not have enough money to support it. The best way is to attract international investment for the "international market" because TD-SCDMA is an international standard. Of course, "international market" as muted because most international companies were more interested in China domestic markets instead of international market. As of today, China does not need TD-SCDMA because GSM is working very well, and the government does not want to invest too much at least in the next five years.
Someone had a big mistake to compare TD-SCDMA with PABX time from 1991-1994, and believed TD-SCDMA will repeat the PABX victory. In the PABX time, everyone made money from PABX business because China had near-zero PABX systems before 1991. But now we have well established GSM networks across the country, why everyone should go TD-SCDMA? Secondly, in PABX time, people just easily copied the brand name PABX systems, reverse engineered or improved the systems (that's why we have Huawei, Eastcom). But for TD-SCDMA, they do not have any system to copy, except a somehow reference from Qualcomm.
So, who cares about TD-SCDMA? Nobody in China, someone out of China.
Part 4: China will NOT issue 3G License before 2007
How many people agree with me on this prediction? Oh! Nobody! Do you all believe China will start 3G service very soon because China's TD-SCDMA is approved as an ITU standard?
This prediction is not just for TD-SCDMA, it is for all three standards - WCDMA, cdma2000 and TD-SCDMA. I do not think there is strong market before 2010, and no idea for long-term prediction.
Sorry I never means any negative issue for our sponsors who hope me to say something impressive, but as a chairman of the conference, I am more focusing on the value of the conference. Of course, small markets are always there, and I should reiterate that TD-SCDMA will be eventually Successful, because as long as China decided to do something, you can not find the word "Failure" from the dictionary.
The reasons of my prediction are based on several facts:
a) There is no big budget for TD-SCDMA in the next six years. The world bank loan and other loans are already planned completely.
b) Nobody really cares about the result of TD-SCDMA. Instead, most people care about the process and take it as a learning process and glory of being ITU standards.
c) Many issues remain unsolved for TD-SCDMA: lack of R&D activity, lack of policy support, network optimization, etc.
d) As long as TD-SCDMA is not ready, China will not open doors for other standards.
e) Mobile multimedia contents are still strictly frozen by the gov't, and will not expect to be released by 2010.
I only have 3 minutes left. So as a conclusion of my talk, please do not expect too much for your 3G business in China, at least before 2007, or by 2010. TD-CDMA will be successful and we should support it, but do not expect too much.
Thank you all for your attention.
Willie W. Lu, chair of 3G'2000, S.F.
Copyright (c) 2000. Delson Group Inc, the organizer of 3G'2000 in S.F.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Why and How to Unlock iPhone
Why and How to Unlock iPhone
Any mobile phone should be unlocked regardless whether is contracted with certain service provider or not. In over 120 countries with mobile phone services, only 4 countries still lock the mobile phone, and US is one of these 4 countries. AT&T is the worst carrier in locking its customers' phones. In contrast, China law in 1998 did not allow any providers to lock users' mobile phone, and therefore rapidly promoted its mobile communications.
As long as the users paid his or her mobile phone, or signed contract for the committed service period in exchange for the free phone which actually he/she paid it, the mobile phone becomes the personal property. Therefore, the operators have no rights to lock it, and in most countries, it is against the law. I do not think when you buy the TV, it must be locked to Comcast or Dish network which American people will definitely not accept it.
But why people can tolerate carriers locking their mobile phone in this country? Because traditionally, mobile phone is a telecom product instead of a consumer product, and telecom industries (like tabacco industries) spend huge money in controlling the government regulations, and monopolize the mobile communication markets. However, as the global liberation of mobile communications move forward, the mobile phone is becoming the consumer product which is deemed to open its system to the end users. It is just a matter of time when US will follow every country, inlcuding very under-developed countries in Africa, to enforce unlock of each mobile phone by law.
Basically, all these problems are in the service providers, not with the vendors. The mobile phone and its SIM card itself are all designed for independent operation, and nothing is locked, especially the purpose we standardized SIM card is to support its free portability and switchability of various handphones. The GSM SIM card carries global ID, registration information with certain service provider and the user account information. Normally, SIM card is sold and controlled by the provider and the global ID is the unique number for the mobile service which is very important, such as the SSN of each people. The new technique can copy the SIM card as long as we know your global ID. So please take care of your SIM card when you travel internationally.
As I said, the mobile phone is designed to be able to support any service providers' networks without locking to any specific SIM card, as long as the air interface (or wireless transmission standard) is the same and the SIM is valid. However, the mobile phone has several functional capability for the users or service providers to limit the the use of certain approved SIMs with the phone by mostly the software control. In other words, SIMs are NEVER locked, only the Phone can be locked to specific SIMs of the service providers by software.
Back to the iPhone case, who locked iPhone? The answers are very clear: AT&T Locked the iPhone to its AT&T SIM Card only! Apple, as an iPhone Vendor, does not like to lock anything on its products unless required by the service providers.
Frankly, AT&T will kill itself by contnuing locking its iPhone because of two: users' unlcoking of iPhone is protected by law, and everyone will be able to unlock the phone very soon.
The mobile phone can be locked by checking for required global ID of the specific SIM card in the main processor's program codes or in the interrupt program codes subject to different phone models. As long as you know the processors' name, you can always read out the codes and reverse engineer the assemble codes by commercial code analyzer or user-defined development tool, such as MobiAssem 6000 which can analyse and program most GSM phones. iPhone's processor model is pretty clear (vendor within 15 miles of Apple building). You can buy the MobiAssem 6000 or similar products from Taiwan or China Shenzhen at only $500/set if you need to do business, or you can download the Simulator from some websites for personal use.
After you read out all codes, please follow the steps:
1. read-in the global ID of your SIM card. You can look at the ID print on the card or get it from the SIM reader (you can buy it on-line or just $5 in China);
2. encode the global ID based on SIM codec algorithm (you can find the codec algorithm on-line or I can encode for you by sending me your global ID if you trust me);
3. after getting your encoded ID, search it from the main program source (it can be de-assembled languages or machine codes if you are smart enough);
4. after the ID found in the program, you can either disable this check function by bypassing the codes or just change the ID;
5. use MobiAssem 6000 to re-program the processor, and you are ready to change to other SIMs of other service providers.
The current iPhone is very easy to unlock because there are too many GSM tools in the markets to help on it. The US law protects the user's right to unlock the phone, but how to unlock the phone may incur illegal issues. Please check with your lawyer before doing phone-unlock business. For most people, I suggest you to pay around $7 (RMB50) to unlock your iPhone whenever you travel to Taiwan or mainland China.
There are also several other ways to unlock your iPhone without openning your iPhone (except to get your SIM card global ID) if you are familar with AT&T network optimization, GSM O&M channel configuration or iPhone control words assignment (ControlLib), etc. Phone lock is a very simple process by the service providers, and also simple to unlock it if the law permits. As I reiterated, how to unlock the iPhone may conflict with certain laws in US, and so I always suggest you unlock it in China, and bring back to US which is totally legal.
The iPhone hardware and software architecture details will be published on-line very soon, so you can understand more on this "secret phone".
Again, this pub is for education purpose only, not intended in any way, to challenge the legal issues of the intellectual property rights, but to protect the rights of the users who paid the iPhone and iPhone services and requested to unlock the phones. I will continue to publish more information to be helpful on the protection of users' such rights.
Willie W. Lu, cwc.us
Principal Mobile Phone Architect since 1993
Any mobile phone should be unlocked regardless whether is contracted with certain service provider or not. In over 120 countries with mobile phone services, only 4 countries still lock the mobile phone, and US is one of these 4 countries. AT&T is the worst carrier in locking its customers' phones. In contrast, China law in 1998 did not allow any providers to lock users' mobile phone, and therefore rapidly promoted its mobile communications.
As long as the users paid his or her mobile phone, or signed contract for the committed service period in exchange for the free phone which actually he/she paid it, the mobile phone becomes the personal property. Therefore, the operators have no rights to lock it, and in most countries, it is against the law. I do not think when you buy the TV, it must be locked to Comcast or Dish network which American people will definitely not accept it.
But why people can tolerate carriers locking their mobile phone in this country? Because traditionally, mobile phone is a telecom product instead of a consumer product, and telecom industries (like tabacco industries) spend huge money in controlling the government regulations, and monopolize the mobile communication markets. However, as the global liberation of mobile communications move forward, the mobile phone is becoming the consumer product which is deemed to open its system to the end users. It is just a matter of time when US will follow every country, inlcuding very under-developed countries in Africa, to enforce unlock of each mobile phone by law.
Basically, all these problems are in the service providers, not with the vendors. The mobile phone and its SIM card itself are all designed for independent operation, and nothing is locked, especially the purpose we standardized SIM card is to support its free portability and switchability of various handphones. The GSM SIM card carries global ID, registration information with certain service provider and the user account information. Normally, SIM card is sold and controlled by the provider and the global ID is the unique number for the mobile service which is very important, such as the SSN of each people. The new technique can copy the SIM card as long as we know your global ID. So please take care of your SIM card when you travel internationally.
As I said, the mobile phone is designed to be able to support any service providers' networks without locking to any specific SIM card, as long as the air interface (or wireless transmission standard) is the same and the SIM is valid. However, the mobile phone has several functional capability for the users or service providers to limit the the use of certain approved SIMs with the phone by mostly the software control. In other words, SIMs are NEVER locked, only the Phone can be locked to specific SIMs of the service providers by software.
Back to the iPhone case, who locked iPhone? The answers are very clear: AT&T Locked the iPhone to its AT&T SIM Card only! Apple, as an iPhone Vendor, does not like to lock anything on its products unless required by the service providers.
Frankly, AT&T will kill itself by contnuing locking its iPhone because of two: users' unlcoking of iPhone is protected by law, and everyone will be able to unlock the phone very soon.
The mobile phone can be locked by checking for required global ID of the specific SIM card in the main processor's program codes or in the interrupt program codes subject to different phone models. As long as you know the processors' name, you can always read out the codes and reverse engineer the assemble codes by commercial code analyzer or user-defined development tool, such as MobiAssem 6000 which can analyse and program most GSM phones. iPhone's processor model is pretty clear (vendor within 15 miles of Apple building). You can buy the MobiAssem 6000 or similar products from Taiwan or China Shenzhen at only $500/set if you need to do business, or you can download the Simulator from some websites for personal use.
After you read out all codes, please follow the steps:
1. read-in the global ID of your SIM card. You can look at the ID print on the card or get it from the SIM reader (you can buy it on-line or just $5 in China);
2. encode the global ID based on SIM codec algorithm (you can find the codec algorithm on-line or I can encode for you by sending me your global ID if you trust me);
3. after getting your encoded ID, search it from the main program source (it can be de-assembled languages or machine codes if you are smart enough);
4. after the ID found in the program, you can either disable this check function by bypassing the codes or just change the ID;
5. use MobiAssem 6000 to re-program the processor, and you are ready to change to other SIMs of other service providers.
The current iPhone is very easy to unlock because there are too many GSM tools in the markets to help on it. The US law protects the user's right to unlock the phone, but how to unlock the phone may incur illegal issues. Please check with your lawyer before doing phone-unlock business. For most people, I suggest you to pay around $7 (RMB50) to unlock your iPhone whenever you travel to Taiwan or mainland China.
There are also several other ways to unlock your iPhone without openning your iPhone (except to get your SIM card global ID) if you are familar with AT&T network optimization, GSM O&M channel configuration or iPhone control words assignment (ControlLib), etc. Phone lock is a very simple process by the service providers, and also simple to unlock it if the law permits. As I reiterated, how to unlock the iPhone may conflict with certain laws in US, and so I always suggest you unlock it in China, and bring back to US which is totally legal.
The iPhone hardware and software architecture details will be published on-line very soon, so you can understand more on this "secret phone".
Again, this pub is for education purpose only, not intended in any way, to challenge the legal issues of the intellectual property rights, but to protect the rights of the users who paid the iPhone and iPhone services and requested to unlock the phones. I will continue to publish more information to be helpful on the protection of users' such rights.
Willie W. Lu, cwc.us
Principal Mobile Phone Architect since 1993
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Is Sprint Ready for WiMax Offerings?
Business means keeping everyone busy. While 3G is struggling to roll out across the global, many companies shifted their business focus from 3G to other wireless technologies. WiMax is one of the hotttest candidates since 2003. WiMax is a good technology, and comprises the most advanced technologies into the wireless domain, and should be able to have a bright future if the business model is right on track.
I have been working on broadband wireless mobile since 1992, first on wireless ATM with ATM Forum, then evolved to wireless mobile ATM (wmATM), and HyperAccess and HyperLAN projects in EU. In March 1999, we started IEEE802.16 on LMDS, late expanded to MMDS. After taking a short break in 2002, we started WiMax in 2003 with a complete new busness strategy. Everyone agreed that wireless, broadband and mobility will converge together and provide users a truly service-oriented multimedia delivery infrastructure.
If you looked at the ABC News on June 2nd, 1998, the headline news was that Sprint would be the first to bring up the wireless ATM (ION Service) to EVERYONE in America. Sprint repeated same mission several years later with IEEE802.16 MMDS. Now, Sprint will be kicking off again the WiMax servive (called Xohm) nationwide in Amarica. Is Sprint Ready for WiMax Xohm offering?
The answer is of course "Yes" by Sprint and its partners. But it is really depending on how you define the "Ready".
From my 15 years experiences exactly in this broadband wireless and mobility business, I need to consider the following issues before it is really "Ready":
1. Cost-Effective - Cost is the most important issue for WiMax success. How to deliver a cost-effective and flat-rate service plan to enable users or partners to access the wireless broadband networks unlimittedly and easily is the critical issue for WiMax movement, otherwise it may repeat the history again. The new business model will detail how to low down the cost for end users or partners. But the conclution is clear: low cost will be the life for WiMax success.
2. Lessons We Learned - Every technology was great for that time period and that time of technology development. What we had learned from history is broadband wireless is not our principal communication need, but our value-added service, meaning that it is not the water for people, but the milk or jiuce, and users can select other drinks if they want. Therefore, carriers need lots of marketing work to try to convince the users to buy their products, otherwise the customers may simply forget it and get the required nutritions from other sources (meaning they can get broadband wireline services back to office or home, and no need to get it over the air).
3. Mobility - How much seamless mobility WiMax can support is still a big question. Without seamless mobility (vs. limited mobility), there is not much difference between broadband wireline and broadbnad wireless services for end-users. While I believe mobile WiMax (IEEE802.16m) can solve this issue well, there is still lots of issues dealing with traditional mobile roaming management, handover and spectrum allocation, etc. Frankly, mobile industry is very political, and the world is now much more diversified than that of 20 years ago when we only had GSM global standard at that time.
4. Regulations - The US mobile market is very closed compared to other world. In 1998, China law did not allow operators to lock the mobile phone of any user. As the world is going for more open markets of mobile communications, it is just a matter of time when the US market will be open too in this business.
5. Convergence - As one single wireless standard can not compromise both broadband high-speed transmission and seamless mobility, more and more operators go the converged platform to support multiple air interfaces within the converged networks infrastructure, such as T-Mobile, China Mobile and NTT, etc. How to converge WiMax with other wireless standards (WiFi, CDMA, GSM, etc) is a big challenge for operators.
I believe Sprint management has already considered these issues, and been comfortably ready for this historic movement.
Exclusively by Willie W. Lu, Director of USCWC, Palo Alto (cwc.us)
I have been working on broadband wireless mobile since 1992, first on wireless ATM with ATM Forum, then evolved to wireless mobile ATM (wmATM), and HyperAccess and HyperLAN projects in EU. In March 1999, we started IEEE802.16 on LMDS, late expanded to MMDS. After taking a short break in 2002, we started WiMax in 2003 with a complete new busness strategy. Everyone agreed that wireless, broadband and mobility will converge together and provide users a truly service-oriented multimedia delivery infrastructure.
If you looked at the ABC News on June 2nd, 1998, the headline news was that Sprint would be the first to bring up the wireless ATM (ION Service) to EVERYONE in America. Sprint repeated same mission several years later with IEEE802.16 MMDS. Now, Sprint will be kicking off again the WiMax servive (called Xohm) nationwide in Amarica. Is Sprint Ready for WiMax Xohm offering?
The answer is of course "Yes" by Sprint and its partners. But it is really depending on how you define the "Ready".
From my 15 years experiences exactly in this broadband wireless and mobility business, I need to consider the following issues before it is really "Ready":
1. Cost-Effective - Cost is the most important issue for WiMax success. How to deliver a cost-effective and flat-rate service plan to enable users or partners to access the wireless broadband networks unlimittedly and easily is the critical issue for WiMax movement, otherwise it may repeat the history again. The new business model will detail how to low down the cost for end users or partners. But the conclution is clear: low cost will be the life for WiMax success.
2. Lessons We Learned - Every technology was great for that time period and that time of technology development. What we had learned from history is broadband wireless is not our principal communication need, but our value-added service, meaning that it is not the water for people, but the milk or jiuce, and users can select other drinks if they want. Therefore, carriers need lots of marketing work to try to convince the users to buy their products, otherwise the customers may simply forget it and get the required nutritions from other sources (meaning they can get broadband wireline services back to office or home, and no need to get it over the air).
3. Mobility - How much seamless mobility WiMax can support is still a big question. Without seamless mobility (vs. limited mobility), there is not much difference between broadband wireline and broadbnad wireless services for end-users. While I believe mobile WiMax (IEEE802.16m) can solve this issue well, there is still lots of issues dealing with traditional mobile roaming management, handover and spectrum allocation, etc. Frankly, mobile industry is very political, and the world is now much more diversified than that of 20 years ago when we only had GSM global standard at that time.
4. Regulations - The US mobile market is very closed compared to other world. In 1998, China law did not allow operators to lock the mobile phone of any user. As the world is going for more open markets of mobile communications, it is just a matter of time when the US market will be open too in this business.
5. Convergence - As one single wireless standard can not compromise both broadband high-speed transmission and seamless mobility, more and more operators go the converged platform to support multiple air interfaces within the converged networks infrastructure, such as T-Mobile, China Mobile and NTT, etc. How to converge WiMax with other wireless standards (WiFi, CDMA, GSM, etc) is a big challenge for operators.
I believe Sprint management has already considered these issues, and been comfortably ready for this historic movement.
Exclusively by Willie W. Lu, Director of USCWC, Palo Alto (cwc.us)
Monday, August 6, 2007
Ten major problems of current iPhone
Ten major problems of current iPhone
[Edited by Willie W. Lu]
I am a wireless mobile phone architect for over 15 years, and was chief architect of Infineon designing phones for over 20 vendors. In looking closely to the insider of current iPhone, and looking forward to the future iPhone development, ten major problems need to be solved to make iPhone business successful:
1. The current wireless system architecture is very closed. Basically, it is still the old coupling technology to put together multiple radio standards into one handphone which is a big question in terms of transmission performance and system performance. For the next generation iPhone, the wireless architecture must be open, and the key system modules should be extensible and upgradeable based on the open wireless architecture (OWA) platform.
2. The wireless transmission efficiency is very low. While it is limited somehow to the closed system architecture, it is also stucked in the radio resource management (RRM) layer. The swicth with GSM, EDGE and Bluetooth is based on an inefficient algorithm to make RRM even worse if the user wants to have high-speed data while the voice is in short-time inactive mode. Because of the current billing model, the service provider is reluctant to turn off the voice when the data service is being charged.
3. The current iPhone data service is easy to get Virus attack. Wireless data transmisison is different from wireline data transmission because wireless needs more repeated transmission and access control when the radio channel is not stable (called wireless propogation). The traditional anti-virus solution is on the high-layers (application and service layer) protection. But wireless hacker is more interested on the lower-layer attckes including link layer and access control layer. Also, wireless data transmission is more based on frame-by-frame (FBF) rather than Bit-by-Bit (BBB), so it is hard to detect such virus if the data package is too long. If one virus comes with a long data package to the iPhone, it can dig down into the link layer and access control layer to de-synchronize the radio channel to force the iPhone to request re-access to the basestation again, or request retransmission of long data traffic. This can consume the radio resource and increase the frame-error-rate (FER) which seriously degrades the wireless performance. The current iPhone does not have any good solution to stop such data service attack which becomes the bottleneck to deliver the iPod services to the iPhone user through over-the-air transmission. The same problem exists for Blackberry data services as well.
4. iPhone should not work with AT&T. iPhone needs a service-oriented mobility infrastructure to deliver the iPod and phone services over the air, and therefore it should work with a converged wireless and mobile services provider. AT&T is a very limited service provider of GSM and EDGE only, and especially EDGE is still a questionable technology. Furthermore, AT&T's infrastructure is very out-of-date and of old technology, and is hard to provide a future-proven solution for the iPhone long-term roadmap. I would suggest T-Mobile or Verizon, etc which more fits iPhone's strategy.
5. iPhone will face many legal challenges. iPhone is basically a Phone, a wireless phone, not just a iPod. In the wireless domain, Apple is nothing compared with leading wireless vendors. The iPhone business is based on a converged open wireless air interfaces where lots of patents have been in the markets as the prior arts to stop iPhone to move forward. I spent almost 3 years to list around 100 key patents which may block iPhone to sell in the US market as well as the EU market. The cost to deal with these legal lawsuits will be very expensive, and surprisingly high.
6. iPhone should not lock its phone by AT&T. Users like iPhone because of its simplicity and personality as an open phone. Therefore it should not be locked to AT&T only, otherwise it will kill itself. In fact, iPhone may attract more pre-paid mobile users, especially in Europe and Asia. iPhone should allow users to change simcard freely when users are moving everywhere across the board to stay in cost-effective services, especially for international travellers.
7. iPhone will face serious competitors worldwide. iPhone is too expensive because of three: expensive phone, costly service contract and deadly locked phone. Many vendors are now copying iPhone model with very low costs. For example, there is one Taiwanese company delivers a new phone including all features of iPhone, but the cost is only $150, with prepaid simcard, no contract, no phone lock. Another phone from Shenzhen of China is only less than $100, but works well like an iPhone.
8. iPhone knows little about mobile game rule. Mobile industry is different from other industries because of its mobility and roaming features. Hence, all mobile players, either vendors, providers or regulators, must be familar with the game rules and follow the set guidelines. If iPhone does not work with the mobile mainstreams (both traditional telecom industries and emerging computer/network mobility industries), it will become isolated and hard to contribute to the game rule. It is a stupid strategy to copy the iPod model to the iPhone model, trust me !
9. Watching the iPhone engineering team! Once an iPhone becomes a name of the industry, many companies are eying for the iPhone team. One iPhone competitor offered doubled pay to a lead engineer at the iPhone team, and more interviews are on the way. Like Motorola lost many CDMA engineers to Qualcomm in early 90s, Apple will lose talents to its competitors, though maybe partners before.
10. Research papers on iPhone is too rare. iPhone is a fashion phone, but more a hypo. If you search for research papers on iPhone in IEEE, EI (engineering information) and Google, there are very few papers (less than 10) studying iPhone. This becomes an issue if Apple really wants to move this business forward, otherwise more users will shift their focuses to other offerings by Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, HP and RiM, where a long-term R&D strategy is pretty clear for the future mobile phone development.
Lastly, there are a 120-Ph.Ds team in a Shanghai Lab to develop the next generation iPhone, and we expect to see results soon this Fall.
For detailed iPhone reports, visit: http://cwc.us/report.htm
[Edited by Willie W. Lu]
I am a wireless mobile phone architect for over 15 years, and was chief architect of Infineon designing phones for over 20 vendors. In looking closely to the insider of current iPhone, and looking forward to the future iPhone development, ten major problems need to be solved to make iPhone business successful:
1. The current wireless system architecture is very closed. Basically, it is still the old coupling technology to put together multiple radio standards into one handphone which is a big question in terms of transmission performance and system performance. For the next generation iPhone, the wireless architecture must be open, and the key system modules should be extensible and upgradeable based on the open wireless architecture (OWA) platform.
2. The wireless transmission efficiency is very low. While it is limited somehow to the closed system architecture, it is also stucked in the radio resource management (RRM) layer. The swicth with GSM, EDGE and Bluetooth is based on an inefficient algorithm to make RRM even worse if the user wants to have high-speed data while the voice is in short-time inactive mode. Because of the current billing model, the service provider is reluctant to turn off the voice when the data service is being charged.
3. The current iPhone data service is easy to get Virus attack. Wireless data transmisison is different from wireline data transmission because wireless needs more repeated transmission and access control when the radio channel is not stable (called wireless propogation). The traditional anti-virus solution is on the high-layers (application and service layer) protection. But wireless hacker is more interested on the lower-layer attckes including link layer and access control layer. Also, wireless data transmission is more based on frame-by-frame (FBF) rather than Bit-by-Bit (BBB), so it is hard to detect such virus if the data package is too long. If one virus comes with a long data package to the iPhone, it can dig down into the link layer and access control layer to de-synchronize the radio channel to force the iPhone to request re-access to the basestation again, or request retransmission of long data traffic. This can consume the radio resource and increase the frame-error-rate (FER) which seriously degrades the wireless performance. The current iPhone does not have any good solution to stop such data service attack which becomes the bottleneck to deliver the iPod services to the iPhone user through over-the-air transmission. The same problem exists for Blackberry data services as well.
4. iPhone should not work with AT&T. iPhone needs a service-oriented mobility infrastructure to deliver the iPod and phone services over the air, and therefore it should work with a converged wireless and mobile services provider. AT&T is a very limited service provider of GSM and EDGE only, and especially EDGE is still a questionable technology. Furthermore, AT&T's infrastructure is very out-of-date and of old technology, and is hard to provide a future-proven solution for the iPhone long-term roadmap. I would suggest T-Mobile or Verizon, etc which more fits iPhone's strategy.
5. iPhone will face many legal challenges. iPhone is basically a Phone, a wireless phone, not just a iPod. In the wireless domain, Apple is nothing compared with leading wireless vendors. The iPhone business is based on a converged open wireless air interfaces where lots of patents have been in the markets as the prior arts to stop iPhone to move forward. I spent almost 3 years to list around 100 key patents which may block iPhone to sell in the US market as well as the EU market. The cost to deal with these legal lawsuits will be very expensive, and surprisingly high.
6. iPhone should not lock its phone by AT&T. Users like iPhone because of its simplicity and personality as an open phone. Therefore it should not be locked to AT&T only, otherwise it will kill itself. In fact, iPhone may attract more pre-paid mobile users, especially in Europe and Asia. iPhone should allow users to change simcard freely when users are moving everywhere across the board to stay in cost-effective services, especially for international travellers.
7. iPhone will face serious competitors worldwide. iPhone is too expensive because of three: expensive phone, costly service contract and deadly locked phone. Many vendors are now copying iPhone model with very low costs. For example, there is one Taiwanese company delivers a new phone including all features of iPhone, but the cost is only $150, with prepaid simcard, no contract, no phone lock. Another phone from Shenzhen of China is only less than $100, but works well like an iPhone.
8. iPhone knows little about mobile game rule. Mobile industry is different from other industries because of its mobility and roaming features. Hence, all mobile players, either vendors, providers or regulators, must be familar with the game rules and follow the set guidelines. If iPhone does not work with the mobile mainstreams (both traditional telecom industries and emerging computer/network mobility industries), it will become isolated and hard to contribute to the game rule. It is a stupid strategy to copy the iPod model to the iPhone model, trust me !
9. Watching the iPhone engineering team! Once an iPhone becomes a name of the industry, many companies are eying for the iPhone team. One iPhone competitor offered doubled pay to a lead engineer at the iPhone team, and more interviews are on the way. Like Motorola lost many CDMA engineers to Qualcomm in early 90s, Apple will lose talents to its competitors, though maybe partners before.
10. Research papers on iPhone is too rare. iPhone is a fashion phone, but more a hypo. If you search for research papers on iPhone in IEEE, EI (engineering information) and Google, there are very few papers (less than 10) studying iPhone. This becomes an issue if Apple really wants to move this business forward, otherwise more users will shift their focuses to other offerings by Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, HP and RiM, where a long-term R&D strategy is pretty clear for the future mobile phone development.
Lastly, there are a 120-Ph.Ds team in a Shanghai Lab to develop the next generation iPhone, and we expect to see results soon this Fall.
For detailed iPhone reports, visit: http://cwc.us/report.htm
Friday, August 3, 2007
4GMF works with CTIA to Kickoff the U.S. 4G Movement
San Francisco, 13 July 2007-- Simplicity. Personality. "The world is at the edge to reshape the mobile communications and liberate the whole wireless industry so that Users can Personalize the future mobile phone as Simple as a mouse", said Prof. Willie W. Lu, Chairman and Founder of 4GMF Global Mission, "and we are glad CTIA and world's leading industries agree to work together with 4GMF towards this important global initiative."
4GMF'07, a joint program with CTIA Wireless I.T.'2007, will be kicked-off in Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco this October 22-24. 4GMF'07 Grand Opening will be addressed by Hon. Julius P. Knapp, Chief of Office of Engineering and Technology, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and be attended by over 500 leading 4G experts, investors, policy makers, analysts and business strategists. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Reuters, Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine will report this historic global 4G movement.
4GMF will become the flagship and NO.1 global forum in promoting the truly service oriented mobile communication architecture and infrastructure for the convergence of multiple air interfaces or radio transmission technologies with focuses on users' increasing demands of simplicity and personality.
For more information on 4GMF'07, please visit: www.4GMF.org or www.4GMF.com.
Information about CTIA
CTIA is the international association for the wireless telecommunications industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA event is the No.1 and flagship in North America as well as the Asia-Pacific regions in the mobile and wireless communication industry.
For more information on CTIA, please visit: www.CTIA.org.
4GMF Palo Alto Office
e-mail: contact@4GMF.org
Tel: 1-650-288-4306
http://www.4GMF.org
4GMF'07, a joint program with CTIA Wireless I.T.'2007, will be kicked-off in Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco this October 22-24. 4GMF'07 Grand Opening will be addressed by Hon. Julius P. Knapp, Chief of Office of Engineering and Technology, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and be attended by over 500 leading 4G experts, investors, policy makers, analysts and business strategists. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Reuters, Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine will report this historic global 4G movement.
4GMF will become the flagship and NO.1 global forum in promoting the truly service oriented mobile communication architecture and infrastructure for the convergence of multiple air interfaces or radio transmission technologies with focuses on users' increasing demands of simplicity and personality.
For more information on 4GMF'07, please visit: www.4GMF.org or www.4GMF.com.
Information about CTIA
CTIA is the international association for the wireless telecommunications industry, representing carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA event is the No.1 and flagship in North America as well as the Asia-Pacific regions in the mobile and wireless communication industry.
For more information on CTIA, please visit: www.CTIA.org.
4GMF Palo Alto Office
e-mail: contact@4GMF.org
Tel: 1-650-288-4306
http://www.4GMF.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)