Individual Research Project

Participation of Indian Organizations in

Wireless Standards Development

Prof. Rekha Jain

March 12, 2009

Submitted by: Rahul Shah

PGPX-III

1

Table of Contents

1 Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 4

3 The Debate on Standardization ...................................................................................................... 5

4 Review of Standards Development Process ................................................................................... 7

4.1 The IEEE Standards Process .................................................................................................... 7

4.2 WiMAX Forum Process ......................................................................................................... 10

5 Situational Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 IPR licensing .......................................................................................................................... 12

5.2 Extent of Indian participation in 802.16 and WiMAX development ..................................... 15

5.3 CEWiT’s Strategy ................................................................................................................... 17

5.4 Beyond the CEWiT-BWCI-IIT Madras Combine ..................................................................... 19

6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 21

6.1 Recommendations for the Government ............................................................................... 21

6.1.1 Establish a clear vision, define a plan with milestones to achieve that vision and

monitor the execution of the plan ................................................................................................ 21

6.1.2 Provide incentives to attract core research to India ..................................................... 21

6.1.3 Push stronger regulation and monitor adherence ....................................................... 22

6.1.4 Speed up process to disburse research funds .............................................................. 22

6.1.5 Review the support systems and address any issues ................................................... 22

6.2 Recommendations for the Operators ................................................................................... 22

6.2.1 Take the lead in standards generation ......................................................................... 22

6.2.2 In partnership with the government, experiment with new technology ..................... 23

6.2.3 Pick a standard and customize it to their requirements ............................................... 23

6.2.4 Fund R&D projects in academia .................................................................................... 23

6.2.5 Create a powerful consortium that can influence standards ....................................... 23

7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23

8 Appendix A – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Ken Stanwood .................................................... 25

9 Appendix B – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Ajay Singh ........................................................... 28

2

10 Appendix C – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Munish Seth.................................................... 30

11 Appendix D – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Vinod Kumar Ramachandran ......................... 32

12 Appendix E – Transcript of Interview with Dr. Avinash Joshi ................................................... 34

13 Appendix F – Membership of BWCI as of March 1, 2009 ......................................................... 37

14 Appendix G – Invitation to Chinese Bodies to Participate in IEEE 802 Processes ..................... 39

15 References ................................................................................................................................ 42

16 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 43

3

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Role of Standards in a Technology-based Industry ................................................................. 6

Figure 2: The IEEE Standards Process .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: High Level Working Group Process Flow .............................................................................. 10

Figure 4: Working Group Release Candidate Review and Approval Process Flow .............................. 11

Figure 5: Country-wise Number of Members in Balloting Body of 802.16 .......................................... 16

Figure 6: Functional Distribution of Chinese Companies Represented in Balloting Body of 802.16 ... 19

Table of Tables

Table 1: Extract of IEEE 802.16-specific Patents for which Letters of Assurance have been Received

.............................................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 2: Major Milestones in Development of 802.16 ........................................................................ 15

Table 3: Fee Structure for Regular Membership of WiMAX Forum ..................................................... 20

4

1 Objective

With increasing complexity and integration, standardization of technology is becoming an

imperative despite its disadvantages. Participation in the standards generation process delivers

competitive advantage to participating organizations even when the standard is open. Fuelled by

growing market acceptance for high-speed wireless access, the world is witnessing rapid

development of new wireless technologies. This development, accompanied by increasing roaming

by wireless customers, mandates the adoption of standardized wireless technologies. In general,

Indian organizations today are not active drivers, or even participants, in the process of standards

generation for wireless communication. The purpose of this project is to:

1. Research the standards generation process

2. Research the costs of participation in the process

3. Research the current role played by governmental organizations, regional or national industry

bodies that support the development of communications technology, and commercial

organizations and research laboratories that have an interest in participating in the standards

process

4. Identify industry sectors and organizations that would benefit from participation in the process

5. Generate recommendations on whether, how and how much Indian organizations should

participate in the process.

6. Generate recommendations for government and national industry bodies specifying the level

and type of support required by commercial and research organizations in India

2 Methodology

The research was performed through review of published articles and via interviews with

experts who have several years of experience in the standards generation process. Since wireless

standards are the topic of this research, literature survey was done mostly through articles from the

IEEE. The research focused on the 802.16 family of standards and the WiMAX Forum®.

For the interviews, the experts were chosen from:

1. 802.16 standards body/WiMAX Forum

The purpose of this interview was to understand the intricacies of the standards process in the

two bodies and how a small organization might be successful in inserting its IPR in a standard

2. Alcatel-Lucent

5

The focus of these interviews was to better understand the dynamics of participation in the

standards generation process and the contribution of an MNC such as Alcatel-Lucent in

addressing India-specific requirements.

3. Motorola

This was another interview to understand the dynamics of the standards generation process for

4G.

4. Tech Mahindra

As a lead operator of WiMAX in India, and a participant in the WiMAX Forum, Tata

Communications provided a unique insight into participation by operators.

I was keen to conduct an interview with a representative of The Center for Excellence in

Wireless Technology (CEWiT) to gauge the extent of involvement of CEWiT in the 802.16 standards

processes and the WiMAX Forum. However, I was unable to make contact with CEWiT.

3 The Debate on Standardization

“A standard can be defined generally as a construct that results from reasoned, collective

choice and enables agreement on solutions of recurrent problems. Looked upon in this way, a

standard can be viewed as striking a balance between the requirements of users, the technological

possibilities and associated costs of producers, and constraints imposed by government for the

benefit of society in general. More functionally, an industry standard is a set of specifications to

which all elements of products, processes, formats, or procedures under its jurisdiction must

conform. The process of standardization is the pursuit of this conformity, with the objective of

increasing the efficiency of economic activity. Tassey (2000)”

Further, according to Tassey (2000), standards serve four basic functions:

1. Quality/Reliability

Standards are developed to specify acceptable product or service performance along one or more

dimensions.

2. Informational Standards

Standards help provide evaluated scientific and engineering information in the form of publications,

electronic data bases, terminology, and test and measurement methods for describing, quantifying,

and evaluating product attributes.

3. Compatibility/Interoperability

Standards specify properties that a product must have in order to work (physically or functionally)

with complementary products within a product or service system.

4. Variety Reduction

Standards limit a product to a certain range or number of characteristics such as size or quality

levels.

6

Figure 1 below depicts the role of standards in a technology-based industry.

Figure 1: Role of Standards in a Technology-based Industry

Source: Tassey (2000)

When a standard is open, smaller firms are able to garner a share of the value chain by

providing that piece of the solution where they have a comparative advantage. The entry of several

such firms diversifies the supply and increases price competition. Larger firms prefer to compete

where they can leverage their natural advantage – the economy of scale. A proprietary standard,

because it greatly constrains the number of suppliers, means that only some segments of a market

can be served. On the other hand, open standards bring many more suppliers to the market and

therefore enable the servicing of all customer segments.

Since industry standards are most often agreed upon by consensus, a standard does not

guarantee optimality. Once the firms in an industry have made substantial investments in creating

products and services compatible to an existing standard, they are unwilling to migrate to a new

standard. Thus, standardization often induces a “lock-in” effect wherein resources may be allocated

to an inferior technology for a considerable period of time. Dominant suppliers of a technology fall

prey to the “installed base” effect which discourages them from making revolutionary or disruptive

innovation. Instead they focus on backward compatibility which limits them to evolutionary

innovation.

7

Over a technology’s life cycle, standardization can increase efficiency within a technology life

cycle, but it also can prolong existing life cycles to an excessive degree by inhibiting investment in

the technological innovation that creates the next cycle.

4 Review of Standards Development Process

4.1 The IEEE Standards Process

The IEEE Standards process is shown in Figure 2 below. Until 1999, the IEEE standards

process was based on an individual approach – each person had a vote. In 1999, the IEEE created the

ISTO, which allowed companies to form consortia for standards development. The IEEE 802.16

process is individual-based.

To facilitate its operation, the SASB has six standing committees:

1. New Standards Committee (NesCom) – reviews and recommends action on PARs.

2. Standards Review Committee (RevCom) – reviews drafts of standards after sponsor ballot and if

appropriate, recommends approval as an IEEE standard.

3. Procedures Committee (ProCom) – develops and maintains the policies and procedures of the

SASB.

4. Audit Committee (AudCom) – reviews and accepts policies and procedures from the sponsor

committees and the standards coordinating committees.

5. Patent Committee (PatCom) — deals with the patent policy and other issues relating to patents

in IEEE standards.

6. Administrative Committee (AdCom) — acts for the Standards Board between meetings and

makes recommendations to the Standards Board for its disposition at regular meetings.

8

Figure 2: The IEEE Standards Process

Source: Wright (2008)

According the IEEE web site, the IEEE Standards Process adheres to the following basic

principles:

1. Due process, which means having highly visible procedures for standards creation and following

them. Procedures are set by the IEEE-SA Standards Board, the IEEE Societies that sponsor

standards, and the working groups that actually formulate standards.

2. Openness, which ensures all interested parties can participate actively in the IEEE standards

development process.

3. Consensus, which holds that a clearly defined percentage of those in a balloting group vote to

approve a draft of a standard.

4. Balance, which ensures that balloting groups include all interested parties and avoid an

overwhelming influence by any one party.

5. Right of appeal, which allows anyone to appeal a standards development decision at any point,

before or after a standard has been approved.

According to the IEEE web site, a standard begins with a project authorization request (PAR).

Projects may be new standards or revisions or amendments of existing standards. When a proposal

is made for a new standards project to the LMSC, the proposer is required to satisfy the following

five criteria as per Wright (2008):

1. The new standard must have broad market potential

9

2. All standards are required to be in conformance with the IEEE 802.1 Architecture, Management,

and Interworking documents.

3. The new standard is required to have a distinct identity, i.e., it must not have substantial overlap

with an existing standard

4. The new standard must be technically feasible

5. The new standard must be economically feasible

Standards have a five-year life. The SASB approves or disapproves a PAR based on a review

by its NesCom at quarterly SASB meetings or by a continuous approval process. A standards project

should be completed within four years after its PAR is approved. With PAR approval, the study group

becomes a working group. Working groups are open to the public and should have well-publicized

procedures regarding membership, voting, officers, recordkeeping and other areas.

Balloting begins when the sponsor decides the draft of the full standard is stable. The

sponsor forms a balloting group containing persons interested in the standard. Balloters usually fall

into one of three classes: producers, users or general interest. The latter is a broad category that can

include government officials, consultants and end users. No interest category can comprise over

one-half of the balloting group.

The goal in balloting is to gain the greatest consensus. Ballots usually last 30 to 60 days.

Balloters can approve, disapprove, or abstain. They can also approve or disapprove with comment. A

standard will pass if at least 75 percent of all ballots from a balloting group are returned and if 75

percent of these bear a "yes" vote. If ballot returns of 30 percent are abstentions, the ballot fails.

Anyone can appeal actions and decisions made during the process at any time. Before IEEE-

SA Standards Board approval, complaints are handled by the Sponsor. After approval, they are

handled by the IEEE-SA Standards Board if the issue is procedural or by the Sponsor if the issue is

technical. After approval, the standard is edited by an IEEE-SA editor, given a final review by the

members of the working group, and published.

A standard is valid for five years from its publication date. During this time, a working group

can develop and ballot revisions or extensions to the standard, which are appended as amendments.

After five years, a standard is reaffirmed, revised or withdrawn.

10

4.2 WiMAX Forum Process

“The WiMAX Forum is an industry-led, not-for-profit organization formed to certify and

promote the compatibility and interoperability of broadband wireless products based upon the

harmonized IEEE 802.16/ETSI HiperMAN standard (http://www.wimaxforum.org/about/about-

wimax-forum-overview).”

While 802.16 primarily specifies the Layer 1 and Layer 21 requirements, the WiMAX Forum

fills gaps in the 802.16 specs. It also defines the Test Specifications and the Certification Process. A

significant difference between the WiMAX Forum and the IEEE 802.16 processes is that the former is

organization-based while the latter is individual based.

The WiMAX Forum comprises the following Working Groups:

1. Application Working Group (AWG)

2. Certification Working Group (CWG)

3. Global Roaming Working Group (GRWG)

4. Marketing Working Group (MWG)

5. Network Working Group (NWG)

6. Regulatory Working Group (RWG)

7. Service Provider Working Group (SPWG)

8. Technical Working Group (TWG)

The Working Group (WG) Process is broadly described by the steps shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: High Level Working Group Process Flow

Source: WiMAX Forum web site

(http://www.wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/WG_Process_Guidlines_Rev1_3.pdf)

1 The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model divides a communications system into the following layers:

Layer 1: Physical Layer

Layer 2: Data Link Layer

Layers 3 through 7: Network, Transport, Session, Presentation and Application Layers respectively

11

A project is initiated using the Project Proposal Form. As a part of the process, a lead person

or owner who is responsible for the various deliverables is identified. The roles and responsibilities

for the lead/owner are as follows:

1. Serve as primary contact

2. Coordinate contribution with other content experts

3. Formulate recommendations to the WG

4. Lead the WG in pre-vote discussion.

It is important to note that much of the activity to generate and harmonize content for a

document is performed outside of the Working Group meetings. According to Mr. Ken Stanwood,

“All features have IP behind them. People push for features to be accepted because their companies

have IP or because they truly believe that the feature is good. However, if people feel that the owner

of the IP will be unfair, then they push back on even good features. In the actual meeting where

features are evaluated, it is not allowed to ask questions as to who owns IPR in the feature. So much

of the lobbying is done behind the scenes employing unwritten rules (See Appendix A – Transcript

of Interview with Mr. Ken Stanwood).”

Contributions are posted and harmonized through comments over an e-mail, and then

submitted to the WG. The WG continues to review content submissions once they become part of

the deliverable document. Once a document is ready for release, the WG follows the steps outlined

in Figure 4 below to review and approve the document. Each particular ballot review has a Ballot

Voter Pool consisting of the Voting Members at the start of the Ballot. During the ballot review, the

release candidate document is posted and a ballot is created on the website. There is a minimum

two-week deadline to return comments. To establish a quorum, greater than 50% of the WG Voting

Members as of the start of the ballot must submit a ballot with approval, disapproval, or abstention.

Figure 4: Working Group Release Candidate Review and Approval Process Flow

Source: WiMAX Forum web site

12

The WG must resolve all comments that are classified as critical and implement any

necessary changes before sending the document to the board for ratification. Ballot review

comments can be resolved by:

1. Accepting the requested change as stated

2. Accepting the requested change with modification

3. Deferring to a future release

4. Rejecting the request with explanation

It is the responsibility of the WG officers to try to resolve comments with consensus,

harmonize the requested changes and convert as many disapprovals to approvals as possible. If

comments cannot be resolved by consensus, a formal vote among the Ballot Voter Pool may be

used. According to Mr. Stanwood, “3GPP prides itself on being consensus based, but that enables

blocking. WiMAX is quick to go to a vote.”

As long as greater than 60% of the Voting Members have approved the ballot with the

critical ballot comments resolved, the decision to perform another complete ballot review and what

Ballot Voter Pool to use is left to the WG Chair. Once the WG has obtained a >60% approval on the

final ballot from Voting Members and has resolved all the technical comments, the document is

presented to the Board for ratification.

5 Situational Analysis

After having understood the standards generation process, we now analyze the existing

situation along the following dimensions:

1. IPR licensing

2. Extent of Indian participation in 802.16 and WiMAX development

3. CEWiT’s strategy

4. Indian participation beyond the CEWiT-BWCI-IIT Madras combine

5.1 IPR licensing

One of the major reasons that organizations participate in standards development is to

insert their IPR into the standard. Thus, if the IPR is deemed essential, the organization is guaranteed

a revenue stream as reward for its innovative research. In this section, we review the IEEE and

WiMAX Forum IPR policies and examine tradeoffs and trends in patent licensing.

13

IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. The

IEEE requests a Letter of Assurance (LOA) from a patent holder or patent applicant in case a patent is

inserted into a standard. The assurance is required prior to the approval of the standard. The

purpose of the LOA is to ensure Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms to any

party. The list of patents in 802.16 for which LOAs have been received is available at

http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/pat802_16.html. It is interesting to note that some companies

do not indicate Patent Serial Numbers while providing an LOA. For example, see the third entry in

Table 1 below.

Std No.

Patent Owner Contact for License Patent Serial No. (if indicated)

Letter Date

Assurance Received

Date record entered or revised (if known)

802.16 Hybrid Networks, Inc. , 6409 Guadalupe Mines Road, San Jose CA 95120

Michael Greenbaum, President and CEO, tel: +1-408-323-6213, email: michael.greenbaum@hybrid.com

RE35774 (US), 5586121 (US), 5818845 (US), 5828655 (US), 5859852 (US), 5946322 (US), 5956346 (US), 5959660 (US), 5959997 (US), 6005850 (US), 6016316 (US), 6104727 (US)

1-Aug-2001

yes 1-Apr-2002

802.16 Ensemble Communications Inc., 9890 Towne Centre Drive, San Diego CA 92121

Jay Klein, Chief Technical Officer, tel: +1-858-404-6544, fax: +1-858-458-9860, email: jay@ensemble.com

6,016,311 (US) 5-Dec-2001

yes 10-Dec-2001

802.16 Nokia Corporation, PO Box 226, Finland-00045

Harri Honkasalo, IPR, tel: +358405654604, fax: +358406654604, email: harri.honkasalo@nokia.com

not indicated 30-Nov-2001

yes 10-Dec-2001

Table 1: Extract of IEEE 802.16-specific Patents for which Letters of Assurance have been Received

Source: http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/pat802_16.html

In an e-mail conversation, Dr. Roger Marks, Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband

Wireless Access, explained that companies could refuse to disclose specific patent numbers for the

following reasons:

a) The company does not know whether the patent it has is applicable

b) Some patent applications have not yet led to patents

14

c) If the company cites a specific patent list, it may be deemed to be excluding its other patents

Regardless of the reasons, the IEEE requirements are covered as long as the company provides the

assurance that all its patents will be available on FRAND terms.

The patent policy of the WiMAX Forum is similar. When a document is being drafted, all

participants are encouraged to disclose patents or patent applications that constitute, or are likely to

constitute, “Necessary Claims.” WiMAX also requires FRAND terms.

According to Carson (2007), W-CDMA uptake was slowed by high royalty rates. The industry

norm for royalty rates is 5% whereas the royalty rate on W-CDMA handsets was 9.4%. This disparity

was due to the concentrated holding of essential IPR by a few companies. In this case, 12 companies

held 80% of essential IPR with four of them owning 60%. If essential IPR is distributed across several

companies, they enter into cross-licensing agreements with each other. This arrangement also

favours companies that dominate the essential IPR where companies with a strong IPR portfolio

might pay less than 5 percent royalties on their handsets, while those without IPR may pay as much

as 28 percent. It is therefore in the interest of the consumer that the patent portfolio be distributed

equitably between a large number of players.

The situation is likely to be different in 4G where the royalty landscape is expected to be

diverse according to Taylor (2007). Therefore, cross-licensing is expected to be the norm, especially

in WiMAX, where over 350 companies own essential IPR. It is expected that there will be

considerable consolidation in the IPR holding in the future. Moreover, there is the danger that

Samsung will replace Qualcomm as a dominant patent holder in WiMAX. Since mobile WiMAX will

bring about convergence between wireless and computer technologies, the possibility also exists

that hitherto unasserted patents from the computing world will be asserted over WiMAX.

When the stakes surrounding IPR are so high, can a small organization effectively influence

the standards process to incorporate features based on its IPR? Mr. Seth (see Appendix C –

Transcript of Interview with Mr. Munish Seth) categorically felt that it was very difficult for a small

firm to influence the standards development process. Mr. Stanwood echoed this sentiment but

suggested that a small firm may be able to insert its IPR in a standard if it formed alliances. In his

words, their success would be a function of:

(a) How good their idea is

(b) Whether other organizations are confident that they will follow "Fair and Reasonable" licensing

15

(c) How long they have participated and whether they have built a solid technical reputation by

contributing to parts that they do not have an interest in

(d) How much they have helped other companies to get those companies' ideas accepted.

Academic research supports the underlying advice of Mr. Stanwood – that small

organizations ally with other organizations. The question was investigated in Leiponen (2006) using

3GPP as the empirical context. The major findings of this investigation are:

(a) Participation in external technical consortia (such as the UMTS Forum, GSM Association, etc.)

significantly enhances firms’ contributions to the development of new specifications in 3GPP

committees

(b) Once a firm has become a central player in technical committees, it can further influence the

standard-setting outcome through change requests to ongoing specifications. External alliances

with fellow 3GPP members may also improve change request success.

5.2 Extent of Indian participation in 802.16 and WiMAX

development

The development of 802.16 has been a shared effort by members of the IEEE. The

approximate timelines of development of the major versions of 802.16 is shown in Table 2 below:

802.16 version Major milestone

802.16a Started in 2000

802.16d Standardized in 2004

802.16e Standardized in 2005

802.16j Initiated in 2006, almost ready for release

802.16m Initiated in 2007, expected release in mid- to late- 2010

Table 2: Major Milestones in Development of 802.16

As of November 21, 2008, there were 479 active members in the 802.16 balloting body.

Figure 5 shows the country-wise distribution of these members. From the figure, we see that the top

five nations by representation were: USA (163), South Korea (96), Taiwan (58), China (51), and Japan

(21); India had only three members in all. It is interesting to note that three of the Chinese members

are employed by the Chinese Academy of Telecommunication Research (CATR), a government body.

Similarly, 26 South Korean members represented the Electronics and Telecommunication Research

Institute (ETRI). Also, we note that 19 of the 51 Chinese members are employed by MNCs such as

Intel.

16

USA, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Canada are pioneering nations in the field of wireless

communications. So their leadership in the participation standards generation is to be expected. But

how did China become a dominant force in standards generation? If the Chinese participation is a

function of the market size, India should not be as far behind China as the numbers suggest. We

believe that the fundamental reason is the strategic intent of the Chinese government and the

tactical steps taken to achieve this intent.

Figure 5: Country-wise Number of Members in Balloting Body of 802.16

Source: Derived from list of members as of November 21, 2008 from the IEEE website

According to Stephen, Kemp, Morris (2007), countries promote home grown standards for two

two reasons: to develop their IPR and to promote indigenous equipment manufacturers. For

example, Japan promoted i-mode service and FOMA. Similarly, China standardized and promoted its

home grown TD-SCDMA technology for 3G2. Moreover, according to Silva (2005), the Chinese

government has used its authority to mandate that foreign companies that own essential IPR must

2 There are detractors of this approach who feel that a standard created by working around existing IPR must

be sub-optimal.

18

51

1

7

15

5

3

19

1

21

96

3

1

1

4

58

12

163

Canada

China

Egypt

Finland

France

Germany

India

Israel

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Netherlands

Russia

Singapore

Sweden

Taiwan

UK

USA

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

17

negotiate royalty rates with the CATR which is subordinate to the MII. This is contrary to the globally

accepted practice of direct firm-to-firm negotiation on licensing terms. Regardless of the technical or

economic feasibility of TD-SCDMA, China sent a message to global telecom corporations that it

wanted a share of the telecom value chain that has traditionally been dominated by US and

European companies. In exchange, it was willing to grant access to its market. The success of this

bargaining tactic is evidenced by the invitation to Chinese bodies to participate in IEEE 802 processes

(for full text of the letter, see

18

Appendix G – Invitation to Chinese Bodies to Participate in IEEE 802 Processes). Thus,

Chinese companies were welcomed to participate in the standardization process.

Chinese companies, led by Huawei and ZTE, have participated vigorously in 802.16

development. In contrast, CEWiT was the lone Indian organization to regularly participate in 802.16

development. CEWiT was established in 2004 as a public-private partnership “to develop world class

next generation wireless technology in India. (www.cewit.org.in)” The Centre is funded by the

Department of Information Technology and BWCI, a consortium of telecom industry stakeholders.

BWCI was formed in2007. In fact, CEWiT initiated the set up of BWCI as per Jhunjhunwala (2009).

CEWiT’s participation has been ongoing for the past two years and is focused on 802.16m

which is an evolved version of 802.16e. Meetings are held every two months around the world. In

general, the total cost of participation – including registration, travel, accommodation and boarding

– per meeting per person is INR 1.2 lakhs to INR 1.5 lakhs depending on the location. Given six

meetings per year, the average annual cost per participant is INR 8.21 lakhs. Therefore, participation

is an expensive proposition.

While the cost of participation is high, the outflow due to royalty payments is also high. The

cost to a nation in royalty outflow has been estimated by Jhunjhunwala (2009) as USD 15 per line for

GSM even though the technology is over two decades old. This cost is distributed across handsets

and base station equipment. Clearly, this has a significant impact on operator CapEx costs and,

therefore, the cost to the consumer of the service. It is estimated that four essential IPRs in a

standard neutralize the capital outflow due to royalty.

5.3 CEWiT’s Strategy

CEWiT is based on the IIT Madras campus to leverage the R&D capabilities of the Institute.

IIT Madras has established The Telecommunications and Computer Networking Group (TeNeT)

whose mission is “to address pressing needs of India and other developing countries by market-

driven product development, strengthening of Indian telecom/networking industry, technical

training and education, and driving telecom/IT policy.” CEWiT collaborates with TeNeT on R&D.

According to Koilpillai (2007), in the first two years of its operations, CEWiT studied

emerging wireless standards in light of Indian market requirements. Next, CEWiT initiated research

in OFDM technologies such as IEEE 802.16 d/e and LTE. It developed WiFiRe, a proprietary extension

of the WiFi MAC for rural applications. Its research has resulted in patents and publications. In

19

addition to its participation in BWCI, CEWiT participates in the Wireless World Research Forum

(WWRF).

The WWRF was formed in 2001. As per the WWRF web site (http://www.wireless-world-

research.org/index.php?id=92), “the objective of the forum is to formulate visions on strategic

future research directions in the wireless field, among industry and academia, and to generate,

identify, and promote research areas and technical trends for mobile and wireless system

technologies. We are developing a common global vision for the future of wireless to drive research

and standardization. In addition to influencing regional and national research programmes (such as

the European Union’s FP7 programme) WWRF members contribute to the work done within the ITU,

UMTS Forum, ETSI, 3GPP, 3GPP2, IETF, and other relevant bodies regarding commercial and

standardisation issues derived from the research work.” The WWRF meets twice a year for three

days at a time.

As per the Membership List of the WWRF (http://www.wireless-world-

research.org/fileadmin/sites/default/files/about_the_forum/membership/2009-01_MembersList-

web.pdf), the only Indian member at this Forum is IIT Madras3. China has five members: CATR

(China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII); China Mobile; Huawei Technologies Co.,

Ltd.; Wireless Technology Innovation (WTI), Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications; and

ZTE Corporation. Research has shown that membership of working groups at such fora are positions

of influence. There are seven WGs at WWRF; China holds the Chairmanship of one WG and the Vice-

Chairmanship of three. While CEWiT is following the recommendations propounded by Leiponen

(2006), Chinese organizations are doing so far more vigorously.

5.4 Beyond the CEWiT-BWCI-IIT Madras Combine

While CEWiT is representing India in global standards development, a single organization can

do only so much. If we analyze the functional distribution of the Chinese participants in 802.16 as of

November 2008, we find that they represent equipment manufacturers, baseband chipset designers,

a video decoder designer, the government and academia. Figure 6 below shows the functional

distribution of the participants. We see that the participation is led by equipment manufacturers

followed by chipset designers. Recall that 802.16 defines the core communications standard used by

WiMAX (after some modification). Therefore, we do not see active participation from Chinese

operators in this forum.

3 CEWiT probably participates through IIT Madras

20

Figure 6: Functional Distribution of Chinese Companies Represented in Balloting Body of 802.16

Source: Derived from list of members as of November 21, 2008 from the IEEE website

Operators participate in the WiMAX Forum mostly as Regular Members. Reliance

Communications, Bharti Airtel, China Unicom and China Telecom are all Regular Members. However,

Tata Communications is a Principal Member. Principal Members have the following rights that

Regular Members do not enjoy:

• Eligible to serve as a Working Group or Task Group chair

• Eligible to stand for election to open seats on the Board of Directors

• Right to vote on working group output

• Right to apply for and submit products for WiMAX Forum Certification

• Right to participate in Certification Plugfests

• Free Access to the Spectrum & Regulatory Database

According to Mr. Stanwood, product companies participate in the standardization process

for two reasons:

(a) Insert sufficient IPR so that they can sign cross-licensing agreements (and therefore avoid paying

royalties), i.e., to influence the process

25

13 3

7

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Equipment

Manufacturer

Baseband

chipset designer

Video chipset

designer

Academia Government

MNC

Indigenous

21

(b) To get access to the latest information on the definition of the standard. The draft copies of the

standard are available only to participants. Since the final draft is available 6-12 months before

the officially published version, and it is very close to the published version, participants get a

head start on the implementation.

Essentially, Regular Membership serves only the second purpose while Principal

Membership serves both purposes. If an operator wants to influence the choice of features or the

implementation of a feature, it would have to be a Principal Member. The only other Indian

company that has Principal Membership is Ordyn Technologies, an equipment manufacturer. There

were 118 Principal Members as of February 28, 2009.

According to the WiMAX Forum web site, membership fees are based on the company's

total consolidates corporate sales in US dollars for the last four quarters. The Annual Fee for a

Regular Membership is shown in Table 3. The Fee Structure for Principal Membership is not

advertised on the web site.

Revenue over Last Four Quarters Fee (USD)

Under $50M 5,000

Between $50M and $400M 10,000

Over $400M 15,000

Table 3: Fee Structure for Regular Membership of WiMAX Forum

Source: WiMAX Forum web site (http://www.wimaxforum.org/membership/membership-levels-fees)

We end this section by noting that Indian participation in standards development lags well

behind that of China at every forum that we studied – IEEE 802.16 Standards Development, the

WiMAX Forum and the World Wireless Research Forum. If India aims to reduce or eliminate the

royalty outflow, it must have robust participation beyond the CEWiT-BWCI-IIT Madras combine.

6 Recommendations

The subject of participation in standards by Indian organization is a complex one. It touches

many facets of the ecosystem. In the short time dedicated to this report, it is impossible to unravel

all the threads of this complex problem. Therefore, the recommendations in this section are meant

to be a first step towards the solution to the problem. The recommendations here apply to the two

most powerful players in this ecosystem: the government and the operators.

22

6.1 Recommendations for the Government

For any country, control over communications standards is about more than economic

benefits; it is a reflection of the strategic intent of the nation. China clearly signalled its intent to gain

a share in the value chain of wireless communication by pushing it home-grown TD-SCDMA

technology. Further, the Chinese government negotiated a royalty rate of 2% for CDMA as opposed

to a rate of 5% applied around the world (see Appendix C – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Munish

Seth). The Indian system of government does not encourage intervention in firm-to-firm

transactions. So the government must use the levers it has to capture the mindshare of standards

generation bodies.

6.1.1 Establish a clear vision, define a plan with milestones to achieve

that vision and monitor the execution of the plan

When a new technology is mandated by the government, it must have a dedicated body driving the

adoption of that technology. For example, along with the mandate to upgrade Korea to IPv6, the

Korean government established a 5-6 year adoption plan with specific milestones that were

monitored. The Indian government must follow this model. Moreover, the government must speed

up adoption of new technologies where it can exercise control. The incessant delays in the 3G/BWA

spectrum auction send signals to global technology players that India is not serious in upgrading to

these new technologies. If the government partnered with operators to trial new technologies (this

means it must have the appropriate spectrum available), India-specific requirements would be

discussed and inserted into standards very early.

6.1.2 Provide incentives to attract core research to India

This option is a political minefield in the best of times. In the current economic situation, it is nearly

impossible to draw core research to India as Western countries prize research as one of their crown

jewels. However difficult it is to navigate this minefield, it has to be done in the future, if not now. Of

course, royalties will still flow out to parent companies but this step will create a research ecosystem

in long term. Although Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, etc. have research operations in India, they are

ancillaries. It would be best to start with small companies. For example, Beceem and Telsima have

relatively large research facilities in India.

6.1.3 Push stronger regulation and monitor adherence

It is well known that BSNL contracts require a fraction of equipment to be manufactured in India.

Companies such as Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson have set up manufacturing units; Alcatel-Lucent is

also doing a technology transfer to ITI. On the other hand, Huawei and ZTE only assemble in India

23

but are still allowed to supply to BSNL. Stronger regulation would strengthen the Indian

manufacturing ecosystem and keep a larger share of value within the country.

6.1.4 Speed up process to disburse research funds

According to Dr. Avinash Joshi, many standards bodies require a reference implementation in

addition to a proposed contribution. Funding for research and implementation of reference

solutions is available in India through the government but obtaining funding requires a long lead

time. Therefore, researchers must know about three years in advance exactly what they want to

implement. The government should review this process and considerably speed it up.

6.1.5 Review the support systems and address any issues

One of the key support systems for a strong research ecosystem is a responsive and well-qualified

staff in the patents office. The government should review the processes and performance of all such

support infrastructure and proactively address any issues so that bottlenecks are removed.

6.2 Recommendations for the Operators

As we saw in the case of the Chinese participants in 802.16, the vendors and chipset

manufacturers participate most vigorously in standards generation. There are no dominant Indian

players in either of these industries. The only industry segment that has the financial clout is that of

the operators. To nurture an innovative ecosystem, the operators can do the following:

6.2.1 Take the lead in standards generation

Operators can invest in standards generation to ensure that their India-specific requirements are an

integral part of the standard rather than being an afterthought. However, participation in physical

layer standards generation requires deep knowledge of communications theory and signal

processing which is typically not the forte of operators. Alternatively, operators can sponsor

participation by academicians and representatives of small, indigenous vendors.

6.2.2 In partnership with the government, experiment with new

technology

Typically, Indian operators have not ventured to experiment with new technology. Instead, they are

content to minimize their risk exposure by deploying only mature technologies. Unfortunately, the

experience of European operators, who overbid for 3G spectrum, has only served to reinforce this

tendency. If Indian operators experiment with cutting edge technology (in spectrum allocated by the

government), they will command a significant mindshare in the standards generating bodies.

24

6.2.3 Pick a standard and customize it to their requirements

Operators can pick an existing standard and customize it to meet their India-specific requirements.

For example, they might mandate a higher level of edge-of-cell coverage than is provided by an

existing standard (for which CEWiT has a patented solution). This approach begs the question that

who will build the equipment for this customized standard? Even if someone did build it, the cost

benefit of reducing the royalty outflow might easily be overwhelmed by the loss of economy of

scale.

6.2.4 Fund R&D projects in academia

This is ongoing with the operators funding the various TCOEs.

6.2.5 Create a powerful consortium that can influence standards

This task has begun with the creation of the BWCI in 2007. However, the BWCI is still a young

organization that will need 4-5 years to become an influential player (see Appendix E – Transcript of

Interview with Dr. Avinash Joshi).

7 Conclusion The road to becoming an influential nation in global standards development is a difficult

one. The good news is that several of the limiting factors are self-imposed. However, unless the

government takes proactive steps and encourages operators and industry consortia to accelerate

Indian participation, India will continue to lag in core research and manufacturing. This, in turn, will

reflect in the poor Indian participation in global standards development.

25

8 Appendix A – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Ken

Stanwood

Mr. Stanwood has been very closely involved with the development of 802.16 and WiMAX.

He has held the following positions:

1. Co-founder of WiMAX Forum

2. First Chair of the Technical Working Group (TWG) of WiMAX Forum

3. Member of WiMAX Board of Directors

4. Chair of several 802.16 task groups

5. Vice-Chair of 802.16

The following is the transcript of a telephone interview with Mr. Stanwood:

1. How do some companies dominate a standard?

There are a lot of aspects to driving a standard:

(a) Membership of the Board of Directors

This is a position of influence which brings with itself the benefit of credibility and the ability to get

face time with senior decision makers of companies. Therefore, simply by the virtue of being a

Director, a person wields considerable influence over the development of a standard.

(b) Membership of the Technical Working Group

Similarly, a member of the TWG wields influence because the TWG decides which features will be

optional and which will be mandatory. Thus, the TWG determines which company's IPR is essential.

(c) Spending a lot of money

Participation in 802.16 standards meeting is individual-based rather than organization-based.

Companies that can afford to send more people can garner more votes for its proposals. However,

to keep membership current, the company would have to have employees participate on a regular

basis and this becomes very expensive. Still, companies may use this technique to influence the

acceptance of features in a standard. It should be noted, however, that participants are required to

disclose their company affiliation. The affiliation is readily apparent in the case of employees but

may be ambiguous in the case of consultants.

(d) Personality of participants

Companies sponsor active, forceful personalities help to influence discussions.

2. What is the relation/distinction between 802.16 and WiMAX?

26

802.16 specifies the Layer 1 and Layer 2 requirements but may extend to higher Layers in

some cases. On the other hand, WiMAX was formed to fill gaps in the 802.16 specs. It defines the

Test Specifications and the Certification Process. Moreover, it comprises several Working Groups

such as:

(a) The Technical Working Group which specifies which features of 802.16 are optional and which

are mandatory

(b) The Certification Working Group which specifies the Certification Process

(c) The Network Working Group which defines interoperability specifications, network architecture,

protocols, etc.

(d) The Service Providers' Working Group which defines requirements for femto cells, etc.

3. How does the feature modification process work in WiMAX in comparison to 3GPP?

The processes are different. 3GPP prides itself on being consensus based, but that enables

blocking. WiMAX is quick to go to a vote.

4. Why was Chinese participation encouraged and even solicited?

In 3G, China had shown clear intention to establish an indigenous standard. So rather than

have that happen again, Chinese participation was strongly encouraged. Chinese companies such as

Huawei and ZTE, did not particularly care whether China adopted WiMAX or not. They wanted to

actively participate because they saw the world as a market for their products. It was also a matter

of pride for them to have their IPR inserted in the standard.

However, with the exception of Huawei and ZTE Chinese participation is now declining

because Chinese companies were unable to insert as much of their IPR as they would have liked.

They broke the unwritten rule that one does not bring up who has what IPR. Rather, they were too

overt about the issue and received less support from the larger group.

5. Notes on IPR

The code is that companies have to play fair. They cannot secretively push their IPR and then

ask for large royalties. Rather, licensing has to be on "Fair and Reasonable" terms. Companies must

provide a "Letter of Assurance" that it will/will not license its IPR fairly. Usually, a "Blanket Letter of

Assurance" is provided that assures "Fair and Reasonable" licensing of all of the company's IPR.

All features have IP behind them. People push for features to be accepted because their

companies have IP or because they truly believe that the feature is good. However, if people feel

that the owner of the IP will be unfair, then they push back on even good features. In the actual

27

meeting where features are evaluated, it is not allowed to ask questions as to who owns IPR in the

feature. So much of the lobbying is done behind the scenes employing unwritten rules.

6. Why do companies participate in the standards development process?

The fundamental reason that companies participate in the process is to ensure that a new

technology is developed jointly rather than by one company as a proprietary technology. Beyond

that there are two reasons:

(c) Insert sufficient IPR so that they can sign cross-licensing agreements (and therefore avoid paying

royalties)

(d) They get access to the latest information on the definition of the standard. The draft copies of

the standard are available only to participants. Since the final draft is available 6-12 months

before the officially published version, and it is very close to the published version, participants

get a head start on the implementation.

7. Why do operators participate in standards development?

Operators participate for two reasons:

(a) They want the features that are valuable to their customers. In other words, they don't want a

feature to be inserted into a standard just for IPR.

(b) They want the best implementation of these features.

Operators from around the world participated in the WiMAX Forum. If they participated at

all in 802.16, with the exception of Sprint, and to a lesser extent Clearwire, they were

quiet. Organizations such as ETRI or government bodies may also participate thus indirectly

representing Operators from their country.

8. If a small organization such as a research lab wanted to insert its IPR...

Their success would be a function of:

(c) How good their idea is

(d) Whether other organizations are confident that they will follow "Fair and Reasonable" licensing

(e) How long they have participated and whether they have built a solid technical reputation by

contributing to parts that they do not have an interest in

(f) How much they have helped other companies to get those companies' ideas accepted.

28

9 Appendix B – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Ajay

Singh

Mr. Singh participated in 3GPP standards development as a representative of Alcatel-Lucent. The

following is the transcript of the interview with Mr. Singh:

1. On the lack of participation of Indian organizations in the wireless standards development

process

Indian companies or Indian branches/subsidiaries of MNCs actively do development

work. The core research and prototype development is typically done abroad. One reason for this

division of labour may be that there is always pressure on Indian offices to prove their revenue

generation capacity. This leads to a drive for short-term results while research is a very long-term

activity with unpredictable returns. In my case, I participated in 3GPP-SA5 (OA&M) because the US

office bore the expenses. If the expenses would have appeared on the books of the Indian office, it is

likely that my participation would have been discouraged.

2. Why carriers participate in standards development

Carriers typically participate in the standards process to ensure that new features meet their

requirements and updates to existing features can be implemented by them at minimum cost.

Chinese carriers, such as China Mobile, are more vertically integrated and thus have HW and SW

operations that feed into the core business. It is therefore in their interest to do research and

participate in the standards generation process.

Carriers generally get involved in standards addressing network management.

3. On the feature modification process in 3GPP

To incorporate a new feature or to modify an existing feature is a difficult process because

any member of the review board may raise an objection without clarifying the reason for the

objection. The company proposing the change then has to pursue the dissenter in the two months

before the next standards meeting and hash out the differences. Sometimes, the objection is raised

so that there is time to clarify whether the proposed changes impact the company that the dissenter

represents. If this is the case, the resolution could be easy. Often, however, a compromise solution

has to be found. Of course, even if a compromise is reached, another objection could be raised at

the next meeting by someone else. In case of deadlock (which is very rare), a poll is taken. The entire

process of feature modification may take up to a year.

29

4. On how long features make take to be incorporated into 3GPP

New features take 1-2 years to be agreed upon. They are usually joint contributions by 3-4

companies.

30

10 Appendix C – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Munish

Seth

Mr. Munish Seth is the CTO for Alcatel-Lucent’s India operations

1. On the representation of Indian interests in global wireless standards development

Indian interests are represented in global wireless standards development by operators and vendors

such as Alcatel-Lucent (ALU). ALU brings together all its major customers in an annual meeting

where it shares its roadmap and gathers customer requirements. This is an opportunity for

operators to network and push for specific features together. Thus, the outcome of the meeting is a

list of prioritized requirements that ALU would pursue based on the business case.

2. On whether Indian interests can be vigorously represented by an MNC

Even though ALU is an MNC, it does considerable research and development for India-specific

requirements. Some examples are:

a) Inter-Operability Specification (IOS): Around the world, operators were locked into a single

vendor for the MSC and BS. In India, operators were keen on having the flexibility to

purchase pieces of the core network from different vendors based on cost. ALU led the

effort to standardize the interface to give the Indian operators the choice they desired.

b) Roaming: ALU led the effort to standardize roaming requirements that were specific to the

Indian context given the co-existence of CDMA and GSM.

c) Low-cost CPE for WiMAX: ALU has developed a low-cost CPE for WiMAX in partnership with

C-DOT. This development was carried out entirely in India. The CPE will be sold in India and

will also be exported to markets such as Brazil. Thus, even though ALU is an MNC, it is

contributing to the Indian growth story.

d) Standards development: ALU has reacted to the delay in the BWA spectrum auction in India

by refocusing its efforts on 802.16d and away from 802.16e. This is because with increasing

delay, 802.16e becomes less viable with respect to LTE. In fact, ALU is pioneering the effort

to recognize LTE as the evolution path for 802.16d.

3. On whether Indian requirements are better represented by an indigenous company

An indigenous company would not have the advantage of economies of scale, the available budget

for R&D, or the backing of years of research. (For example, ALU has access to Bell Labs). Moreover,

an indigenous company would not necessarily have the reach of an MNC to export products

31

developed in India. A case in point is the low-cost CPE that ALU will export to Brazil.

4. On whether small organizations can influence standards

It is extremely difficult for small organizations to influence a standard.

5. On the cost of IPR to an operator

The Chinese government negotiated 2% royalty rate with Qualcomm whereas Indian companies pay

a 5% royalty rate. This rate applies to the sold value of the equipment and therefore makes a

substantial difference. An operator pays royalties on both the base station equipment and the

handset. This makes the royalty cost even more significant. In response to the market opening, low-

end chipset manufacturers such as Via have arisen but Qualcomm's chipsets are still much preferred.

6. On incentives that the government can provide to encourage core research in the telecom

domain

The government can provide the following incentives to encourage core research in the telecom

domain:

a) Strong IPR protection: ALU is doing core research on WiMAX in Chennai and CDMA/3G in

Bangalore. Moreover, Bell Labs is working on specific innovations for India. ALU requires that its

innovations be protected by strong patent law. This is clearly an advantage for India over China

because Chinese laws are malleable.

b) Preference to companies that manufacture in India: BSNL has placed a clause in its tenders

that some part of the equipment that it buys should be manufactured in India. Ericsson has a

manufacturing facility as does ALU. In fact, ALU has done technology transfer to ITI which

improves the capabilities of the local partner. However, there is no preference given to ALU to

encourage further efforts in this direction. Interestingly, Chinese companies only assemble in

India so a large part of the value share is still sent to China.

32

11 Appendix D – Transcript of Interview with Mr. Vinod

Kumar Ramachandran

Mr. Vinod Kumar Ramachandran is Lead Delegate for Motorola at the 3GPP-LTE RAN3 working

group.

Disclaimer:

The views expressed are Mr. Ramachandran’s personal views, not Motorola's.

1. On why Indian participation is low in the global wireless standards development

There are three reasons for the low participation:

a) There is no large indigenous vendor of telecom equipment

b) Operators are risk-averse. They want to deploy only mature technologies. Unfortunately, this

mindset has been reinforced by the not-so-successful 3G operations in Europe.

c) Timelines for spectrum auction and policy changes are not predictable. Only with new spectrum

can new technology can be deployed.

2. On CEWiT

CEWiT is making some impact in 802.16 and LTE-Advanced. It has made contributions but as it is a

small player, it is very difficult for CEWiT to make a significant impact. For example, LTE-Advanced is

driven by big players such as Vodafone and Ericsson. Chinese firms like China Mobile, Huawei, etc.

have grown large and can no longer be considered fringe players. Contributors like Ericsson would

have 5-6 representatives in a Working Group where other companies have one or two

representatives. Motorola has around 10-15 delegates in the RAN1 Physical Layer Working Group

and about a 100 researchers in the back end. This magnitude of representation leads to around 50

contributions per meeting (total contributions per meeting are usually in the 700-800 range).

Original contributions are "treated" while duplicates are "noted." Given that every organization is

working on the same problems, it is quite likely that solutions will be very similar. The Chair of the

Working Group would first evaluate contributions from known companies so contributions from a

small company will less likely be "treated."

33

Therefore, unless a large Indian player comes up, it will be difficult for India to influence standards in

a significant way. For this to happen there has to be a focused effort across government, industry,

and academia. CEWiT is a step in that direction but it has a long way to go.

3. On who dominates 4G standardization

Much more importance is given to China than to India in 3GPP-LTE. Part of the reason is the

assertiveness that the Chinese displayed when they created TD-SCDMA. Another reason is the size of

the Chinese players and the fact that there are large vendors such as Huawei and ZTE who drive the

standard. In fact, standardization meetings are scheduled around Chinese holidays.

Verizon has announced that it will deploy LTE around the end of 2009. Due to Verizon's track record,

its announcement has credibility and vendors are very keen to go to trial. Other key operators in the

LTE space are Vodafone and China Mobile. On the other hand, India does not have a large mindshare

in the LTE standardization process. Part of the blame lies at the government's doorstep because its

flip-flopping on 3G/BWA spectrum auctions has hurt its credibility. This makes 4G a distant thought

as far as India is concerned.

34

12 Appendix E – Transcript of Interview with Dr. Avinash

Joshi

Dr. Avinash Joshi represents Tech Mahindra at BWCI. He also represents BWCI at ETSI on standards

development for wireless networks as an expert in Quality of Service (QoS) domain.

1) On why Indian organizations do not participate in large numbers in standards development...

One can participate in standards development through:

a) Discussion forums

b) Defining new standards

There is no compelling force or reason to contribute to standards – for individuals or organizations –

so far. The scene is changing, albeit slowly. To define new standards, people have to stay abreast of

latest research. Much of the research in India is done at academic institutions such as the IITs

through professors. However, professors' attention is distributed to activities such as teaching.

Moreover, many bodies require a reference implementation in addition to a proposed contribution.

Funding for research and implementation of reference solutions is available in India through the

government but obtaining funding requires a long lead time. Therefore, researchers must know

about three years in advance exactly what they want to implement. Finally, government funding

generally goes to academic projects and development of theoretical frameworks.

C-DOT and C-DAC, established by the government, were good starts but have not brought forth a

significant and sustained success along the lines of the DARPA's Internet. For example, the PARAM

supercomputer was a great achievement but it has not kept pace with advances in supercomputing

technology.

While a significant amount of core research is not being conducted in India, Indian operators such as

Tata Communications are contributing to service provider working groups in WiMAX Forum on

deployment issues. The WiMAX Forum India chapter consisting of TEMs, TSPs, ISVs, SIs, etc. are

making efforts for enabling faster roll-outs in India and any underlying challenges therein.

2) On the role of the Government

The government is the key enabler for promoting the standards contribution influencing country’s

demands in the standards. Contribution needs to be encouraged and incentivized at all levels. When

a new technology is mandated by the government, it must have a dedicated body driving the

35

adoption of that technology. For example, along with the mandate to upgrade Korea to IPv6, the

Korean government established a 5-6 year adoption plan with specific milestones that were

monitored. The Indian government must follow this model. Moreover, the government must speed

up adoption of new technologies where it can exercise control. The incessant delays in the 3G/BWA

spectrum auction send signals to global technology players that India is not serious in upgrading to

these new technologies. The government should aim to make telecom a commodity like a gear

rather than high technology.

3) On the role of Industry...

Multi-national product vendors such as Alcatel-Lucent and Aperto primarily do product development

in India while core research is mostly done in the parent country. Therefore, standards do not

necessarily address issues specific to India. For example, BWA spectrum in India is not available in 10

MHz or 20 MHz bandwidths. Therefore, WiMAX must support non-contiguous spectrum blocks if it is

to work in India. Such an India-specific requirement could have been inserted into the standard early

on if Indian organizations had participated earlier in the cycle.

In most Indian Telecom companies, R&D is applied (business focused and enabler) and not

fundamental. They seek patents for research in these areas. Large TEMs are most influential in

standard bodies – they have the funds, market intelligence and control to a large extent.

Nevertheless, with standardizations and open market strategies, there is a greater focus on

multivendor scenario s now than before. Tejas Networks, BWCI and IIT-Bombay are contributing to

the carrier Ethernet standard at the transport layer. At the application layer as well, there are

opportunities to customize applications to the Indian context. For example, BWCI is driving the effort

to standardize the keypad for the Hindi language SMS at the 3GPP forum.

Until recently, Indian companies did R&D for tax benefits. Now, they are aware of the advantages

accruing to technology leaders and are more serious about R&D. Rather than doing the R&D in-

house, they are funding bodies like the TCOEs to promote R&D that solves problems specific to the

Indian context.

4) On the BWCI

The BWCI is a PPP with 20-30 members. It is a neutral forum for vendors and operators to interact

and also facilitates industry-government interaction. It works to establish benchmarks such as QoS

for Fixed WiMAX. It also contributes to standards development. The BWCI is now proposing to

36

undertake projects of interest to the industry such as inter-operability standards, minimizing call

drop rates, etc. The BWCI is an advisor to the government on spectrum allocation. We may expect

the BWCI to be a force to reckon with in 4-5 years.

37

13 Appendix F – Membership of BWCI as of March 1, 2009

As of March 1, 2009, the list of industry members of BWCI is as follows:

1. Bharti Airtel

2. Ericsson India

3. Intel Technology India

4. Midas Communication Technologies

5. Qualcomm India

6. Samsung India Software Operations

7. Sasken Communication Technologies

8. Tata Communications Limited

9. Tata Consultancy Services

10. Tata Teleservices

11. Tech Mahindra

12. Tejas Networks India

13. Nokia India

As of March 1, 2009, the list of invited members of BWCI from the Government of India is as follows:

1. Department of Information Technology (DIT)

2. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

3. Wireless Planning and Co-ordination (WPC)

4. Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC)

5. Center for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC)

6. Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)

As of March 1, 2009, the list of invited academic members of BWCI is as follows:

1. Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala, IIT Madras

2. Prof. K Giridhar, IIT Madras

3. Prof. R. David Koilpillai, IIT Madras

4. Prof. Devendra Jalihal, IIT Madras

5. Dr. Andrew Thangaraj, IIT Madras

6. Dr. Srikrishna Bhashyam, IIT Madras

7. Prof. Abhay Karandikar, IIT Bombay

8. Prof. Sridhar Iyer, IIT Bombay

38

9. Prof. Anurag Kumar, IISc Bangalore

10. Prof. K V S Hari, IISc Bangalore

11. Prof. A Chaturvedi, IIT Kanpur

Source: CEWiT website

(http://www.cewit.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=56)

39

14 Appendix G – Invitation to Chinese Bodies to Participate

in IEEE 802 Processes

This appendix shows the text of the letter welcoming the participation of Chinese bodies in IEEE 802

processes. It is extracted from the Agenda and Minutes of the IEEE 802 LMSC Executive Committee

Meeting available at http://www.ieee802.org/minutes/mar2005/Minutes%20-

%20Friday%20March%2018,%202005.pdf.

This document summarizes activities of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee to ensure that

Chinese industry and standardization bodies understand the IEEE 802 process and are welcomed to participate

in it:

• In December 2003, IEEE 802 wrote to the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), with a copy to

the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-03_19.pdf>. The

letter provided an introduction to IEEE-SA and IEEE 802, explaining their global participation, scope, and

status. It also noted that the IEEE 802.16 Working Group (WG) had accepted an invitation to meet in

Shenzhen, China in May 2004. The letter mentioned the Chinese WAPI standard and said “We recognize

that 802.11 security is not optimal and have been working to improve it through the 802.11i project. We

would like to better understand your concerns and see if they can be met through the current 802.11i

draft standard. That draft could be made available through the appointment of a bilateral liaison.” It also

said “Perhaps the occasion of [the 802.16] meeting would be an opportunity for high-level discussions

with SAC and IEEE-SA, including an exchange of information on how the two bodies operate and

formulation of some concrete steps to facilitate increased Chinese participation in IEEE. If this is of interest

to you, I would be happy to investigate the availability of the IEEE-SA leadership.”

• In January 2004, the IEEE-SA President Jim Carlo wrote a follow-up letter to SAC, with a copy to MII

<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-04_04.pdf>. This letter requested a meeting with SAC to

exchange information and views regarding the value of cooperative activity. It proposed sending a three

person delegation in conjunction with the May 802.16 session. SAC Administrator Li Zhonghai sent a warm

welcome and offered a meeting with IEEE-SA’s proposed three-person delegation. He noted that

“According to my knowledge and your explanation, IEEE-SA is a very important organization in developing

international standards.” The meeting took place on 17 May 2004 with Li Zhonghai at SAC in Beijing.

• In April 2004, the 802.16 Working Group Chair requested a meeting of the same delegation with China

Communications Standards Association (CCSA) <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-04_13.pdf>.

The meeting was arranged in Shenzhen and included Wen Ku, Director General of MII’s Science and

Technology Department, as well as Cao Shumin, Deputy Secretary-General, China Communications

Standards Association. Cao Shumin then sent congratulations on the successful 802.16 session

<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-04_18.pdf> and added “We were happy to have quite

number of delegates from China participate this meeting, which showed the great interest from Chinese

industry. We hope there will be more meetings in the future held in China. Led by Mr. Wen Ku, the Direct

General of Science and Technology Department of MII, we had a very good meeting with IEEE-SA

40

President Mr. Jim Carlo, Ms. Terry deCourcelle and you in Shenzhen. We believed our meeting and

discussion was very productive, we had better understanding about each other and we were pleased that

we also identified some areas for possible cooperation between IEEE-SA and CCSA. I reported our meeting

to the CCSA General Secretary Mr. Zhou Baoxin, he was very impressive about our meeting and he would

like to further explore our cooperation in several areas, including IEEE 802.3, 802.11 and 802.16 and other

possible areas. It was really a good start for both sides of us. We hope to extend our relationship in the

future.” CCSA’s TC5/WG3 and the IEEE 802.16 Working Group proceeded to develop a constructive liaison

relationship.

• On August 26, the IEEE 802.16 Chair visited Cao Shumin and a number of CCSA officials in Beijing. Topics

included efforts to enhance interactions between IEEE 802 and CCSA and the possibility of more 802

meetings in China.

• In December 2004, IEEE 802 wrote to Wen Ku, with a copy to CCSA, that 802 has appointed Roger Marks,

the IEEE 802.16 WG Chair, as China Liaison Official and offered an update on relevant activities in IEEE 802

<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/802China04_01r5.pdf>. It noted that the IEEE WG 802.16 would

meet in Sanya, China in January 2005 and requested another meeting with him. It noted that it had

become aware of visa problems that had affected standards meetings in the U.S. and would try to learn

more about the problem. It mentioned that several IEEE 802 WGs, including the 802.11 WG, hoped to

hold their May 2005 meetings in Beijing. It said that the IEEE 802.11 WG had received, from JTC1/SC6, the

Chinese National Body contribution 6N12687, noting that “the Working Group is very interested in

working with the contributors and welcoming them to pursue their work within the Working Group... It

welcomes the JTC1/SC6/WG1 meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 21-25 February, which was arranged for

technical experts from China and IEEE 802 to discuss 802.11i and 6N12687.” Wen Ku replied

<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/802China04_02.pdf>, “We hope IEEE work together to further

enhance exchange, deepen mutual understanding, and strengthen the connections and cooperation

between CCSA and IEEE, and assist Chinese enterprise to participate in the IEEE projects.” He offered to

meet in Sanya. The meeting took place and included Wen Ku, Cao Shumin, Roger Marks, and Jim Carlo.

CCSA Secretary Baoxin wrote that “CCSA would like to establish friendly relations with IEEE and further

explore our cooperation in several areas, including IEEE 802.3. 802.11, and 802.16 and other possible

areas” <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/802China05_02.pdf>.

• In December 2004, IEEE 802 representatives worked with officials in Beijing to try to arrange the May

2005 session in Beijing. However, it was not possible to complete the arrangements on such short notice.

• In a letter of 21 January 2005 to SC6 and to the Chinese SC6 delegation

<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/802China05_01r1.pdf>, personally delivered by the IEEE 802 China

Liaison to officials of the China Electronics Standardization Institute (CESI) in Beijing on 28 January, the

Chairs of IEEE 802 and the IEEE 802.11 WG responded to China’s submission 6N12687, as forwarded to

IEEE 802 by SC6. It noted IEEE 802’s global participation, scope, and status. It stated that “IEEE Project 802

LMSC and the IEEE 802.11 Working Group fully support China’s desire to improve WLAN security.” It

invited and encouraged Chinese participation, including working with committees within 802 to “identify

41

ways to incorporate submission N12687 into IEEE Std. 802.11 via LMSC’s well-defined standards

development process.” It said “Incorporation of essential technical components from submission N12687

in IEEE Std 802.11 will require experts from China to participate in committees within IEEE Project 802

LMSC so that the result meets China’s needs, is backward compatible with the existing IEEE 802.11 and

ISO/IEC 8802-11 standards, and forward compatible with other amendments already under way... We

suggest that the next step be to convene joint meetings in China, to discuss both the process and technical

aspects of moving forward.” This letter was also presented at the Frankfurt meeting in February 2005.

• At the Frankfurt meeting, IEEE liaison representatives presented three additional documents:

o IEEE 802.11-04/1555r3, a presentation to accompany the letter to SC6. It proposed a

specific process to cooperatively develop a new amendment that, on completion, could be

forward by the Chinese National Body to JTC1 for Fast Track balloting as a proposed new

amendment to 8802-11. The presentation also offered to initiate an activity that would

include experts from WAPI and 802.11, hold meeting in China, and include one or more

Chinese citizens among the leaders. It suggested a meeting at the May 2005 802.11 session

in Australia.

o IEEE 802.11-05/0122r2, a technical presentation noting that “the Chinese proposal

contains useful technology” and that, while many issues need to be resolved before

incorporating it into 802.11 and 8802-11, “We believe that cooperation between China’s

experts and the 802.11 Membership can successfully address all of these issues.”

o IEEE 802.11-05/0123r1, a technical presentation on IEEE 802.11i.

The Chinese National Body had departed the Frankfurt meeting prior to the presentation of the last

two documents.

42

15 References

Wright, F. D (Don). (2008). The IEEE Standards Association and Its Ecosystem. IEEE Communications

Magazine; 32-39. Retrieved October 18, 2008 from IEEE Xplore

Stephen, C., Kemp, I., Morris, A. (2007).Home Grown. Total Telecom Magazine; Dec2007, 14-17.

Retrieved February 2, 2009 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=28088793&site=ehost-live

Silva, Jeffrey. (2005). China not playing by WTO rules in telecom, U.S. firms complain. RCR Wireless

News, 28/11/2005, Vol. 24 Issue 48, 4

Gregory Tassey. (2000).Standardization in technology-based markets. Research Policy, 2000, vol. 29,

issue 4-5, 587-602. Retrieved October 18, 2008 from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-40379X9-

9/2/28ef18d5d70cce39991cc68c855949cb

Carson, Phil. (2007). W-CDMA royalty rates drag on 3G uptake. RCR Wireless News, 22/1/2007, Vol.

26 Issue 3, 7

Taylor, Colleen. (2007). 4G IP ownership to be more diverse than 3G. Electronic News (10616624),

19/2/2007, Vol. 53 Issue 8, 40

Walko, John. (2007). IPR issues could haunt 4G, LTE, mobile WiMAX. EE Times-Asia. 22/2/2007.

Retrieved on January 12, 2009 from

http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800453972_499488_NT_799151d6.HTM

Leiponen, Aija. (2006). Competing Through Cooperation: Standard Setting in Wireless

Telecommunications. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Discussion Paper 1056.

11/11/2006.

Jhunjhunwala, Ashok. (2009). Towards Leadership in Telecom Technologies. Presentation at

COMSNETS. 9/1/2009.

Koilpillai, David. (2007). CEWiT and BWCI. Presentation at GSC-12 Meeting, Kobe, Japan. 9/7/2007.

Author Unknown. (2008). Six companies teaming up on WiMAX patent pool. CED, Jul2008, Vol. 34

Issue 7, 12

43

16 Acronyms

IEEE – Originally, an acronym for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Today, it is

simply referred to by the letters I-E-E-E.

IEEE-SA – IEEE Standards Association

SASB – (IEEE) Standards Association Standards Board

SCC – (IEEE) Standards Coordinating Committee

LMSC – (IEEE) LAN/MAN Standards Committee

BoG – (IEEE Standards Association) Board of Governors

CAG – (IEEE) Corporate Advisory Group

IEEE-ISTO – Industrial Standards and Technology Organization

3GPP – 3rd

Generation Partnership Project

IPR – Intellectual Property Right

ETSI – European Telecommunications Standards Institute

CEWiT – Centre for Excellence in Wireless Technology

BWCI – Broadband Wireless Consortium of India

WWRF – Wireless World Research Forum

FRAND (or FR&ND) – Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory

WiMAX – Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

LTE – Long-Term Evolution

TCOE – Telecom Center Of Excellence