by
Chaelynne
M. Wolak
wolakcha@scsi.nova.edu
A
paper submitted in fulfillment of the requirements
for
DISS 740 - Assignment Three, Task One
School
of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova
Southeastern University
December
9, 1998
Abstract
You never leave home without it. It is one piece of the electronic world that
keeps you in touch with your family, friends, and even work. It is your mobile communication
device (i.e. cellular phone). Mobile communications are about to undergo
another major advancement. Third generation (3G) wireless technology is up and
coming. This research paper takes a
look at the basics of 3G and the problems associated with the development of
it.
The time has come, you have entered the new dimension. Cords, cables and wires are nonexistent. It is space where no man (or woman) has gone before. No, I am not talking aliens, space creatures, or even the Twilight Zone but the wireless zone.
Communication is entering a new phase of life based on the
initiatives in wireless technology. Changes in the marketplace are creating a
mass consumer electronic market focusing on the wireless industry. Personal
communications systems (PCS), wireless email, wireless interactive television
are just some of the inventiveness. However, the time has come for a new
universal, global standard called 3G.
3G is abbreviated for third generation. It is the next
mobile data communication phase in the wireless world. It is a vision where a
new generation of services is available. Data rates at the speed of 2 Mbps, web
browsing, seamless videoconferencing, and an array of multimedia applications
in one global wireless network are just some of the inspirational concepts
behind this vision.
Today, inviting pricing schemes and vast improvements to
handheld devices have made wireless strategies more practical and compelling
than ever. “Wireless data can no longer be passed off as a highly specialized
tool for vertical applications – in this incredibly competitive business
landscape, being at a loss for up-to-the-minute information can mean being at a
loss for business” (Surkan, 1998).
It looks as though 3G might be the charm. However, there is
still much work to be done. “To deliver all the services and content enjoyed by
desktop users to mobile users, application developers need to create efficient
wireless applications and wireless service providers need to make higher
bandwidth capacity available to their users” (Bethoney, 1998). This research
paper takes a look at the basics of 3G and the problems associated with the
development of it.
Global roaming among multiple countries with a smorgasbord
of computer ‘bells and whistles’ is just some of the highlights of 3G. 3G is
being developed by the International Telecommunications Union <http://www.itu.org>, through its
International Mobile Telecommunications 2000 initiative (IMT-2000). “IMT-2000
is an ITU initiative which aims to provide wireless access to the global
telecommunication infrastructure through a combination of satellite,
terrestrial, fixed and mobile systems. It is being developed on the basis of a
‘family of systems’ concept defined as a federation of systems providing
IMT-2000 service capabilities to users of all family members in a global
roaming offering” (ITU Press..., 1998).
This initiative is a result of the mobile communication boom
that is taking place. One of the main drivers for this new standard is the
requirement for voice telephony, one-to-one speech communication. “Since the
launch of the first mobile phones just two decades ago, mobile telephony has
achieved outstanding success with the consumer. No longer the play things of
the rich or the tools of high-powered business men or women, cellular phones
have evolved to become an everyday accessory” (ITU Press..., 1998).
First generation cellular phones were based on Advanced Mobile
Phone Service (AMPS). It is an analog technology utilizing circuit-switched
services. It is currently being replaced by second generation mobile
technology. Second generation wireless communication includes the following:
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA),
Personal Communications Services (PCS), High Speed Circuit Switched Data
(HSCSD) and General Packet Radio Services (GPRS). These current second
generation technologies have their limitations. “For a start, they are simply
not capable of supporting the high bandwidth applications which characterize
the kinds of systems users will demand as we move into the next century.
Today’s cellular phone generally operate a speeds of just 9.6kbps – very slow
by comparison with wireline communications, and certainly nowhere near fast
enough to support applications like audio and video e-mail, real-time
videoconferencing or high-speed Internet connection” (ITU Press..., 1998).
Another big push into 3G is the current complicated maze of
mobile standards utilized in different countries and regions around the world.
“First and second generation mobile systems were not designed to be global
systems but rather nation or at best regional. At present, many mobile phone
users are frustrated by the fact that even though they can enjoy international
roaming within their own region, their phone simply does not function in
certain countries. This means either losing contact while travelling in certain
regions, or having to go through a complicated procedure of renting a special
phone with a new phone number” (ITU Press..., 1998).
Lastly, equipment vendors are urging for a new set of mobile
communication standards. “So far, the big impetus for 3G has come mainly from
the vendors, who have pushed for standards in the hope they can both promote
their own technologies and avoid falling behind to competitors and to network
computing vendors that have developed a keen interest in the growth potential
of wireless data” (O’Keefe, 1998). All of these reasons have led to the
development of 3G.
3G presents a huge architectural design challenge. Trying to
build multiband and multimode capability into pocketsize devices has put
extreme pressure on developers. “Developers must decide on the number and types
of IC cores in embedded or ASIC/system-on-chip architectures, as well as
software/hardware partitioning schemes and operating systems. One pressing
question is how to get at least an order of magnitude more Mips out of DSPs and
CPUs without exceeding power, space and cost constraints” (Thryft, 1998).
3G has two different processor requirements. The first one
consists of the physical communication link. Since 3G has a much larger
bandwidth, the digital signal processor (DSP) requirement increases
dramatically. “Second, the host processor may either do less than before in
anet-centic wireless mobile unit where applications are run on the server, or
it may do considerably more, if it must run video and graphic applications”
(Thryft, 1998).
Processor requirements are not the only differences from
existing first and second generation technologies but so is the signal
processing. 3G needs an increase in error correction since it has the
capability to handle mobile data. “For voice, a bit error rate of 10-3 or 104
is sufficient, using Viterbi error correction, said Kevin Stone, ZSP’s product
marketing engineer. But for data, you must get the bit rate down to 10-6 by
using additional correction techniques” (Thryft, 1998).
3G’s architecture is still being worked out. Some developers
believe 3G requires more than one central processor. The architecture could
consist of more than one RISC microprocessor and/or microcontroller cores.
However, the ideal situation is to have one powerful central processor that
would manage the air interface, protocol stack and modem, and handle real-time
tasks, as well as application-layer programs. “While standards groups are
attempting to resolve the differences by the end of the year, equipment
developers are facing a tight deadline. Deployment schedules call for roll out
of 3G services as soon as 2001 in Japan and 2002 in Europe leaving little time
for lab tests and field trials” (Mayer, 1998).
3G promises to be the personal communication of choice.
“This hybrid ‘personal computer’ will combine a wide range of different
functions in a single, pocket or purse-sized unit. It will be voice activated,
obviating the need for clunky number pads. It will come with a flexible,
pullout screen for video telephony or for viewing pages on the World Wide Web.
It will serve as a portable computer which can connect seamlessly and quickly
to the remote corporate environment; a communications device capable of sending
and receiving data, voice, sound and images; and an electronic secretary which
reminds us of our daily schedule, books our meetings, dials our routine calls
for us and automatically connects us to the virtual meetings via-audio and
videoconferencing functions” (ITU Press..., 1998). However, in creating this
euphoria of supreme wireless communication technology, come its problems.
As with all new generation technologies, come the growing
pains. “The most prolific battle to emerge has been over air interface standards,
and manufacturer and carriers supporting competing technologies have waged
political wars over which standards should be forwarded to the ITU for
consideration” (O’Keefe, 1998). The number of specifications set forth to ITU
is by 15 different candidates. Each one of them has their own variations of 3G.
Out of the 15, one that was selected by ITU will not license its technology to
other manufacturers. Qualcomm recently announced it would not license its
wideband CDMA technology. As a result, ITU is now looking at European
Telecommunications Standards Institute. “European Union members are pushing for
adoption of an approach based on the Global System for Mobile (GSM)
communications. If that happens, insist some U.S. competitors, led by developer
of rival code division multiple access (CDMA) technology, they would
effectively be locked out of most of the European market” (Leopold, 1998).
This one issue is being driven more by political and
economic means rather than technology. So much so, now the U.S. Senate is
involved. “Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate approved a Sense of the Senate
Resolution supporting the concept of multiple 3G standards” (Gohring, 1998).
However, not all advocates of 3G feel this way. Perry LaForge, executive
director of CDMA development group stated “It’s incumbent on the U.S. to see
convergence of the specifications” (Meyers, 1998). The battle over this is
still ongoing. One analyst feels that if the standards debate continues, it
will threaten the market opportunity for 3G systems. “The delay and the
infighting is a bad thing for the whole industry,’ said Andrew Cole, senior
manager at Renaissance Worldwide. The economies of scale aren’t there with
multiple standards. It creates a discord for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world”
(Meyers, 1998).
Another major problem resides here in North America. “Unlike
Europe, where digital wireless was rolled out with a global system for mobile
communications five years ago, and many Third World nations, which have no
existing infrastructure and will likely leapfrog directly to 3G services,
second generation wireless is still nascent in the United States” (O’Keefe,
1998). Phillip Redman, telecommunication analyst, believes it will be awhile
before the United States sees 3G. “He predicts serious 3G deployment won’t hit
these shores for at least five years, primarily because build-out of
second-generation digital networks is occupying most U.S. carriers’ time”
(Parker, 1998).
Many individuals feel the real issues surrounding 3G lie in
the areas of migration. “Beyond much of the hype about the multimedia
capabilities of 3G, the migration path from one generation to the next is far
from clear” (O’Keefe, 1998). Spectrum problems plague the 3G development. The
230 MHz of spectrum around the 2 GHz band allocated for 3G services in the
United States is not enough. Industry and government agencies are scrambling to
find the required spectrum space. “One problem, U.S. officials said, is that
spectrum allocated by European regulators for 3G services has been claimed in
the United States by the Defense Department and NASA” (Leopold, 1998). Federal
agencies are expected to be key in sorting these spectrum disputes with ITU
members.
The problems listed above are just a few of the major
concerns over the development of 3G. The visionaries need to work out the
details soon in order to market 3G in the required time frame. Otherwise, 3G
could go down in history as the great communication utopia.
“In less than twenty years the global wireless
communications subscriber base has reached over 200 million customers, a figure
which forecasts predict will exceed half a billion by the early years of the
21st century” (ITU Press..., 1998). As the new Millennium approaches, the
demand for ‘more’ in digital wireless communication is exponential. It looks as
though wireless is here to stay.
The vision of 3G is years ahead of the clunky old phones
from the first generation cellular technologies. Even though 3G is experiencing
growing pains such as one common standard, second generation technology
build-out, and spectrum allocation, it still has great potential. 3G presents
enormous advantages with its global roaming, video conferencing, Internet
access, and most of all its electronic secretary. I wonder if the electronic
secretary comes with a housecleaning option too.
Reference List
Berendt, A. & McClure, B. (1998, September). Third generation growing pains.
Telecommunications, 32, 28.
Bethoney, H. (1998, October 19). Wireless has a bright
future. PC Week Labs.
Gohring, N. (1998, June 8). AT&T pursues 3G. Telephony, 234, 86.
Gohring, N. (1998, September 28). 3G standard battle rages
on. Telephony, 235, 34.
Gohring, N. (1998, October 5). 3G pushes open networks. Telephony, 235, 14.
ITU Press & Public Information Services. (1998, October
15). ITU leads the way in
third generation
evolution.
ITU Press & Public Information Services (1998, October
17). The ITU takes mobile