UNLICENSED INNOVATION:
`
`THE CASE OF WI-FI*
`
`WOLTER LEMSTRA and Vic HayeEs**
`
`
`
`Abstract
`
`In this paper we describe the genesis and developmentof Wi-Fi as a combined result
`of(1) a changein the US communications radio spectrum policy in the 1980s, (2) the
`industry leadership provided by NCR,its corporate successors and collaborators, to
`create a global standard andto deliver compatible products under the Wi-Filabel,
`and (3) the influence ofthe users that movedthe application of Wireless-LANsfrom
`the enterprise to the home, from indoor to outdoor use, from a communications
`product to a communicationsservice, andfrom operators to end-users as the pro-
`viderof that service. In concluding we assess the implications of this case for the
`formation ofgovernment policy andfirm strategy. The case exploration and analy-
`sis is based on contributions by experts from the field, having been involved ‘first
`hand’ in the innovation journey of Wi-Fi.
`
`Keywords: WLAN; IEEE 802.11; Wi-Fi; spectrum policy; firm strategy; sources of
`innovation; technology diffusion
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`To-day, Wi-Fi has becomethe preferred meansfor connecting to the Internet — with-
`out wires: at home,in the office, in hotels, at airports, at the university campus.
`
`This paper draws upona research project being executed within the Faculty Technology, Policy and
`Managementat the Delft University of Technology (TUDelft) aimed at documenting the genesis
`and developmentof Wi-Fi. This is a multi-disciplinary and multi-national research project with a
`wide range of contributions from the academic community andthe industry atlarge.
`The authors like to thank the participants of the European Communication Policy Research
`(EuroCPR) conference for the feedback on an earlier version of this paper, in particular Johannes
`Bauer, Martin Fransman, Anders Henten, Eli Noam, and Jean Paul Simon.
`Dr. Ir. Wolter Lemstra and Ing. Vic Hayes are Senior Research Fellow at the Section Economics of
`Infrastructures at the Faculty Technology, Policy and Management of the TUDelft. In their aca-
`demic work they leverage extensive experience at the supply side of the communication industry.
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume 9 (2008), No. 2
`
`135
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1035
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1035
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`Increasingly Wi-Fi provides access to the Internet for remote communities in devel-
`oping countries, e.g. in the Himalayan mountains and in the Andes. Even in rural
`areas of developed countries, for instance, in Denmark a community based Wi-Fi
`initiative emerged to provide broadband wireless Internet access, as the incumbent
`operator failed to extend the infrastructure to less profitable areas in a timely man-
`ner.
`
`This is a remarkable result as wireless local area networking (WLAN)was not on
`the radar screen of the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) when in 1980
`it initiated a market assessment that would lead to its landmark decision of 1985,
`wherebyit decided to open up three radio frequency bands designated for Industrial,
`Scientific and Medical (ISM) applications for the use by radio communication sys-
`tems, including WLANs.
`In hindsight, this should not come as a surprise. The Ethernet, which would
`becomethe standard for wired-LANs,wasstill subject of a major standardizationbat-
`tle within the IEEE in 1980. Moreover, recall that the Apple II had been launchedin
`1977, while the IBM PC would be introduced in 1981, and the Internet would be named
`in 1984. Mobile computing equipmentlike laptops and notebooksstill had to be con-
`ceived.
`The current success of Wi-Fi is remarkable in more ways. Hitherto, the most sig-
`nificant developmentsin radio frequency technology—radio-relay systems, radio and
`television broadcasting—had emerged undera licensed regime, whereby a govern-
`ment agency provides exclusive rights to the use of a specific part of the radio fre-
`quencyspectrum,thereby providing the application protection from interference by
`other radio frequency applications and users. The success of Wi-Fi, however, emerged
`undera license-exempt regime, whereby it had to contend with manyother applica-
`tions and users in the same radio frequency band, including micro-wave ovens and
`radar equipment.
`In this paper wewill explore the innovation journey that has resulted in the global
`success of Wi-Fi, in the form of a descriptive longitudinal case study. The casestarts
`in 1980 when the US Federal Communications Commissioninitiates a study into the
`public use of spread spectrum techniques leading to its rulemaking in 1985. We
`describe how this opportunity is used by the industry, thereby focusing on the devel-
`opments at NCRandits corporate successors to develop, market andsell a new Wire-
`less-LAN product. The choice of NCR stemsfrom theleadingrole it assumed in the
`creation and adoption of a global Wireless-LAN standard: IEEE 802.11. Subsequently
`we will explore how Wi-Fi is being deployed and shapedbythe users, as part of com-
`mercial service offerings by “hotspot” operators and through deploymentas part of
`communityinitiatives and municipal networks. We conclude with a discussion of the
`implications of this case for governmentpolicy andfirm strategy.
`
`136
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`2.
`
`TRIGGERED BY US POLICY
`
`A critical input to the development, production and application of any wireless device
`is the permissionto use the radio frequency spectrum. This permission has typically
`to be granted by a governmentagency,as in the current spectrum managementpara-
`digm the national governments have taken ownership of the frequency spectrum as a
`natural resource and assign parts of the spectrum to certain applications and users
`upon requestor asaresultof policy it executes (Hazlett, 2006). In the case of Wi-Fi the
`first permission is the Report and Order of May9, 1985 of the US Federal Communi-
`cation Commission! to “[authorize] spread spectrum and other wideband emissions
`not presently provided for in the FCC Rules and Regulations” (FCC, 1985).
`The political climate was set by the Carter Administration and FCC Chairman
`Charles Ferris intended to extend the deregulationspirit to the radio frequency spec-
`trum. He would like to end the practice whereby numerous requests for spectrum
`would be brought forward, based on special cases of technology application. The ada-
`gio was‘let us unrestrict the restricted technologies’ (Marcus, 2007; 2008). Dr. Stephen
`J. Lukasik the first Chief Scientist of the FCC, was requested to identify new commu-
`nications technologies that were being blocked by anachronistic rules. It was Dr.
`MichaelJ. Marcus, employed at the Institute of Defense Analysis, who suggested that
`spread spectrum wassuch a technology and as a consequence wasinvited to join the
`FCCto follow up on the idea. In December 1979 the MITRE Corporation wasinvited
`to investigate the potentialcivil usage of spread spectrum. Theirreport of 1980 started
`the public consultation process on the use of spread spectrum technology.”
`
`’
`
`2
`
`The Federal Communications Commission is an United States government agency, directly respon-
`sible to Congress. The FCC wasestablished by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with
`regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and
`cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions
`(ECC, 2007).
`When the FCC receives petitions for new rule making,or if they see themselves a need to make a
`rules change, they have to organise a public consultation in the form of a “Notice of Inquiry, Nol”,
`The public at large is invited to comment within a set period after which the public is requested to
`provide comment on comments,the so-called Reply Comments.
`All comments have to be addressed in the subsequent consultation round,the so called “Notice of
`Proposed Rule Making, NPRM”. In this document, the FCC also provide the proposed new rules
`with the reasons for their choices. This round is also followed by a comment and reply comment
`period.
`Again, the FCC hasthe obligation to address all comments and reply comments and publishes the
`results in a “Report and Order, R&O”. Sometimes, a “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
`FNPRM” is included when the Order is only partially completed. A comment and reply comment
`period automatically follows the FNPRM.
`Issues found in the Order can only be appealed in Petitions for Reconsideration.
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume 9 (2008), No. 2
`
`137
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`2.1.
`
`THE ORIGIN OF SPREAD SPECTRUM
`
`In the Notice of Inquiry the FCC proposedthe civil use of spread spectrum (FCC,
`1981). Until 1981 this technique had remainedofficially classified as military technol-
`ogy (Mock, 2005). The invention of spread spectrum,in the form offrequency hop-
`ping, dates back to 1942 when a patentwas granted to actress Hedy Lamarr and com-
`poser George Antheil: U.S. Patent # 2,292,387, issued on August 11, underthetitle:
`“Secret Communications System”. Lamarr, born as Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler in 1913
`in Vienna, had been married to Friedrich Mandl, an Austrian arms manufacturer,
`which had exposed her to discussions on the jamming of radio-guided torpedo’s
`launched from submarines. In 1937 Kiesler left Austria for America, under a contract
`with MGM. Here,she met with the composer George Antheil. Their combinedinsights
`in technology and musicgenerated the idea to changethecarrier frequency on a regu-
`lar basis, akin to changing the frequency when striking another key on the piano.
`Theypresentedtheir idea to the National Inventors Council and subsequently donated
`their patent to the U.S. military as a contribution to the war effort. However,the first
`practical application wasafter the war, in the mid 1950s, in sonobuoysusedto secretly
`locate submarines (Mock, 2005 p11-7). Thefirst serial production of systems based on
`direct sequence spread spectrum were most probably the Magnavox AN/ARC-50 and
`ARC-90 airborne systems. There are most probably other early systems that have
`remained classified (Marcus, 2007).
`
`2.2. THE FCC REPORT & ORDER
`
`Interestingly, the MITRE report that investigated the potential benefits, costs, and
`risks of spread spectrum communications did not identify a strong requirement or
`need from the industry to assign spectrum for spread spectrum applications. The
`report concludes that “many potential spread spectrum applications are likely to be
`economically unattractive”, other potential applications “...may be economically fea-
`sible, but may make pooruseof the spectrum resources that they would require” and
`“ijn certain applications, spread spectrum techniques can make moreefficient use of
`the spectrum than the usual implementation of narrowbandtechniques... ...when
`the information bandwidthperuseris low andthe operating frequencyis high” (Mitre
`Corp., 1980 p6-1 to 6-2). In the analysis it was recognized that spread spectrum is
`inherently moreresistantto interference. The MITREreporthadidentified the bands
`designated for Industrial, Scientific and Medical applications (ISM bands) as bands
`“...in which spread spectrum techniques maybeable to improvetheutilization of the
`spectrum...[as these bands] are relatively unsuitable for applications requiring guar-
`anteed high levels of performance. Indeed,since users of the ISM bandsare not nom-
`inally protected from interference, it can be argued that any productive use of these
`bandsfrees other spectrum resources that are needed by applications requiring pro-
`
`138
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`tection from interference” (1980 p6-4). Typical applications in the ISM bands were
`garage door openers, retail security systems, cordless telephones and includes the
`operation of microwave ovens. Hitherto no communications applications were per-
`mitted in the ISM bands.
`The FCC Notice of Inquiry proposed to use spread spectrum as an “underlay”
`within other bands, i.e. sharing the frequencies with other services. The Notice
`triggered comments expressing fear of interference and the difficulty of tracing the
`source ofinterference. Based on the responses the FCC proposed two rules changes:
`one for licensed use of spread spectrum in the police bands and onefor unlicensed
`use. The unlicensed proposal called for an overlay on the spectrum above 70 MHzat
`very low power(below -41 dBm) and onefor unspecified powerlimits in the 3 bands
`designated for ISM applications (Marcus, 2007). The Further Notice and Notice of
`Proposed Rulemaking triggered more comments, whereby manyof the respondents
`favoured the proposed authorization (FCC, 1984). Subsequently the FCC deferredall
`actions on all but the Police radio service and the use of spread spectrum in the three
`bands designated for ISM applications: the 902-926 MHz,the 2400-2483.5 MHz and
`the 5725-5850 MHz bands(FCC,1985).5
`This FCC rulemakingthat would ultimately lead to the global success of Wi-Fi had
`an interesting final twist. After the release of the spread spectrum authorization, the
`wholetop leadership of the FCC Office of Science and Technologywas exiled, possibly
`as a result of actions by the industry being concerned about the deregulation that
`would make the FCC less responsive to major manufacturers who wanted newtech-
`nology only madeavailable when it was convenient to them. An attempt was madeto
`fire one deputy, and the nameof the Office was changedinto Office of Engineering
`and Technology. The position of Marcus was eliminated and an attempt was madeto
`dismiss him from the FCC. According to Marcus: “In the monthsfollowing the spread
`spectrum decision three top manager of the Office of Science and Technology were
`removed and the new organisation took no similar boldinitiatives for almost a dec-
`ade.” (Marcus, 2007; 2008),
`
`3.
`
`DEVELOPED BY INDUSTRY, WITH NCRIN THE LEAD
`
`Some FCCstaff members had opposedthe rule changesout offear that the new rules
`to be adopted would neverbe used. The reality proved otherwise. The authorizations
`
`In Europe, some communication services were permitted in the ISM bands:video surveillance by
`police, and news gathering services such as the video connections between mobile cameras on
`motorbikes and helicopters to follow the Tour de France.
`This underlay approach wassimilar to the approach the FCC adopted in 2003 for Ultra Wide Band
`(UWB), but in 1981 it was an idea aheadofits time (Marcus, 2007).
`The limitation on peak powerwassetat a level of 1 Watt for the three ISM bands. Nolimitations on
`the antenna gain werespecified.
`
`-
`
`5
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume 9 (2008), No. 2
`
`139
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`opened the wayfor innovation, because with the regulation in place companies were
`morewilling to allocate investment capital to research and development. In 1988 the
`first real civil applications of spread spectrum appeared in the form of a Local Area
`Networks, e.g. Telesystems and one year later the Gambatte® MIDI LAN, which
`becamevery popular with top rock musicians. A derivative of this system was used in
`nuclear power plants, under the name of Midistar ~- Pro. From 1990 onward the
`numberof equipmentauthorizations by the FCC expandedsignificantly, see Figure1
`(Marcus, 2000).”
`
`Figure 1, Spread spectrum equipmentauthorizations
`
`ISM Band Spread Spectrum Annual Equipment Authorizations
`
`
`
`
`1000
`
`100
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`1988
`
`1990
`
`1992
`
`1994
`
`1996
`
`1998
`
`2000
`
`2002
`
`3.1.
`
`THE LEADING ROLE OF NCR AND ITS CORPORATE
`SUCCESSORS
`
`A leading role in the development of WLANshas been played by NCR. A nagging
`issue for their sales force had been the lack of mobility in the cash register product
`portfolio. Retail departmentstores, one of the main client groups of NCR,reconfig-
`ured the sales floor on a regular basis and the cost of rewiring the transaction termi-
`nals was a significant expense. To address this issue NCR had conducted a study into
`the use of infrared light technology, but quickly recognized that radio technology
`would be a much better option: “... if it was permitted, if we could makeit work, and
`
`Gambatte became Digital Wireless Corp. and then Cirronet. It was acquired by RFMonolithics in
`Texas in 2006.
`
`By bringing spread spectrum techniques into the civil domain, the FCC not only opened the wayfor
`Wi-Fi to emerge, but also facilitated the developments towards spread spectrum application in the
`field of mobile telephony in the form of CDMA, promoted by Qualcom, a companyestablished by
`Jacobs and Viterbi c.s., a month after the FCC decision (Mock, 2005).
`NCR Corporation was founded in 1879 as the National Manufacturing Company of Dayton, Ohio,
`to manufacture andsell mechanical cash registers. In 1884 it was renamed National Cash Register
`Company. The company was acquired by AT&Tin 1991. A restructuring of AT&T in 1996,led to its
`re-establishment as a separate companyin 1997 (NCR, 2007).
`
`140
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`if we could turn it into affordable products” according to Don Johnson at the NCR
`Corporate R&D organisation (Johnson, 2007). The purpose and mission of Corporate
`R&D in Dayton Ohio wasto (1) recognize emerging technologies and (2) to promote
`advanced development and study in areas which would benefit multiple operating
`units. All advanced development was performed in the individual operating units.
`Following the FCC Report & Order NCR Corporate initiated a feasibility study into
`the use of a wireless technology in local area networking. Copper wires, coax and
`(shielded) twisted pair, differ from radio frequency spectrum in their transmission
`properties and in the way the medium canbeaccessed. In terms of the Open System
`Interconnection (OSI) modelthis implied that new designs were required at the phys-
`ical layer (PHY) and at the medium access layer (MAC), see also Figure 2, which shows
`the layers of the OSI protocol stack in relation to examples of current day protocols
`used in the context of the Internet (Based on Ohrtman and Roeder, 2003). Any pos-
`sible further impact on the higherlayers of the stack (network through application)
`would also haveto be assessed.
`
`Figure 2. IEEE 802.11 standards mappedto the OSI reference model
`
`IEEE 802.11 related standards stack
`
`Examplesof related protocols
`usedin the contextofthe internet
`
`PRESENTATION
`
`UUCP, NNTP,SSL, SSH, IRC, SNMP,SIP,
`RTP, Telnet, DNS
`
`
`TRANSPORT
`
`TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP
`
`Logical Link Controller
`(LLC
`ee
`Eels
`Poel ALG)
`[EEE 802.11
`
`Media Access Control (MAC)
`
`x
`DataLink
`Layer
`
`ct
`:
`Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Token Ring, FDDI, PPP, ATM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Direct
`Frequency
`Sequence
`Hopping
`Spread
`Spread
`Spectrum
`Spectrum
`
`
`(DSSS)
`(FHSS)
`
`
`
`
`
`PHYLayer
`PHY Layer
`
`
`
`
`[ Twisted pair copper, coax,fiber, radio, infra-red MEDIUM
`
`
`Infrared PHY
`
`
`
`pirics
`Pays
`Layer
`
`RS-232, ELA-422, RS-449, EIA-485, 10BaseT,
`100BaseT, IEEE 802.1 1a, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE
`802.11g, DSL, ADSL
`
`3.2.
`
`INVOLVEMENT OF THE DUTCH R&D CENTRE
`
`The seed money from Head Quarters in Dayton Ohio kicked off a developmentproc-
`ess whereby a Dutch-based Systems Engineering centre started a feasibility study for
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume9 (2008), No.2
`
`14]
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`an American companyto assess whethera wireless device could be developed for cash
`registers to be sold in the USA.
`The Systems Engineering centre wasestablished to adapt the NCR products to the
`specific European requirements. The centre includeda significant software develop-
`ment team working on integration of financial systems into the IBM-world, and
`another group of experts working on adapting the telephone modem technologies to
`the European Standards. The Utrecht Centre had becomea skill centre in modem
`communication designs. One of the designs was a wired Local Area Network (MIR-
`LAN); which NCR deployedto wire up their Cash Machinesin stores before Ethernet
`becamea standard.
`The choice of the Utrecht Engineering Centre for the execution of the technology
`investigation was based on their signal processing expertise, hardware design experi-
`encerelated to wired Local Area Networks, and the recent acquired radio technology
`knowledge from Philips Electronics.
`The first part of the feasibility project was to determine what powerlevels were
`needed and under whatrules such products could be certified by the FCC. Oneof the
`issues wastheso called “processing gain” requirements. This was the factor that had
`to be used in a spread spectrum system to “expand” the bandwidth above the band-
`width you would “normally” need just to get your information data signal transmit-
`ted. The logic here is that the more “spread” or processing gain the system has, the
`morethe signal lookslike “noise” to others - the more capable the system is in reject-
`ing othersignals, so more coexistence would be possible in a unlicensed band (Tuch,
`2007).? Of course there is a trade off between the data rates to be achieved and the
`complexity ofthe total system and thusthecosts. Interactions with the FCC suggested
`that a signal with a code sequenceoflength 10 or greater was required. This informa-
`tion implied that a WLANcould berealized operating at 1 Mbit/s or more. The team
`set to work to get the processing gain parametersset, and established a code which
`had a length of 11 with the required properties that were determined from indoor
`propagationstudies.'® The feasibility study resulted in a Wireless-LAN Demounit
`and a set ofrelated productspecifications.
`
`3.3. THESTART OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
`
`After the feasibility study had ended with positive results, the development team in
`Utrecht convinced the Retail Systems Division that product development was also
`best carried out by the same team. In the summerof 1987 the team setout to create a
`Wireless Network Interface Card (Wireless-NIC) to build a Wireless-LAN with an
`
`Atthe time, Bruce Tuch wasleading the wireless R&D efforts of the Utrecht centre.
`The code’s property: The periodic and aperiodic autocorrelation function of this 11 length codeis
`“bounded”by one. Actually it turned out that this was a “knowncode” called the Barker Sequence
`used in Radar Systems that was “rediscovered”.
`
`142
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`over-the-air data rate of 1-2 Mbit/s, to be used in the retail markets that NCR was
`serving. The NIC would have to operate in the 902-928 MHz band,the lower ISM
`band as specified by the FCC. This lower band wasselected to provide the maximum
`possible range, as opposed to the ISM bandsat 2.4 and 5 GHz which havehigherlevels
`of attenuation. Another reason was to reducethe cost of the electronics.
`The creation of a new Medium Access Control (MAC)protocol, as part of the Data
`Link Layer (DLL), was the focus of the product developmenteffort. To limit costs and
`to reduce the development time the team intended to leverage as muchaspossible
`existing MAC designs and to make use of existing protocol standards where possi-
`ble.
`
`3.4.
`
`THE ROLE OF STANDARDS WITHIN NCR
`
`Within NCR de-facto standards had been a curse rather thanablessing, as they were
`of a proprietary nature. Although the companywasa leading providerof point-of-sale
`terminals, most of the time these terminals had to be connected to a back office com-
`puting system, mostly supplied by the leading mainframe provider IBM. Having a
`dominantposition in this market IBM used proprietary protocols to connect terminal
`equipmentto its mainframes and mini-computers. As a result much of the protocol
`expertise of the Utrecht development team originated from the analysis and subse-
`quent emulation of IBM protocols. Where NCR had the opportunity it promoted the
`use of open standards.
`
`3.5.
`
`FINDING AN EXISTING MAC PROTOCOL
`
`Finding a related MAC wasin essence a search for a MAC protocol already being
`implemented using a wireless medium,or to find a MAC implemented for another
`medium,such as twisted pair copper or coax cable, that could be adaptedto wireless
`use. This search led to “ALOHA”, which wasoneofthefirst Wireless Radio protocols,
`and derivates of this protocol which morphedinto Ethernet andlater the IEEE 802.3
`standard. While lookingat the standards for LANs, anotherpossible choice emerged:
`the Medium Access Control used in the Token Bus standard, which wasvery recently
`approvedas IEEE 802.4.It becameclear that the standards bodyto focus on was [EEE
`andin particular the “802” committee. The development team recognized that having
`an already established group within IEEE 802 to sponsor a new physical layer was a
`muchfaster process than trying to start a new standard from scratch. The IEEE 802.41
`Task Group wasalready working ona wireless variant driven by General Motors, but
`it seemedit was “losing steam”.!!
`
`Accordingto the PAR this taskgroup is denoted 802.4¢ which through a transcription error became
`802.41.
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume 9 (2008), No.2
`
`143
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`The Chair of the 802.41 Task Group did not attend anymore, but the Executive
`Secretary was available and willing to convene on request of NCR a meeting in July
`1988. In the following meeting in November Vic Hayes of NCR waselected to take
`over the chair of this Task Group. However, as Tuch observed: “Making the 802.4
`protocol fit with the wireless medium waslike trying to use a boat to get across a
`swampinstead of a hovercraft.” (2007). Having concluded that the Token Bus MAC
`protocol was not suitable for the purpose, the MAC usedas part of the IEEE 802.3
`Ethernet standardstill might be adapted. One of the key issues was how toget “colli-
`sion detect” implemented using a wireless medium.A solution developed by NCR and
`Inland Steel was presented to the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet standards group,to solicit
`interest to start a new wireless working group (Tuch and Masleid, 1991). They were
`apparently too busy on the evolution of the Ethernet standard towards higher speeds
`to supportthis initiative. With a negative vote for the proposal the political stage was
`set to “start from scratch” with a new Wireless MAC standard. Underthe leadership
`of Bruce Tuch of NCR,the companiesinterested in establishing a wireless local area
`network standard quickly generated the necessary paperworkfor the establishment of
`a new standardization project within IEEE. Atthe July Plenary meeting, the IEEE 802
`Executive Committee approved the request. With the subsequent approval by Stand-
`ards Board the new “802.11” Working Group was born, and Vic Hayes of NCR was
`appointed as the interim chairperson.
`
`3.6. NCR TAKING THE LEAD IN IEEE 802.11
`
`Septemberof 1990, at the first meeting of the 802.11 Working Group Vic Hayes was
`elected as the Chair.’ At the November 1991 meeting of the Work Group two Sub
`Groupswere established, the MAC group and the PHY group. Ona casebycasebasis
`the sub groups madetheir own rules for what materials the proponents had to submit
`for the “802.11” membership to make a well informed decision. Once the proposals
`would be available, the two groups had the dauntingtask ofselecting the appropriate
`technology for the project. In most of the cases the Task groups used a process of
`selection whereby in each round of voting the proposal with the lowest numberof
`supporting votes would be removedfrom thelist, until a proposal would reach major-
`ity support. The proposal reaching majority support would be submitted to the Work-
`ing Group for approvalas the technologicalbasis for the draft standard.
`
`12
`
`Hayes would serve as Chairperson of the [EEE 802.11 Working Groupfor 10 years, the maximum
`period allowed.
`
`144
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`

`3.6.1. Thefirst battle ground: IBM vs NCR/Symbol Technologies / Xircom
`
`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`Thefirst point of contention emerging in the MAC Task Group was aboutthe princi-
`ple to be used in assigning capacity to a terminalbased on the shareduseof the radio
`spectrum. A similar issue in the Wired-LAN arena hadsplit the industry and led to
`three different incompatible standards having been approved by the IEEE: Ethernet,
`Token Bus and Token Ring. For WLAN IBM proposeda centralized approach while
`NCRtogether with Symbol technologies and Xircom submitted a proposal that sup-
`ported a decentralized mechanism. The merits of the two proposals were intensely
`debated.!3 In the end the proposalfor a decentralized approach wonthevote; one of
`the reasons being that this protocol would support “ad hoc” networking, whereby a
`terminal would be able to independently coordinate communications with another
`terminal.
`
`3.6.2. The second battle ground: Frequency Hopping vs Direct Sequence
`
`The second area of contention wasrelated to the PHY.In its 1985 Rule & Order the
`FCC had specified two different spread spectrum modulation techniques that could
`be used: Frequency Hopping (FHSS) and Direct Sequence (DSSS). Whenputto a vote
`in the PHY Task Group neither of the two modulation techniques obtained the
`required 75% level of support. Proponents of FHSSclaimedit waseasier to implement,
`while DSSS had the promise of a more robust system with a higherdata rate. The indi-
`viduals in the FHSS campfeared that the required investment in silicon would be
`significant, while the DSSS camptried to refute the argument based on their experi-
`ence in the implementation of pilot versions. As neither of the two groups could get
`the required level of support, the only way out was to include both modulation tech-
`nologies in the standard.
`
`3.6.3. The third battle ground: HomeRF
`
`The initiative for an alternative standard called HomeRFis said to originate with
`Proxim,and led to the establishment of an industry consortium (HRFWG)in early
`1997 (Negus, Stephenset al., 2000). The main driver for this development was the
`perceived inadequate support for isochronousservices,i.e. the use of telephony, in the
`IEEE 802.11 draft specification.'4 The consortium adopted the Frequency Hopping
`
`13
`
`To reach agreement within the IEEE Working Groups and Task Groups individuals opposing a
`proposalin a vote have to explain the reasonsfor their opposition. By making these reasons explicit
`the group asacollective is invited to find waysto resolve the issue and if successfulit has broadened
`the support for the resulting proposal.
`Companies that were involved in HomeRF development included: Butterfly Communications,
`Compaq, HP, IBM, Intel, iReady, Microsoft, Motorola, Proxim, OTC Telecom, RF Monolithics,
`Samsung and Symbionics (Lansford, 1999).
`
`‘4
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Volume 9 (2008), No. 2
`
`145
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`method asthebasis for their standard.'5 The HomeRFShared Wireless Access Proto-
`col ~ Cordless Access (SWAP-CA) combined portions of the Open Air frequency hop-
`ping PHY as developed by Proxim, CSMA/CApacket data derived from the 802.11
`Frequency Hopping standard, and TDMA-based voice support from the Digital
`Enhanced Cordless Telecommunication (DECT) standard. The FH method adopted
`by the consortium supported a data rate of 1.6 Mbit/s (Negus and Petrick, 2008).
`HomeRFwaspositioned as a low cost solution having a relaxed PHY specification
`supporting both isochronous (connection oriented) and asynchronous(connection-
`less) traffic. In April 2000 Intel announced its Anypoint wireless home networking
`and in November Proxim unveiled its Symphony HRF (Palo Wireless, 2003).
`Whenthe IEEE adopted the “802.11b” project for an 11 Mbit/s WLAN,the consor-
`tium announceda secondrelease of the specification for speeds of 6 Mbit/s up to 10
`Mbit/s (Negus, Stephensetal., 2000). Therefore, theyfiled a letter at the FCC asking
`for a change of the Frequency Hoppingin the form of an interpretation of the existing
`rules to widen the channel] width from 1 MHz to 3 and 5 MHz. However, the FCC
`disagreed and started a rules change procedure with a Notice of Proposed Rules
`Change (FCC, 1999). On August 31, 2000, the FCC released the Report and Order,
`changing the Frequency Hopping rules (FCC, 2000).
`The HomeRFbattle in the 802.11 Working Group wasfierce. Despite the support
`of major payers in the industry the HomeRFinitiative failed. According to Lansford
`the reasonsfor the failure were twofold (2007)!®:
`
`1. Because no