throbber
UNLICENSED INNOVATION:
`
`THE CASE OF WI-FP
`
`WOLTER LEMSTRA and VIC HAYES“
`
`
`
`Abstract
`
`In thispaper we describe thegenesis and development of Wi-Fi as a combined result
`offl) a change in the US communications radio spectrum policy in the 19805, (2) the
`industry leadership provided by NCR, its corporate successors and collaborators, to
`create a global standard and to deliver compatible products under the Wi-Fi label,
`and (3) the influence ofthe users that moved the application of Wireless-LAstrom
`the enterprise to the home, from indoor to outdoor use, from a communications
`product to a communications service, andfrom operators to end-users as the pro-
`vider of that service. In concluding we assess the implications of this casefor 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 become the preferred means for connecting to the Internet — with-
`out wires: at home, in the oflice, in hotels, at airports, at the university campus.
`
`This paper draws upon a research project being executed within the Faculty Technology, Policy and
`Management at the Delft University of Technology ('l'UDelft} aimed at documenting the genesis
`and development of Wi-Fi. This is a multi-disciplinary and multi-national research project with a
`wide range of contributions from the academic community and the industry at large.
`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 lng, 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 ofthe US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) when in 1980
`
`it initiated a market assessment that would lead to its landmark decision of 1985,
`
`whereby it 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 woald
`
`become the standard for wired-LANs, was still subject ofa major standardization bat—
`tle within the IEEE in 1980. Moreover, recall that the Apple II had been launched in
`1977, while the IBM PC would be introduced in 1981, and the Internet would be named
`
`in 1984. Mobile computing equipment like laptops and notebooks still had to be con-
`ceived.
`
`The current success of Wi—Fi is remarkable in more ways. Hitherto, the most sig-
`nificant developments in radio frequency technology—radio-relay systems, radio and
`television broadcasting—had emerged under a licensed regime. whereby a govern-
`ment agency provides exclusive rights to the use of a specific part of the radio fre—
`quency spectrum, thereby providing the application protection from interference by
`other radio frequency applications and users. "the success of Wi—Fi, however, emerged
`under a license-exempt regime, whereby it had to contend with many other applica-
`tions and users in the same radio frequency band, including micro—wave ovens and
`radar equipment.
`I
`In this paper we will explore the innovation journey that has resulted in the global
`success of Wi-Fi, in the form ofa descriptive longitudinal case study. The case starts
`in 1980 when the US Federal Communications Commission initiates 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 NCR and its corporate successors to develop, market and sell a new Wire-
`less-LAN product. The choice of NCR stems from the leading role it assumed in the
`creation and adoption ofa global Wireless-LAN standard: IEEE 802.11. Subsequently
`we will explore how Wi-Fi is being deployed and shaped by the users, as part of com—
`mercial service offerings by “hotspot” operators and through deployment as part of
`community initiatives and municipal networks. We conclude with a discussion ofthe
`implications of this case for government policy and firm strategy.
`
`136
`
`[ntersent ia
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case ofWi—Fi
`
`2.
`
`TRIGGERBD BY US POLICY
`
`A critical input to the development, production and application of any wireless device
`is the permission to use the radio frequency spectrum. This permission has typically
`to be granted by a government agency, as in the current spectrum management para—
`digm the national governments have taken ownership ofthe frequency spectrum as a
`natural resource and assign parts of the spectrum to certain applications and users
`upon request or as a result ofpolicy it executes (Hazlett, 2006). In the case ofWi-Fi the
`first permission is the Report and Order of May 9, 1985 of the US Federal Communi~
`cation Commission1 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 deregulation spirit 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.
`Michael I. Marcus, employed at the Institute of Defense Analysis, who suggested that
`spread spectrum was such a technology and as a consequence was invited to join the
`FCC to follow up on the idea. In December 1979 the MITRE Corporation was invited
`to investigate the potential civil usage of spread spectrum. Their report of 1980 started
`the public consultation process on the use of spread spectrum technology.2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`The Federal Communications Commission is an United States government agency, directly respon—
`sible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of1934 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 US. posSessions
`(FCC, 2007}.
`
`When the FCC receives petitions for new rule making, or ifthey see themselves a need to make a
`rules change. they have to organise a public consultation in the form ofa "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 sci—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 has the obligation to address all comments and reply comments and publishes the
`results in a “Report and Order, R&O". Sometimes. 3 “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
`
`

`

`Walter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`2.1.
`
`THE ORIGIN OF SPREAD SPECTRUM
`
`In the Notice of Inquiry the FCC proposed the civil use of spread spectrum (PCC,
`1981). Until 1981 this technique had remained officially classified as military technol-
`ogy (Mock, 2005). The invention of spread spectrurn, in the form of frequency hop—
`ping, dates back to 1942 when a patent was granted to actress Hedy Lamarr and com-
`poser George Antheil: US. Patent it 2,292,387, issued on August 11, under the title:
`“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 combined insights
`in technology and music generated the idea to change the carrier frequency on a regu-
`lar basis, akin to changing the frequency when striking another key on the piano.
`They presented their idea to the National Inventors Council and subSequently donated
`their patent to the US. military as a contribution to the war effort. However, the first
`practical application was after the war, in the mid 1950s, in sonobuoys used to secretly
`locate submarines (Mock, 2005 pll—7). The first serial production of systems based on
`direct sequence spread spectrum were most probably the Magnavox ANKARC-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 poor use of the spectrum resources that they would require” and
`“[ih‘t certain applications, spread spectrum techniques can make more efficient use of
`the spectrum than the usual implementation of narrowband techniques. . .
`. ..when
`the information bandwidth per user is low and the operating frequency is high” (Mitre
`Corp, 1980 p6—1 to 6—2). In the analysis it was recognized that spread spectrum is
`inherently more resistant to interference. The MITRE report had identified the bands
`designated for Industrial, Scientific and Medical applications (ISM bands) as bands
`“.. .in which spread spectrum techniques may be able to improve the utilization of the
`Spectrum. ..[as these bands] are relatively unsuitable for applications requiring guar-
`anteed high levels ofperformance. Indeed, since users of the ISM bands are not nom-
`inally protected from interference, it can be argued that any productive use of these
`bands frees other spectrum resources that are needed by applications requiring pro-
`
`138
`
`Intersentia
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`Uniicensed Innovation: The Case ofWi-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.3
`
`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 one for unlicensed
`
`use. The unlicensed proposal called for an overlay on the spectrum above 70 MHz at
`very low power (below —41 dBm) and one for unspecified power limits in the 3 bands
`designated for ISM applications (Marcus, 2007). The Further Notice and Notice of
`Proposed Rulemaking triggered more com ments, whereby many of the respondents
`favoured the proposed authorization (FCC, 1984). Subsequently the FCC deferred all
`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—24835 MHz and
`the 5725—5850 MHz bands (FCC, 1935).5
`
`This FCC rulemaking that would ultimately lead to the global success of Wi-Fi had
`an intereSIing final twist. After the release of the spread spectrum authorization, the
`whole top leadership of the FCC Office of Science and Technology was 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 new tech-
`nology only made available when it was convenient to them. An attempt was made to
`fire one deputy, and the name of the Office was changed into Office of Engineering
`and Technology. The position of Marcus was eliminated and an attempt was made to
`dismiss him from the FCC. According to MarcuS: “In the months following the spread
`spectrum decision three top manager of the Office of Science and Technology were
`removed and the new organisation took no similar bold initiatives for almost a dec-
`ade.” (Marcus, 2007; 2008).
`
`3.
`
`DEVELOPED BY INDUSTRY, WITH NCR IN THE LEAD
`
`Some FCC staff members had opposed the rule changes out of fear that the new rules
`to be adopted would never be 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 was similar to the approach the FCC adopted in 2003 for Ultra Wide Band
`(UWB), but in 1981 it was an idea ahead ofits time (Marcus. 2007).
`
`The limitation on peak power was set at a level of 1 Watt for the three ISM bands. No limitations on
`the antenna gain were specified.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network lndustries, Volume 9 (2008), No. 2
`
`139
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Walter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`opened the way for innovatioa, because with the regulation in place companies were
`more willing to allocate investment capital to research and development. In 1988 the
`first real civil applications of spread spectrum appeared in the form ofa Local Area
`Networks, e.g. Telesystems and one year later the Garnbatte‘S MIDI LAN, which
`became very 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
`number of equipment authorizations by the FCC expanded significantly, see Figure ]
`(Marcus, 2000).F
`
`Figure 1. Spread spectrum equipment authorizations
`
`1000
`
`100
`
`It)
`
`lSM Band Spread Spectrum Annual Equipment Authorizations
`
`
`
`
`
`I 1933
`
`199a
`
`1992
`
`1994
`
`1995
`
`1993
`
`mm
`
`2002
`
`3.1.
`
`THE LEADING ROLE OF NCR AND ITS CORPORATE
`
`SUCCESSORS
`
`A leading role in the development of WLANs has been played by NCR.3 A nagging
`issue for their sales force had been the lack of mobility in the cash register product
`
`portfolio. Retail department stores, 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: . ifit was permitted, if we could make it 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 way for
`Wi—Fi to emerge. but also facilitated the developments towards spread Spectrum application in the
`field of mobile telephony in the form ofCDMA. promoted by Qualcom, a company established by
`Jacobs and Viterbi c.s.. a month after the FCC decision (Mock. 2005).
`
`NCR Corporation was founded in 18?9 as the National Manufacturing Company of Dayton. Ohio.
`to manufacture and sell mechanical cash registers. In 1884 it was renamed National Cash Register
`Company. The company was acguired byATStT in 1991. A restructuring ofATBtT in 1996, led to its
`re—establishment as a separate company in 1997 (NCR, 2007}.
`
`140
`
`J nte rsen tia
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed Innovation: The Case ofWi-Fi
`
`if we could turn it into affordable products” according to Don Iohnson at the NCR
`Corporate R&D organisation (Johnson, 2007). The purposc and mission ofCorporate
`R&D in Dayton Ohio was to (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 8: 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 can be accessed. In terms of the Open System
`Interconnection (031) model this 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 higher layers of the stack (network through application)
`would also have to be assessed.
`
`Figure 2.1EEE 802.11 standards mapped to the OSI reference model
`
`IEEE 802.11 relaIEd standards stack
`
`l
`
`I
`
`PRESENTATION
`SESSION
`
`TRANSPORT
`NETWORK
`
`IEEE 301.2
`Logical Link Controller (LLC)
`
`IEEE Bull 1
`
`Media Access Control {MAC}
`
`Examples of related prom-c015
`used in the context ofthe internet
`
`HTTP. HTTPS. SMTP, POP3, IMAP. FTP,
`UUCP, NNTP, SSL, SSH, lRC, SNMP, SIP.
`RTP, Telnet, DNS
`
`TCP. UDP, SC'I‘P, DCCP
`
`{PW}, IPv6, lCMP. ARP, IGMP
`
`Data Link
`Layer
`
`Ethernet. Wi—Fi. Token Ring, FDDI, PPP. ATM
`
`b a]
`P Y“
`W“
`
`RES—232, BIA—422, its-449, Eta-435, lflBaseT.
`lnsaaser. IEEE 302.1 la. IEEE 802.1 lb, IEEE
`802.1 lg. DSL. ADSL
`
`Twisted pair copper. coax, fiber. radio, infra-red
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Infrared PHY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Direct
`Frequency
`
`
`5mm“
`“WW
`5W“
`firmed
`
`
`WWW
`511mm?"
`(FHSSJ
`(D5551
`
`
`
`
`
`PHY Layer
`PHY Layer
`
`
`
`
`I
`MEDIUM
`
`3.2.
`
`INVOLVEMENT OF THE DUTCH R&D CENTRE
`
`The seed money from Head Quarters in Dayton Ohio kicked 01? a development proc—
`ess whereby a Dutch-based Systems Engineering centre started a feasibility study for
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network industries, Volume 9 (2008). No. 2
`
`l4]
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`Walter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`an American company to assess whether a wireless device could be developed for cash
`registers to be sold in the USA.
`The Systems Engineering centre was established to adapt the NCR products to the
`specific European requirements. The centre included a 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 modern technologies to
`the European Standards. The Utrecht Centre had become a skill centre in modem
`
`communication designs. One ofthe designs was a wired Local Area Network (MIR-
`LAN); which NCR deployed to wire up their Cash Machines in stores before Ethernet
`became a 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—
`
`ence related 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 power levels were
`needed and under what rules such products could be certified by the FCC. One of the
`
`issues was the so 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 y0ur informatiOn data signal transmit-
`ted. The logic here is that the more “spread” or processing gain the system has, the
`
`more the signal looks like “noise” to others — the more capable the system is in reject~
`ing other signals, so more coexistence would be possible in a unlicensed band (Tuch,
`2007).9 Of course there is a trade of? between the data rates to be achieved and the
`
`complexity ofthe total system and thus the costs. Interactions with the FCC suggested
`that a signal with a code sequence oflength 10 or greater was required. This informa-
`
`tion implied that a WLAN could be realized operating at l Mbitfs or more. The team
`set to work to get the processing gain parameters set, and established a code which
`had a length of 11 with the required pmperties that were determined from indoor
`propagation studies.10 The feasibility study resulted in a Wireless—LAN Demo unit
`and a set of related product specifications.
`
`3.3. THE START 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 summer of 1987 the team set out to create a
`Wireless Network Interface Card (Wireless-NICE) to build a Wireless-LAN with an
`
`At the time, Bruce Tuch was leading the wireless RBtD efforts of the Utrecht centre.
`The code's property: The periodic and aperiodic autocorrelation function of this 11 length code is
`“bounded” by one. Actually it turned out that this was a “known code” called the Barker Sequence
`used in Radar Systems that was “rediscovered”.
`
`lntersentia
`
`'0
`
`142
`
`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 Mbitfs, to be used in the retail markets that NCR was
`
`serving. The NIC would have to operate in the 902—923 Mi-Iz band, the lower ISM
`band as specified by the FCC. This IOWer band was selected to provide the maximum
`possible range, as Opposed to the ISM bands at 2.4 and 5 GHz which have higher levels
`of attenuation. Another reason was to reduce the cost of the electronics.
`
`The creation ofa new Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol, as part ofthe Data
`
`Link Layer (DLL), was the focus ofthe product development effort. To limit costs and
`to reduce the development time the team intended to leverage as much as possible
`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 than a blessing, as they were
`of a proprietary nature. AlthOugh the company was a leading provider of 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
`dominant position in this market IBM used proprietary protocols to connect terminal
`equipment to 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 was in 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 adapted to wireless
`
`use. This search led to “ALOHA”, which was one of the first Wireless Radio protocols,
`
`and derivates of this protocol which morphed into Ethernet and later the IEEE 802.3
`standard. While looking at the standards for LANs, another possible choice emerged:
`the Medium Access Control used in the Token Bus standard, which was very recently
`
`approved as IEEE 302.4. It became clear that the standards body to focus on was IEEE
`and in 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
`much faster process than trying to start a new standard from scratch. The IEEE 802.41
`Task Group was already working on a wireless variant driven by General Motors, but
`it seemed it was “losing stea m”.”
`
`“
`
`According to the PA R this taskgroup is denoted 802.4c which through a transcription error became
`802.4l.
`
`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 was elected to take
`over the chair of this Task GrOup. However, as Tuch observed: “Making the 802.4
`
`protocol fit with the wireless medium was like trying to use a boat to get across a
`swamp instead of a hovercraft." (2007). Having concluded that the Token Bus MAC
`protocol was not suitable for the purpose, the MAC used as part of the IEEE 802.3
`Ethernet standard still might be adapted. One of the key issues was how to get “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 support this initiative. With a negative vote for the proposal the political stage was
`set to “start from scratch” with a new Wireless MAC standard. Under the leadership
`
`of Bruce Tuch of NCR, the companies interested in establishing a wireless local area
`
`network standard quickly generated the necessary paperwork for the establishment of
`a new standardization project within IEEE. At the 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
`
`September of 1990, at the first meeting of the 802.11 Working Group Vic Hayes was
`elected as the Chair.12 At the November 1991 meeting of the Work Group two Sub
`Groups were established, the MAC group and the PHY group. On a case by case basis
`
`the sub groups made their 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 daunting task of selecting 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 number of
`supporting votes would be removed from the list, until a proposal would reach major-
`
`ity support. The proposal reaching majority support would be submitted to the Work—
`
`ing Group for approval as the technological basis for the draft standard.
`
`‘2
`
`Hayes would serve as Chairperson ofthe IEEE 802.1] Working Group for 10 years, the maximum
`period allowed.
`
`144
`
`[ntersentia
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`

`Unlicensed innovation: The Case of Wi-Fi
`
`3.6.1. Thefirst barrio ground: IBM vs NCR / Symbol Technologies / Xircom
`
`The first point of contention emerging in the MAC Task Group was about the princi-
`ple to be used in assigning capacity to a terminal based on the shared use ofthe radio
`spectrum. A similar issue in the Wired—LAN arena had split the industry and led to
`three different incompatible standards having been approved by the IEEE: Ethernet,
`Token Bus and Token Ring. For WLAN IBM proposed a centralized approach while
`NCR together with Symbol technologies and Xircom Submitted a proposal that sup-
`ported a decentralized mechanism. The merits of the two proposals were intensely
`debated.l3 In the end the proposal for a decentralized approach wan the vote; 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 barrio ground: Frequency Hopping vs Direct Sequence
`
`The second area of contention was related to the PHY. In its 1985 Rule 8: Order the
`
`FCC had specified two different spread spectrum modulation techniques that could
`
`be used: Frequency Hopping (FHSS) and Direct Sequence (DSSS). When put to a vote
`in the PHY Task Group neither of the two modulation techniques obtained the
`required 75% level of support. Proponents of FHSS claimed it was easier to implement,
`
`while DSSS had the promise ofa more robust system with a higher data rate. The indi—
`viduals in the FHSS camp feared that the required investment in silicon would be
`significant, while the 0558 camp tried 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 HomeRF is said to originate with
`Proxim, and led to the establishment of an industry consortium (HRFWG) in early
`1997 (Negus, Stephens et al., 2000). The main driver for this development was the
`perceived inadequate support for isochronous services, i.e. the use of telephony, in the
`IEEE 802.11 draft specification.14 The consortium adopted the Frequency Hopping
`
`13
`
`'4
`
`To reach agreement within the IEEE Working Groups and Task Groups individuals opposing a
`proposal in a vote have to explain the reasons for their opposition. By making these reasons explicit
`the group as a collective is invited to find ways to resolve the issue and ifsuccessful it 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).
`
`Competition and Regulation in Network Industries. Volume 9 {2003), No. 2
`
`145
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`

`Wolter Lemstra and Vic Hayes
`
`method as the basis for their standard.15 The HomeRF Shared Wireless Access Proto-
`
`col - Cordless Access (SWAP-CA) combined portions ofthe OpenAir frequency hop-
`ping PHY as developed by Proxim, CSMAJ’CA packet 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 Mbitfs (Negus and Petrick, 2008).
`HomeRF was positioned as a low cost solution having a relaxed PHY specification
`supporting both isochronous (connection oriented) and asynchronous (connection-
`less) traflic. In April 2000 Intel announced its Anypoint wireless home networking
`and in November Proxim unveiled its Symphony HRF (Palo Wireless, 2003).
`When the IEEE adopted the “802.11b” project for an 11 Mbitls WLAN, the consor—
`
`tium announced a second release of the specification for speeds of6 Mbitfs up to 10
`Mbitfs (Negus, Stephens et al., 2000). Therefore, they filed a letter at the FCC asking
`
`for a change of the Frequency Hopping in the form of an interpretation of the existing
`rules to widen the channel width from 1 MHz to 3 and 5 MHz. However, th

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket