Huawei 3GPP 230In 2018, nothing can get approved in 3GPP that China strongly opposes. In the past, 3GPP often was a battle between a few American giants and their European peers. A Qualcomm or a Nokia will still be heard, but the power has shifted. I haven't seen evidence that the Chinese influence has made for better or worse standards.

There are now over a billion 4G subscribers at the big 3 Chinese telcos, by far the largest equipment buyers. Nokia, Ericsson, and the other vendors do not dare oppose their largest customers. Qualcomm, which sends 60 people to 3PPP, has been in crisis as the Chinese have held up their $44B purchase of NXP. The srock dropped $10B after the 4/16 ZTE incident. 

Huawei and ZTE each have thousands of patents in wireless and submit hundreds of proposals in standards. OF Week reports

There are more than 30 Chinese people holding key positions in the standards organization, voting power exceeds 23%, the number of contributions is 30%, and lead projects account for 40%.

Some 3GPP working groups have open mailing lists, where I see Chinese submissions are ubiquitous, 

The Chinese companies are now working together closely, under public pressure. $50B Lenovo makes phones as well as computers and made the mistake of supporting a Qualcomm proposal over a Chinese one. They have been eviscerated as "unpatriotic" by the Chinese press and made a public statement they have changed their vote. 

Edison Lee at Jefferies reckons Chinese could capture up to 20 percent of essential 5G patents. That would make them the most important force in this generation of technology,

ITU standards are dominated by CJK, China, Japan, and Korea. I'm on the U.S. State Department ITAC, where CJK majorities at  ITU meetings are common. The United States under Trump has been speaking out on the U.S. role in standards. The U.S. blocking of Broadcom/Qualcomm was justified as "protecting American leadership in standards." All governments lie, but I think this claim was strictly ignorance. 

In the last ten years, the U.S. has become a secondary player in standards.

For anyone still doubting the ability of China to take a lead in telecom, here's a recent award. The panel was distinguished and largely from Europe and the U.S.  

ZTE Won "Best Technology Innovation for 5G" Award at MWC 2018

PR NEWSWIRE ASIA

Feb 28, 2018

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Email

SHENZHEN, China, Feb. 28, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- ZTE Corporation (0763.HK / 000063.SZ), a major international provider of telecommunications, enterprise and consumer technology solutions for the Mobile Internet, won Informa's "Best Technology Innovation for 5G" Award for its 5G end-to-end technological innovation, at the 2018 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.

ZTE Won "Best Technology Innovation for 5G" Award at MWC 2018

ZTE's 5G end-to-end overall solutions consist of products and solutions, such as wireless access networks, core networks, bearers, chips and terminals, which will meet the requirements of global operators for 5G commercial deployment. The solutions demonstrate ZTE's deep understanding of 5G network and future 5G needs, and illustrate ZTE's significant contribution to advancing the maturity of 5G industry chain.

ZTE is the first to apply Massive MIMO, the 5G core technology, to 4G networks, which improves spectral efficiency up to 8 times. For the demand of massive access to 5G networks, ZTE proposed MUSA that allowed the system to support 3 to 6 times user access under the same time-frequency resources, while the industry proposed the non-orthogonal multiple access technology (NOMA) .

The solution realized free scheduling and reduced terminal power consumption significantly. In the second phase of China's 5G test, ZTE's MUSA solution reached 90 million connections / MHz / hour, far exceeding the indicators defined by ITU. Due to the originality and leadership of MUSA technology, ZTE, as the first drafter, led in 3GPP RAN1 and passed NOMA research project, advancing the industry standard.

Based on its strong capabilities in chip design and development, ZTE introduced the industry's most integrated NG BBU and the industry's lightest and smallest 5G AAUs. The 5G high and low frequency pre-commercial base stations performed outstandingly in the first and second phases of China 5G test.

In terms of 5G core networks, ZTE has released full series of end-to-end 5G network slicing in telecom grade. Cloud ServCore, the 5G cloud core network, will utilize core technologies such as lightweight micro-service components, network slicing, and full access convergence, to help operators evolve to 5G smoothly, and provide ultra-bandwidth, Internet of Things and other new businesses.

With regards to 5G bearers, ZTE's 5G Flexhaul solution based on FlexE innovation and expansion technology, supports the integrated bearer scenario of prequel, medium and back-haul, which perfectly meets 5G bearer networks' needs of fragmentation, and achieves unified set of 3G / 4G / 5G network. In addition, 5G Flexhaul's key performance indicators achieve industry-leading level: end-to-end protection switching time is less than 1ms, single node forwarding latency is less than 0.5μs.

In the meantime, ZTE actively cooperated with several leading operators, such as Telefonica and China Mobile, to conduct multiple tests that fully verified the outstanding performance of 5G Flexhaul solution in CPRI / eCPRI unified bearer, ultra-low latency and ultra-fast protection switching. The solution meets differentiated load requirements and strict performance challenges of different types of 5G businesses.

For chips, ZTE has been pioneering in semiconductor technology with its self-developed chip technology, and has been optimizing power consumption and performance to provide industry-leading chip solutions.

In the field of terminals, ZTE plans to launch 5G-capable smart terminals by the end of 2018 or early 2019, and will be one of the first suppliers in the world to provide 5G terminals.

ZTE has been innovating and practicing in the field of 5G, and has been leading the process of technology verification and product development. The company is committed to becoming the first 5G commercial equipment provider in the world and contributing to the arrival of era of Internet of Everything.

About ZTE

The world needs a good news source on Internet and telecom policy. I hope to create one. Catch a mistake? Email me please.  Dave Burstein

Latest

Professor Noam's "Many Internets" http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a "network of networks," not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It's easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an "Internet" that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn't perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn't prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html . More from Noam http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS
It's actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the "government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions ... This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa." RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that's rhetoric. Russia doesn't need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets" are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences.  The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China's consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, "a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet." I think that's highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT."
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. "Britain's top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs "could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables." Much more http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board http://bit.ly/CEOPromises
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy.  Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
"The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world," I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi's statements,http://bit.ly/CEOPromises

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling http://bit.ly/SorryPai
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies' capex - two/thirds of the total - went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That's as close to "proving" that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors http://bit.ly/SorryPai

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More http://bit.ly/VintTim
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn't listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing "is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create." My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. ... The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order ... More, including the full list, http://bit.ly/VintTim