Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS Section 1: Cooperation of the Operators from the Agreement of the GSM MoU to the Opening of Service in 1991/1992 Renzo Failli 1 21.1.1 The Main Objectives of the MoU Group in the First Period of its Activity and its Organization The MoU group had its first meeting on 14 October 1987, shortly after the signature of the MoU by the mobile operators of 13 European Countries: Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), France, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, UK and Spain. The numbers of operators was 14 since at that time a single mobile operator was active in each country apart from the UK where two operators (Cellnet and Vodafone) were active. In the following months the MoU was signed by the mobile operators of another three countries: Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria. In such a way Western Europe was substantially represented (Greece and Turkey joined later). The main objectives may be summarized as follows: † to give evidence to the manufacturing industry of the actual willingness of a large number of European mobile operators to invest significantly in GSM networks in order that the industry might dedicate sufficient resources to the development of the new technology; † to avoid that holders of potentially essential IPR for the GSM technology might create problems for the economical development of the new system; † to define all technical, commercial and regulatory aspects necessary to allow a true Pan- European service allowing each GSM client to roam in every country using the same GSM terminal and keeping the possibility to originate and to receive calls to and from all other fixed and mobile telephone terminals; 1 The views expressed in this section are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his affiliation entity. GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication Edited by Friedhelm Hillebrand Copyright q 2001 John Wiley & Sons Ltd ISBNs: 0-470-84322-5 (Hardback); 0-470-845546 (Electronic) † to support the standardization work in GSM and to take decisions by majority voting in cases where no unanimous decision could be reached in GSM; † to ensure the correct operation and interworking of network equipment of different manu- factures and, above all, the compatibility of all GSM terminals with all networks; † to promote the GSM technology in countries outside Western Europe with the purpose of both reducing network and terminal costs due to economy of scale, and to improve the service by enlarging the roaming area. In order to reach such objectives in the proper time, the MoU group immediately estab- lished seven expert groups with the mandate to study and report on specific aspects, and asked seven signatory countries to offer the support with a rapporteur: P – group: Procurement (rapporteur from France: Ghillebaert) † harmonization of procurement policy; † IPR co-ordination; † configuration control (freeze technical configurations in order to allow the GSM network to interwork each other: choice of GSM recommendations and their version to be used in contracts). BARG: Billing and accounting rapporteur group (rapporteur from UK: Maxwell) † administration of subscribers; † billing harmonization; † credit control; † fraud prevention measures; † accounting operations; † statistics; † definition of harmonized billing and accounting software requirements. EREG: European roaming expert group (rapporteur from Italy: Failli, followed by Panaioli and subsequently Eynard) † coordination of all technical and operational principles and plans for the support of European roaming, including: † mobile numbering plans; † routing of terminated calls and of signaling messages; † technical implications of tariff principles on international interworking; † establishment of international signaling links; † interworking between PLMNs using different work functions, quality and availability of service. MP: Marketing and planning (rapporteur from Sweden: Tadne followed by Magnusson and subsequently Zetterstro ¨ m) † coverage maps; † GSM name and logo; † coordination of awareness campaign and public relations; † commissioning of market survey; † identification of selling features to guide system developments. GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication482 TAP: Type approval administrative procedures (rapporteur from The Netherlands: Hoef- sloot followed by Jeanty) † review of existing or emerging directives and identification of possible difficulties; † control and issue of International Mobile Equipment Identities (IMEIs). TC: Technical coordination (rapporteur from Norway: Bliksrud) † validation of CEPT/GSM recommendations; † commercial perspectives of MOU signatories on technical GSM options. N: European network and equipment implementation (rapporteur from FRG: Hillebrand followed by Linz) † validation of system components; † network implementation phases; † technical type approval matters. The activity of the MoU group and of its rapporteur groups in the first years had no centralized support. Each operator contributing either with the MoU chairman or with one of the seven rapporteurs took care of the secretariat support while operators/administrations inviting the groups had to take care of all support for the meeting. It was a very light organization, thanks to the reduced number of people involved. Just to give an idea the number of people attending MoU plenary meetings was in the order of 25-30 persons. The actual work was done within the rapporteur groups while the MoU plenary dealt mainly with the definition of tasks for the rapporteur groups, the approval of the main results, the discussion of the most relevant/controversial issues. The MoU group chairman remained in power for a period of 6 months, so that many signatories might contribute with their experience to that task. The main task of the MoU chairman, in addition to the co-ordination of the activities, was the relationship with external bodies, including potential new signatories. 2 In 1989, due to the evolution of activities, it was necessary to review the rapporteur groups’ mandates. Consequently it was decided to move to an organization with ten groups. In particular three completely new groups were established with the following mandates: TADIG: Transfer account data interchange group (rapporteur from FRG: Giessler) with the task to define a MoU standard for the interchange of billing data for international roaming. The precise mandate and the main results obtained by TADIG are reported in Chapter 3, Section 3. SERG: Service expert rapporteur group (rapporteur from the UK: Barnes followed by Hall and subsequently by Toepfer from FRG) † maintenance of commercial aspects of GSM 02 series, recommendations following trans- fer of responsibilities from ETSI/GSM; † allocation/revision of the status of implementation; † categories of services and dates of introduction; † review of compatibility of services for roaming. Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 483 2 A list of all MoU plenary meetings can be found in Annex 1, a list of the MoU chairpersons in Annex 3. The main activities and results of this group are described in Chapter 3, Section 2. SG: Security group (rapporteur from the UK: Brookson) † maintenance of algorithms and test sequences; † administration of non-disclosure undertaking for algorithms; † monitoring of adequacy of system security Moreover the N group and the TC group were substituted by the following two groups: RIC: Radio interface co-ordination group (rapporteur from France: Maloberti) † coordination of technical aspects of type approval and identification of problems affecting type approval as results of validation and conflicting interpretations of recommendations; † resolution of technical problems with regard to type approval in different countries; † organization of compatibility testing of mobiles in different networks to ensure adequacy of type approval; † review of results of GSM validation activities and assessment of effects on implementation plans; † review of system simulator activities through a specific sub-group System Simulator Project Group (SSPG). CONIG: Conformance of network interfaces group (rapporteur from The Netherlands: Vocke followed by Pujol from France) with the task to solve network implementation incompatibilities through: † list/definition of tests for conformance of ‘‘ MAP’’ , ‘‘ A’’ and ‘‘ Abis’’ interfaces; † harmonization of test activities. Due to both the enlargement of the MoU group with new signatories, starting from the second mobile operators in the already represented countries, and the larger responsibilities of the MoU following transfer of certain responsibilities from GSM to the MoU, particularly in the fields of services, security and terminal equipment identity, in 1990 the need arose for a Permanent Secretariat. It was established and supported by the assistance of the Dutch Administration. But in September 1991 R. Hagedoorn, the Secretary provided, was no longer available and the GSM MoU Group decided to accept the offer of Telecom Eireann to establish the Permanent Secretariat in Dublin under the co-ordination of John Moran. In 1990 it was also decided to promote the GSM standard in Eastern European countries and the MoU organized a specific seminar in Budapest under the coordination of Friedhelm Hillebrand. Similar initiatives were subsequently decided in order to promote the GSM in the other continents (for details see Chapter 22). 21.1.2 The Main Subjects Dealt with and the Main Results Got by the MoU Plenary and its Rapporteur Groups 21.1.2.1 The IPR Undertaking Most probably the IPR issue has been the single subject which took up the most activity time of the procurement group and of the MoU plenary within the first 2 years of activity. GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication484 Before entering into the description of problems and facts I wish to mention two simple events which can demonstrate the dimension of the effort produced by the MoU. During my working experience I spent a large number of days in meetings of international bodies. All the meetings are well organized and their afternoon sessions ended at reasonable times. Only twice I experienced meeting sessions initiated on one day which finished on the subsequent one. The first one was in Funchal (Madeira, February 1987) on the last day of the most exciting GSM meeting, when the main GSM radio access parameters were decided. The second one was in Albufeira at the end of 1988 during the MoU plenary meeting, under my chairmanship, when we were discussing the IPR issue with the manufacturing industry, and particularly with Motorola. Unfortunately the results of this meeting were much less exciting and fruitful than the one in Funchal. The other fact that I wish to recall was an extraordinary MoU plenary meeting, a telephone conference, held during the summer of 1988 on the same subject. Friedhelm Hillebrand was on holiday in Italy in South Tirol. To participate in the meeting he had to use the hotel telephone, for which the hotel applied a substantial surcharge. If I remember well he had to pay more for the telephone bill than for the hotel room. That was an experience which today, with the GSM coverage and roaming extension would not happen. Entering into the specific facts relating to the IPR, the MoU group, following a specific objective defined in the MoU, agreed the IPR clauses to be included in the call for tender that signatories had to send to the manufacturing industry during the first quarter of 1988 for the GSM network implementation. The text used by operators, entitled ‘‘ Tenderers undertaking on intellectual property rights’’ can be found on the attached CD-ROM. 3 Such undertaking had to be signed by each tenderer before sending it jointly with his offer to the inviting operators. The text gives clear determination for IPR clauses to be incorporated in the contracts resulting from the tendering action. The most important and stringent clause of the undertaking relates to essential IPRs which should have been given on fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and royalty-free terms and conditions (free of any payment of any description). The main problem experienced was that, while the European manufacturing industry signed such an undertaking, or a similar version, Motorola refused to sign. The MoU P group and the MoU plenary had been working with this problem, both with normal and extraordinary meetings, for 2 years (1988-1989) without being able to find a solution which might be acceptable for the MoU, the European industry and Motorola. The practical solution was then found through bilateral agreements of Motorola with other industries involved. Problems have been experienced by some industries, especially rela- tively small terminal manufacturers, not having their own IPR basket to be exchanged with Motorola. Reference to this experience and the intervention on the matter of the US government, is mentioned in Chapter 2, Section 4 with a more political approach. 21.1.2.2 Networks Implementation Probably the main result of the GSM MoU group in its initial activity phase was to convince Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 485 3 See ‘‘ MoU IPR Declaration’’ on the attached CD-ROM in folder D. the main telecommunication manufacturers about the importance of the project and the actual willingness of European mobile operators to invest in GSM networks. In fact, in 1987, after the main decisions on the GSM radio interface had been taken, only very few manufacturers were deeply involved in the development of the GSM system, while a large part of them had not yet decided to concentrate enough resources on the GSM project, and were consequently trying to delay the procurement process. The co-ordinated activity of European mobile operators, through the MoU group, was determinant in convincing the manufacturing industry to dedicate the necessary resources to GSM. The implementation of GSM networks in signatory countries between mid-1991 (agreed target date) and mid-1992 was reached also thanks to the joint effort of numerous groups within the GSM MoU, namely P, TC, N, RIC and CONIG. The main activities co-ordinated or carried out by these groups can be summarized as follows: † publication in January 1988, in the official Journal of the European Community, of the intention to call for tender by most of the signatories in a coordinated way; † co-ordinated calls for tenders in the first quarter 1988; † exchange of test results on validation systems in order to ensure compatibility; † co-ordination of requests to manufactures in terms of GSM specifications to be used and their version for the opening of the service. 21.1.2.3 Terminals The aspects relating to terminals were followed by N and RIC groups for the technical aspects and from the TAP group for the regulatory ones. An important activity was carried out for the procurement and the development of the system simulator, specifically designed for type approval test of GSM terminals. Such a simulator, supplied by Rhodhe & Schwartz, was procured by a few signatories of the MoU (the buyer’s club). The buyer’s club oversaw the development and several test houses bought the system simulator without having to pay for the development costs. From the administrative point of view the main activities were to follow the draft EEC Directive on ‘‘ Mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunication terminal equip- ments’’ in order to monitor that it would be applicable to GSM terminals according to the MoU view, and to administrate IMEIs. Due to late availability of terminals and above all of the system simulator, the RIC group was also involved in the selection of a restricted number of essential tests to be performed on terminals to get interim type approval. On the other hand the limited number of tests increased the risk of incompatibility between networks and terminals. In order to manage such a risk, an advisory board was established by MoU/TAP and Mou/RIC to study and follow this kind of compatibility problem. The main principle concerning the responsibility in case incompatibility problems would happen were established as follows: 1. Mobile Station (MS) manufacturers had the full responsibility that equipment met all requirements; 2. interim type approval had a time limited validity; GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication486 3. should incompatibility between a network and a mobile station occur, the relevant problems shall be resolved among the MS manufacturers, the network operator and the type approval house. 21.1.2.4 European/International Roaming The European roaming capability, subsequently extended to international roaming, was followed by the EREG (subsequently IREG) group for the technical aspects and BARG for tariffs/billing and accounting. The contributions given by TADIG and by SERG have been already presented in Chapter 3, Sections 2 and 3. In terms of charging principles the main decisions related to mobile terminated calls. Specifically it was decided that a mobile client will not be charged for air time either when he/she is in his/her home country and when he/she is roaming in another country. In the last case the mobile client will have to pay for the international extension from his country to the visited one. Long discussions took place in relation to optimized routing, that is a routing which reduces to the minimum the connection length and optimizes the quality. EREG proposed technical solutions already in 1989, but the commercial position expressed by BARG was contrary to an extensive use of such technique. Finally, accepting the proposal from BARG, the MoU plenary decided not to introduce optimized routing for international calls. Years later the optimized routing for calls originated in the same Country where the mobile client is a visiting roamers was recommended, but, as far as I know, it is not yet practically used. Commercial issues against optimized routing have been: † the small percentage of interested cases; † the technical implications; † the risk that the calling party might receive information giving an idea of the called party position, which might be against privacy rules/laws. An important tariff principle adopted at that time for mobile originated calls in roaming environments was that the tariff should have been the same as for a local subscriber increased by a surcharge (15%) to cover accounting/administrative costs. Within the technical aspects of roaming, it is also worth mentioning all the studies performed for identifying adequate signaling relations and routing among the involved networks, which were not so immediate due to the initial phase of development of the signaling system no. 7 at that time, and the definition of all tests to be performed, within bilateral agreements, between MoU signatories, in order to make the roaming between two operators a reality. 21.1.2.5 Marketing and Planning A set of activities quite important for the development of the GSM system all around the world was carried out by the MoU group. First was the decision about the name and the logo. In 1988 GSM was just the ‘‘ Groupe Spe ´ cial Mobile’’ and not many people believed that GSM might be used as a brand. In fact the Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 487 MP group was asked to find an appropriate name and during the MoU plenary, John Peet, from Vodafone, offered a case of champagne to the person who suggested the name which at the end was adopted. I forgot to ask John whether he paid or not due to the fact that GSM was an already known name, or whether he considered as valid for the prize the definition of ‘‘ Global System for Mobile Communication’’ . Other important tasks performed by MP had been the continuous update and emission of coverage maps, the development of advertising material as well as the organization of the GSM presence in important events, starting from the Geneva 1991 telecommunication exhi- bition. 21.1.2.6 Co-operation Agreement with the Association of PCN operators In 1990 three licences were given in the UK for the operation of cellular networks denomi- nated Personal Communication Networks (PCN) using GSM at 1800 MHz. The following merger of two companies reduced the PCN operators to two, One Two One and Orange. The term PCN derived from the desire to differentiate the new service from the ‘‘ normal’’ cellular service. In practice the only actual differentiations were of regulatory nature, while from the technical point of view the PCN simply used the extension of GSM from 900 to 1800 MHz. The main regulatory differences with respects to the rules applied to Cellnet and Vodafone, the two operators using the 900MHz band, were: † the new operators could commercialize the service directly, so that they could keep direct contact with the client, while the existing ones had to use service providers; † the fixed operators were obliged to apply a lower transfer price for fixed to mobile calls, so that the new operators might be able to offer lower tariffs for this kind of traffic. Substantially it was a way to compensate the newcomers for the disadvantage they would have experienced in entering the competitive market with a coverage considerably smaller than that offered by the existing operators. The same objective has been reached initially in Italy, and subsequently in other countries, by obliging incumbent operators to offer national roaming to new entrants for a defined period of time at cost oriented prices. The UK PCN operators preferred to differentiate themselves also in the international arena, creating a new body, the European Association of PCN Operators. However, part of the GSM recommendations had been already transferred to the GSM MoU group, so that an agreement had to be defined with the new association for an ordinate development of 900 and 1800 MHz networks in order to avoid future and potential incompatibilities for dual band networks and terminals. The main terms of the agreement reached in 1991 were the following: † the PCN association had to partially compensate the GSM MoU group for the historical costs, and had to contribute to future costs; † the PCN association had access to the documentation of the GSM MoU subgroups and the right to participate at their meetings as well as the commitment to contribute to their activities. We can say that PCN operators have participated to the activities of the MoU group, while keeping their differentiation which disappeared some years later when also the regulatory differences disappeared. GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication488 21.1.2.7 Modification of the MoU to Allow the Entrance of new Operators and the International Expansion of GSM In mid-1991 the GSM MoU group was still limited to 17 countries and 29 signatories, four of which were administrations. The need was identified to amend the MoU with two main objectives: † to allow new operators of the already represented countries without the obligation of opening the service in 1991; † to enlarge the GSM presence around the world as much as possible, with advantages in terms of economy of scale and roaming extension. The agreed amendment to the GSM MoU included the following main concepts: † the MoU might be signed by any telecommunication administration and by any operator authorized to provide public digital cellular mobile telecommunication service at 900 MHz; † new network operator signatories had to procure operational networks using GSM recom- mendations with the objective of providing public commercial service within 2 years from their signature. The limitation to 900 MHz was subsequently removed both in order to accept 1800 MHz and 900/1800 operators as well as to extend to the 1900 MHz band. The occasion of the MoU amendment was taken also in order to improve the continuity of the MoU group management by increasing the time duration of chairmen from 6 to 12 months. Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 489 Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS Section 2: God Send Mobiles, the Experiences of an Operator Pioneer George Schmitt 21.2.1 Setting the Scene It was 14 December 1989 and the Mannesmann consortium was awarded the D2 license to build a GSM network in Germany. It was a surprise award as most expected the license to go to one of the other 13 consortia that bid for the license. It was the first competitive license awarded in the world that had to use GSM technology. The terms of the license were simple: Build a network and have it in service within 18 months and have it cover 95% of the people and the area of then West Germany within 5 years. Pacific Telesis, a major US based telephone company and a major player in the US mobile telephone market with analog cellular networks covering over 60 million Americans, led Mannesmanns’ partners in the consortium from a technical point of view. The other consor- tium partners included DG Bank, Cable & Wireless, Lyonaise de Eaux with two small German unions. Pacific Telesis was to lead the technical development of the network. Just before Christmas of 1989, Telesis announced that I would be their lead representative…. And so the work began. On arrival in Duesseldorf on 3 January 1990, I made my way to Schanzenstrassse 66 in Oberkassel, our new headquarters, with about 20 other Americans. We soon discovered that we had a lot more work to do than we thought. 21.2.2 Building a Network and Selecting Suppliers The GSM standard was not yet completed and the version then available, abis21 could not be used to build a commercial system, but the license requirements were set in stone and had to be met. Along with our new colleagues, we prepared a request for proposal and began general planning for the network. In February 1990, the RFP was released. The proposals were due to GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication Edited by Friedhelm Hillebrand Copyright q 2001 John Wiley & Sons Ltd ISBNs: 0-470-84322-5 (Hardback); 0-470-845546 (Electronic) [...]... † † † GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM GSM 503 Arab World GSM Russia GSM North America South America Africa Central Asia India 21.3.5.3 Present Working Group Structure 3 The working groups mentioned above were reorganised and today, as listed below, there are ten working groups within the GSM Association These groups meet regularly to develop and set the pace of policy direction and innovation for the GSM industry... Administration on behalf of the 494 GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication Qualcomm narrowband CDMA standard Unless Europe falters, it should lead the way and dominate the 3G standard development and implementation as well Jobs and industrial growth: the development of GSM and its success around the world revitalized European telecom manufacturers to grow and prosper throughout the 1990s... involved in the GSM industry † Helping to provide ever-increasing leadership and direction for the GSM industry The latest information on the GSM Association can be found at the GSM Association information centre, GSM World at www.gsmworld.com and you are encouraged to visit this site for further information GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication Edited by Friedhelm Hillebrand Copyright... of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 501 In the ‘‘considering’’ section it recognises the role of both organisations and their contributions to GSM i.e ETSI standards and GSM MoU permanent reference documents on services, charging/accounting, international roaming, security and fraud It confirms relevant elements of the ETSI reform In the ‘‘agreement’’ section on information and document... and concerns at an international level Facilitate, enhance, protect and support the investment in network infrastructure within the geographical area Co-ordinate contributions to and lobbying of regulatory bodies Identify and pursue future directions and opportunities The nine groups are: † GSM Europe † GSM Asia Pacific Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS. .. were received from Motorola and AT&T in the US, Siemens with Philips and Bosch as their partner, Ericsson with Matra as their partner and Nokia with SEL as a partner German and American teams evaluated the bids looking at switching, O&M, GSM radios, size and weight of equipment, features to be provided, compliance to GSM abis21 and any agreed changes to it, price and warranties and acceptance of the penalty... opted for GSM MoU Group membership and the practical problems of different signalling systems and roaming data interchange were all solved The GSM MoU Group then changed its legal status from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between members into a legal institution, the GSM Association, formally based in Switzerland, but with the headquarters in Dublin The details of the new organisation and its membership... Friedhelm Hillebrand Copyright q 2001 John Wiley & Sons Ltd ISBNs: 0-470-84322-5 (Hardback); 0-470-845546 (Electronic) Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS Section 3: The Evolution from the Informal GSM MoU Group to the GSM Association from 1992 to 1998 Arne Foxman 1 At the start of my chairmanship of the GSM MoU Group in September 1991 the GSM system had... paying customers and had purchased and sold 25 000 Ericsson £1 handhelds called ‘‘Hot Line’’, by far the smallest handhelds in Europe at the time Every GSM mobile manufactured was shipped and sold at a profit as fast as we could get them Demand far outstripped supply By mid-1993, nearly 350 000 customers were on the network and by the end of 1993 D2 was approaching breakeven cash flow and 1 million customers... the GSM Association † Right to use the internationally recognised GSM technology logo and trademark In the creation process the multiple benefits for all parties involved were stressed: † The opportunity to work closely with customers † Ensuring joint action and co-operation in promoting GSM as the core of 3G technology Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS . Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 489 Chapter 21: The Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS Section. Contribution of the GSM Association to the Building of GSM and UMTS 493 Qualcomm narrowband CDMA standard. Unless Europe falters, it should lead the way and dominate