John Roese’s Blog CTO, Nortel

Trackbacks/Pings

1. […] look at the current strategy, we see a similar model. Today, we are focused on fourth-generation (4G) wireless systems, on next-generation wireline transport, and on Unified Communications […]

   October 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm from John Roese’s Blog » Blog Archive » Innovation is Alive and Well at Nortel

2. […] will see the first commercial manifestations of the 4G world … something we said would happen much sooner than people expected. This is much more than just […]

   January 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm from John Roese’s Blog » Blog Archive » A New Year for Telecom

Comments

1. Richard,

   “Bottom line to customers is that there is no true evolution from UMTS to LTE…..”

   I think you need to let 3GPP know about this, after all LTE is UMTS release 8 This is the sort of spin statement that makes nortel seem less than credible time and time again.

   Bottom Line, I don’t know how you can make a statement such as this when LTE is not yet a standard. The migration from TDM to ATM required new hardware (Release 99), The migration to an IP backbone (Release 5) required new hardware. In that sense all vendors were competitive, some more than others. Now, why was it nortel sold their UMTS business again? Why is it that they are loosing traction in the transport?

   I also would have expected a slightly more circumspect pronouncement given the current state of the credit markets. Again, strategy and tactics are necessary but not sufficent. You need timing too.

   August 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm by many

2. While LTE is being defined by the same standards body as UMTS, the underlying technologies are very different. The radio access layer, network architecture, delivery of voice and other applications, antennas, etc are all different. The differences are as great (if not more so) than between AMPS and GSM.

   August 17th, 2007 at 11:18 am by Kelly McDonald

3. Kelly,

   I agree, the technologies are different between LTE and UMTS, as they are between UMTS and GSM, as they are between GSM and AMPS. New handsets (in the form of the latest sliced bread) are always required. These facts however, are not the point I am trying to make here.

   Lets be clear, the statement by 3GPP is that LTE handsets will be able to “fall back” to UMTS and GSM based on coverage. Additionally handoffs between GSM, UMTS and LTE are supported day one. 3GPP is focusing in particular on minimizing radio network upgrades. This sounds like the same evolution path that is in place for UMTS today to me.

   I applaud nortel and nokia for moving toward 4G which I think is superior and solves many of the frequency and intellectual property problems that have plagued the network. But statements like the one made by Richard fall into the category of FUD and really do a disservice to nortel and their customers.

   August 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm by many

4. It’s interesting how their claims of link capacity for their version of OFDM-MIMO have evolved over the last few years. Redefining it as you go but neglecting to mention it so that the numbers still look good does wonders for credibility.

   August 19th, 2007 at 11:13 am by doodz

5. doodz,

   Could you be more specific about capacity numbers you are referring to? When you say “link capacity” are you referring to bandwidth, number of channels or both? For which antenna application LoS or NLoS? The reason I ask is that there are variables that affect capacity such as antenna spacing and (I believe) it is difficult to get an accurate number on capacity from anyone without a good sense of the network design and some real world application data. Both of which are in short supply for 802.16

   http://www.comsoc.org/ci/private/2001/jan/bolc.html

   “In theory, practice and theory are the same, in practice they are not” - Yogi Berra

   August 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm by many

6. Many,

   Having had direct involvement with Cingular’s (now AT&T), GSM to UMTS deployment (R99 and R4) I can tell you that on the infrastructure side it’s not going to be quite that simple. Yes the networks will interwork, and you’ll be able to handoff from network to network (although not always seamlessly depending on what you’re doing). However the architecture is very different (circuit switched vs packet switched). In R4, the MSC’s, HLR’s and Gateways were all reused (with hardware and software upgrades) no so with LTE. New handsets (LTE), new BTS’s (LTE), new backhaul (to handle capacity), new gateways (ASN), new core (IMS).

   August 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 am by Kelly McDonald

7. There is the common misconception, which Richard clarified, that Nortel sold all of the UMTS business. Yet, Many and other people on the web still consider that as a whole truth.
   I think Nortel saw the opportunity of moving on and took it. It’s important to be able to see that and respond to it. Nortel did just that and saw the opportunity to take the lead on 4G and it’s what it’s trying to do.

   August 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am by David

8. Kelly

   I have experience both past and present with the same technologies and customer. My experience tells me that you will not get much of anyones business and your transition to LTE will not get much traction if it does not interoperate in the way that 3GPP (and by the way your competitors) are advertising.

   Granted if there is more data, network and infrastructure growth is a given, but at the same time there are huge amounts of wasted capacity out there. To your point you cannot handoff data at the same rate between R99 and R4, but this is a known and accepted side effect and not at all the statement “Bottom line to customers is that there is no true evolution from UMTS to LTE…..”. So, am I hearing you back away from that statement?

   You should play the Ballmer & Chambers interview below, listen and pay attention to what they are saying about collaboration, interoperability and market transitions with reguard to customer expectations.

   http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0708/30851/MS_Cisco_Alliance_MBR.asx?Referring_site=Matterhorn2007PressKit&Position=Webcast

   And good luck.

   August 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm by many

9. Many,

   I think it is for a difference in how we are defining “evolution”. Will 4G networks interoperate with 3G, definately. Will multi-mode phones be able seamlessly move from one network to another, in the vast majority of cases, yes.

   Will the carrier be able to evolve their infrastruture? This is where the differences in definition come into play. From a business perspective there will be a path for carriers to move from 3G to 4G (or to jump directly from 2G to 4G) and Nortel has considerable experience in helping customers make these types of transitions in the past. From a technology perspective however 4G is not an evolution of 3G (as 3G was an evolution of 2G). I think this is where the difference lies.

   August 24th, 2007 at 9:02 am by Kelly McDonald

10. I too paused at the statement about no true evolution from UMTS to LTE. Especially since 3GPP defines LTE and IMS and what they mean in terms of the UMTS standards. Both Many and Kelly have made good points about this statement. I just think it could have been said better.

    Also, my understanding is that Nortel sold its UMTS Access business, but kept the UMTS Core.

    I thought the whole point of UMTS standards is to separate services for end-users from the radio access technology details. The network infrastrucure cannot limit the services to be generated. That said, I do not understand the need for a new WiMAX network. Can’t UMTS use WiMAX’s radio technology to reap the same advantages?

    Admittedly, I have trouble keeping track of all the different types of networks, GSM, UMTS, CDMA, IMS and now WiMAX, and the various NE’s that make them up and how the NE’s divide their responsibilities. Any good recommended references (besides the 3GPP website)?

    August 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm by Tom

11. I do not disagree that LTE may be initially an overlay technology, but not because “….there is no true evolution from UMTS to LTE…..”.

    I tend to think of LTE more as an add on (at least in North America), because today’s average cell phone user is not unhappy with current data rates, what they want is more and more coverage. No one is doing lots of data in a moving vehicle or walking down the street. To the extent LTE allows better (wider/more dense) coverage of voice and texting/SMS etc at less expense it will be deployed.

    Where LTE data rates apply (at least initially) is in a more fixed environment, airports, cafe’s homes and offices. Places where people do work or want entertainment but are for the most part stationary.

    What will drive the more mobile data usage is when secure and simplified communications services that incorporate presence, location, identity, membership and social systems are available. (Oh,yea. it would be nice if they were forever green too )

    August 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm by many

12. Tom,

    I agree that the core network must be (and is) agnostic as to the Radio Access Network and Services. The limiting factor will be throughput, not technology or evolution path. An OC-12 will work at about the same rate as a GigE and it is possible to over subscribe either(depending on MTU size cost per bit is likely less for GigE in a greenfield application). Mesh network designs are usually more robust and efficient than L2 protection schemes if engineered correctly but require more sophisticated monitoring. MPLS and ATM are more difficult to engineer and maintain than Switched Ethernet, although Switched Ethernet is more difficult to troubleshoot for some because of confusion over demarcation, lack of tools and expertise on the transport side (this is a temporary condition though).

    Perhaps WiMax (802.16 -> and now MBWA 802.20) technology can be used. I do not know. I do know there is currently no soft (make before break) handoff between WiMax and itself or UMTS. WiMax does have hard handoff in the works (break before make). So, to me WiMax is largely a “fixed point to multipoint wireless” technology unless the applications are robust enough to handle that type of handoff.

    As far as references for the alphabet soup go, I like the IEEE
    http://www.ieee802.org/16/
    http://www.ieee802.org/20/

    for WiMax the WiMax forum
    http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/

    August 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm by many

13. Richard, thank you for responding to my questions. I used to be a Nortel fan and I’d really like to see Nortel hit it big again if that’s possible. Here is my feedback to your post for your consideration.

    1. Nortel continues to tout CDMA and EVDO prowess as evidence of your 3G strength and positioning for 4G leadership. Stop. I and many others view that as transparent marketing. CDMA has been good to Nortel (and will be for a little while longer) but it has lost the global war to GSM and UMTS in the same way that BETA lost to VHS. EVDO is not real 3G. It’s 2.5G+ at best. If you want to build investor confidence, you need to help us understand what will replace Nortel’s dependence on CDMA, Switching, and first-generation VoIP. EVDO is the last step for your CDMA business and it’s a big jump to the wave of 4G revenue.

    2. Your positive statement that the 4G operators may/will be different from the current crop of network operators is something I resonate with. BUT…who do you think will be the major players and why would they be attracted to work with Nortel? The new crop of Nortel leaders brought in by MZ look like production specialists (some with anger management problems), not market segment experts with good contacts. The senior leaders in Nortel who have been there since the glory days would seem to consist more of ‘veterans’ than industry stars. Not too much thought-leadership visibility in the major industry forums I’ve been to over the last 18 months. Given Nortel’s eroding position in your legacy market segments, why would Nortel be perceived as a top-tier player with the new operators? Who do you have in place to open up those channels that won’t be perceived by the new operators as an old-world telecom-head?

    3. The 4G market will require devices or it will be a non-starter. You’ve been silent on device strategy. Who are you working with and what kinds of devices will you use to develop the first phase of the market? Your key competitors have very clear – and solid – device strategies.

    On a positive note, I really do think that Nortel can be a major player in the 4G wave but it will come down to execution. You have the footprint and some of the channels, but you need the right people and you need the right process. I’m not sure the six-sigma culture will help you with the kind of challenge ahead. You need the ‘Steve Jobs’ of 4G and then you need to set him/her free.

    Post more. In the absence of information, the investor community assumes you don’t have anything to say. None of us has any idea how you’re going to maintain your Carrier business at its current levels. Good luck.

    August 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm by Paul Stevens

14. Hey John- are you aware that the real estate agent showing flats in your London bldg offers you forth to all prospective female tenants as, and I quote, “a good catch?” Check out this blog post: http://knitnut.net/?p=454

    apparently, joining the blogosphere has improved your status with this one young lady.

    September 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm by Colton Bragg

15. What do you think about current 3g scenario in India and its potential as a future 4g market?

    September 7th, 2007 at 3:32 am by Siddharth Surana

16. John:

    It seems to me that, going back to early this decade with the “outsource” initiative for the Global Server Platform, that Nortel, even then and more so now (?), was and is, coming to terms with the required business model evolution to that of Intergator at the Services Layer to Carrier Customers.

    Given all of the financial and organizational termoil at Nortel I appluade what appears to be a continued committment to this evolution. No one can build it all themselves. The days of big “P” proprietary are gone.

    Specific to, (key initiatives) 4G, advanced antenna MIMO, WiMax, LTE … and the intricacies of and proliferation of video delivery, from casual entertainment to Healthcare(EMR and Imaging) to National Security (proactive anomoly detection), it is becoming more and more clear that Nortel is attempting to position itself within the core technoloy / innovator / start up community as an investor, accelerator, aggregator and ideally integrator of these “components” into the solution sets that Carriers need to derive their ARPU, consumer, institutional or otherwise.

    This “opinion” is further substantiated (?) by recent statements and committed investment strategies within the many University Development Labs, espceially in Canada, UoW / 4G as an example, too accelerate the development and commercialization of these ingredient or component level technologies that can lead to the delivery of a broadly acceptable and very capable solution set offering, as an Integrator.

    Since the early days of the Network Processor and it’s “Halcyon Days” promises of faster than wireline packet processing (Deep Layer 7), “in-line acceleration and real time proceesing of anything”, standard object orientated, high reuse development evironments atop of massively parallel processing arrays,it has become clear that internal “Big Co.” investments and development processes in these areas have become bogged down in favor of the perceived sustainability of “business as usual business and development models”, slowing the time to market of innovative technologies and that of service based solution sets that deliver one piece at a time but demonstrate real, broad capabilities.

    The days of monolithic, proprietary solutions combined with the sustainability and dependency risks associated within them, based on multisource ASIC, DSP and FPGA development programs are gone. Their development complexity, time to market and lack of flexibility / repeatability combined with the commoditization of silicon technologies and global fab availability, represent real opportunities for accelerated time to market and ROI on the development dollar leading me believe that a Nortel move towards a common silicon solution and standard IDE as sustainable, high reuse building blocks for multiple edge devices and Product / Platform implementations is a compelling opportunity. The real sustainable IP then is focused on the highly differentiated and repeatable algorythmic solutions to the problems at hand.

    The world continues to move toward algorythmic software based solutions that require more and more performance.

    The Big Question:

    With the recent,reinvigorated mandate of “The Office of the CTO” how is it that you intend to focus on and make the trade offs between laboratory based Science Projects, real opportunities for Product based Platform consolidations and real world, deliverable, sustainable, service oriented, commercially vialble investments in integratable technologies?

    For full disclosure, I ask this question from the perspective of a seasoned telecommunications, semiconductor executive and serial entrepeneur that has been deeply invested both financially and emotionally / intellectually in the simplification and irradication of the Proprietary developments and business models that have certianly slowed or even prevented the delivery of highly available and repeatable services.

    It seems to me that Nortel is in the enviable position of having a relatively strong Balance Sheet enabling you to make the kind of investments and oranizational / Platform decisions that can have real commercial impact and sustainable leadership potential.

    A little long winded. Looking forward to your response.

    September 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm by Rob

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

John Roese’s Blog is powered by WordPress.
Copyright © Nortel Networks 1999-2008. All Rights Reserved. View the Nortel Networks Privacy Policy.