Home > News content

Huawei 3GPP conference delegate sent a message: It is absurd to accuse Lenovo of going online.

via:博客园     time:2018/5/12 18:01:30     readed:185

orgsrc=https://images2018.cnblogs.com/news/66372/201805/66372-20180512120026892-1081387926.jpg

Author: Wind Fan

In the past two days, with knowledge of a certain bottle of water, half a bottle of water sloshing posts, microblogging and other media speculated that Lenovo voted for Qualcomm when determining the NR FEC program. For a time, "the conscience of the US imperialists" seems to have become a national sinner accused of being accused, even forced to come out in public to respond to such questions. This kind of magical realism is really ridiculous. I bluntly opened a map cannon: All those who accuse Lenovo of this time, I sincerely remind you to be careful in the future life of fraud and MLM, because it is easy to be shaken by you is obviously a high-risk group of victims.

As one of Huawei's 3GPP participants, Lenovo's “Huangdao” tool, I am more qualified than 99% of people on the Internet. It is also necessary to express my views on the matter to be heard. First clarify a basic fact: 3GPP members are companies/organizations, not countries. Companies are fighting for the interests of the company rather than for the benefit of the country. Therefore, the camps in 3GPP are mainly based on the types of vendors, because they have more common interests. For example, MTK, Intel, and Qualcomm mainly consider the implementation of mobile phone chips. Many times it is easy to reach consensus. DOCOMO and CMCC are operators. The main concern is the operation of the network. They often do things together. Instead of saying that the manufacturers of the same country should stand together. In fact, the conflict of interest between them may be very sharp. The contradiction between the network-side and UE-side vendors is much greater than the contradiction between countries. For example, MTK and CMCC are completely antagonistic to CSI-RS RRM measurement problems. After grasping this basic fact, I believe that the reader can naturally understand the ridiculous thing that Lenovo betrayed the so-called “Chinese camp” to accuse Lenovo of.

Since there is no national camp at all, companies are fighting for their own interests. Is it not normal for a company to oppose another company for its own sake? What is a good accusation? Even this time's "interruption" incident "bitter" & "Huawei, this kind of thing did not do less." The brains of Huawei and ZTE do not think twice. Is it because Huawei is a traitor or ZTE is a traitor?

As a recent example, at the beginning of this year, RAN4 discussed the cooperation between NR and 2/3G. Both ZTE and Qualcomm did not want to support different system measurements for CDMA2K and HRPD under the EN-DC scenario. Therefore, ZTE and Qualcomm united and strongly opposed Huawei Technologies. The LS drafted for the RAN plenary session, according to some people's logic, does ZTE have foreign exchanges? This kind of decision that must be made on the basis of normal commercial interests is put on the line, and the understanding of using the perspective of pan-political vision is not justified. Now let's say back to the question of the choice of FEC scheme. I provide a few points for readers to deepen their understanding:

1. The polar code proposer Arikan is a Turk. The earliest was that in 07, 2008 he discovered the phenomenon of channel polarization, and 10 years of papers on TIT took the IEEE best paper award of that year's Institute of Information Science. The founder of LDPC, Gallager, is a student of the communication's founder, Lord Shannon, and an American. Neither LDPC codes nor polar codes are Huawei's first technologies. Therefore, the ultimate choice of which technical solution has nothing to do with the pride of the country or the nation is still a purely interest issue. It cannot be said that Huawei’s plans for other Chinese companies should support it. When Huawei asks them to collect their patent fees, are they or are you a spectator?

2. What are the specific benefits? patent. Huawei's reason for deciding on polar code is that Huawei started to patent its polarized code early on. As far as I know, at least as early as 11 years later, some people have started tracking this technology. Therefore, at the beginning of the NR SI project, Huawei began to promote polar code as the NR FEC solution. Qualcomm pushed LDPC because they have been on the LDPC for a long time. Incidentally, why did the turbo code that has been used from LTE go to 5G but was excluded? Because turbo is the main thrust of the Europeans, Huawei Qualcomm and Wu Wei joined forces against Wei. In the same way, which coding schemes other companies support is also a matter of which technology they have accumulated, and they have the opportunity to plug in their own technology. Or to see how much benefit can be gained from it. No manufacturer will consider Huawei as a Chinese company and should therefore support Huawei. No company can't go with money, repeat, no company and money make life difficult. ,

3, why do so many Chinese manufacturers support Huawei? I was not a representative of the RAN1, so at that time, the battle to 3 or 4 in the morning did not take place. However, after the interview, the information that was learned was that Huawei did its work before the meeting, and in exchange for the reduction of royalty fees in exchange for their support at the meeting. If I don't understand people, I'll put a few words in mind: I'll go through the notes of the previous RAN1 meetings and look at the companies that support Huawei before writing a few proposals on RAN1 to participate in the meeting to discuss how active it is. Why do companies that normally do not write proposals and do not participate in discussions will suddenly come forward to co-ordinate WF? Again to understand the point: You look at Xiaomi, Xinwei and Putian. #86 also supports Qualcomm and #86bis will support Huawei. What do you think this is for? I can only say that no profit can not afford to get up early.

4. In the end, what I would like to say is, do you think that supporting LDPC is to support Qualcomm’s opposition to Huawei? Don't be naive! Big companies are betting on both sides. Huawei's push-polarization code is only a little more than LDPC's patent reserves. Huawei also has reserves in LDPC. If you choose LDPC, Huawei cannot eat it. For example, after the LDPC encoding matrix, one of the small matrices was Huawei's solution. It was impossible for everyone to eat alone. The other company must have picked up a group to counter you. So, Lenovo's case is a normal business practice. There is nothing to criticize. Although China and the United States may be under a background of a trade war, Huawei’s Sino-U.S. company duel can easily detonate emotions, but we still hope that everyone will remain rational. The professional field is left to professionals. Don't go online, so no good for anyone. It's hard to hear that even if we are suffering, we don't feel that Lenovo is cutting behind. What kind of grievances do you hold?

orgsrc=https://images2018.cnblogs.com/news/66372/201805/66372-20180512120026900-1347806590.jpg

China IT News APP

Download China IT News APP

Please rate this news

The average score will be displayed after you score.

Post comment

Do not see clearly? Click for a new code.

User comments