Beijing Business Daily reporter sorted out the details of these voting.
In the process of 3G standardization by 3GPP, the decision on channel coding was made in stages at two conferences. The first meeting was RAN1#86bis held in Lisbon in October 2016. This session only fully discussed the data channel coding under the eMBB scenario. At the conference, three kinds of data channel coding schemes were proposed, namely LDPC and China-based Polar code, which were promoted by companies such as Qualcomm, Samsung, Alcatel-Lucent-Shanghai Bell, and LDPC+Turbo code recommended by several Japanese companies. Combination scheme. Due to its own technical reserves and patent considerations, Lenovo chose to support LDPC.
After the conference, Lenovo changed its view on the Polar code due to "strategic" considerations, and thus gave full support for Huawei Polar code at the next RAN1#87 conference held in Reno, USA. Short for Huawei data channel. Code and control channel coding schemes both voted in favor.
People in the industry believe that these votes are the decisions that determine the direction of technology. Enterprises that have finally been selected as standards will receive more royalties after the commercial use of 5G.
It is understood that "channel coding" is one of the most important components of the 5G communication standard, and has a great influence on chip implementation and patent fees. Various companies have paid great attention to this. In the process of the 3GPP standardization of the 5G standard, there are three coding schemes, namely Turbo code, LDPC code and Polar code. The organizer 3GPP is an industry association that has a strong influence in the communications field worldwide. Since it was established early, the scope of membership covers almost the entire industry, and it has basically acted as the role of “coordinating member conflicts, designating new regulations and agreements” in the industry.
Lenovo's "5G vote" incident stemmed from a question and answer question a few days ago. The respondent stated that in a 5G standard vote, Lenovo voted for Qualcomm's plan, causing Huawei's plan to lose with a slight disadvantage. For a time, the outside world made a verbal confession. However, this incident, the industry generally believe that after two years once again being pulled out of the outside world is behind the scenes. To this end, Lenovo promptly issued an internal letter to explain the situation.
The theme of the internal letter that Liu Chuanzhi and Yang Yuanqing jointly issued is “Action, Swear to Win Lenovo Honor Battle.” The letter pointed out that in the entire voting process, Lenovo Group representatives follow two principles: one is the most basic principle, that is, to protect the interests of their own companies; there is a higher principle that focuses on the overall situation, that is, the development of the country and the industry. Overall interest. After detailed investigations and verification by various parties, Liu Chuanzhi believed that Lenovo’s voting principle was no problem and there was no problem in implementation.
Liu Chuanzhi mentioned that during the first round of voting on the 5G data channel solution, Lenovo Group chose the LDPC technology solution based on its own prior technology and patent reserves. In the second round of voting, Lenovo Group comprehensively considered the country's overall industrial cooperation, innovation and development, and chose the Polar code solution that the company had not accumulated before.
It is worth noting that it is reported that Lenovo and Motorola have turned to Qualcomm-led LDPC code schemes in terms of data channels, resulting in Huawei's dominant Polar code solution losing two votes.
The industry believes that Lenovo chose LDPC for the first time in data channel long code voting because Lenovo’s Motorola has been doing LDPC's layout before, so it has some patent reserves, and voting is also in its own interest. Consistent. In reality, all companies support LDPC solutions over long data channel codes. The two votes of Lenovo and Motorola Mobile have no material effect on the loss of Huawei's Polar code over the data channel long code.
In the next data channel short code vote, Lenovo and Motorola all voted for the Polar code on the vote, but the Polar code solution finally lost. In addition to the support for data channel short codes, Lenovo and Motorola also voted unreservedly for the Polar code solution on the subsequent eMBB control channel coding scheme, helping Huawei to regain the key game and become a 5G eMBB control channel. Coding scheme.
Analysts believe that if purely from the perspective of commercial interests, Lenovo and Motorola should also choose the LDPC code scheme for short-code solutions for data channels because Lenovo and Motorola have more technology accumulation in LDPC codes. In this context, Lenovo and Motorola still choose to support the Huawei-dominated Polar code, which is actually to safeguard the overall interests of China's 5G industry.
Lenovo’s internal letter appears to be only a clarification of the company, but as Liu Chuanzhi said in the letter, an incident in the technical field has suddenly been turned upside down and fermented in the past two years. This is an accidental event. The use of it cannot help but think deeply.
In the eyes of the industry, this incident does not rule out the possibility of self-promotion by the media. But more importantly, it reflects the 5G war between China, the United States and Europe. The behind of Lenovo's bedding is actually the relationship with Chinese companies. play off. Kang Wei, chief editor of the operator World Net, believes that 2018 is an important node for 5G to enter international standards. The first version of 5G international standards will be released in June. This node has a controversy and must be behind the scenes, and it is a stakeholder.
Xiang Ligang, a senior communication expert, said that in view of the overall industry ecology, the formulation of the global 5G standard depends to a large extent on the competition and competition of the three-party enterprise camp between China, the United States and Europe. At present, the three forces are in a roughly balanced state. If the solidarity between China's 5G enterprises is disrupted by external forces and false information, it is likely to break this balance and cause Chinese companies to be in a very unfavorable position in the formulation of the 5G standard.
It is reported that due to early research and development, and the formation of a wide range of industrial cooperation, the current domestic 5G technology level in many areas and foreign companies comparable, even in some key technologies, but also has obvious advantages. Judging from the previous assessment of international organizations, China has already had the ability to lead the development of the 5G standard.
A previous US study that published the results showed that in the 5G competition, China was slightly ahead of South Korea and the United States. The research results published by the US-based CTIA, a wireless network operator industry association, show that the United States has fallen behind in the deployment of such ultra-high-speed wireless network systems required for self-driving cars, telemedicine, and other technologies.
It is reported that in the current storm, the Polar code proposal led by Huawei has become 5G eMBB (Enhanced Mobile Broadband, the main application scenario is 3D/Ultra High DefinitionvideoControl channel coding for scenarios such as large-flow mobile broadband services. 3GPP plans to announce the first standard specification of 5G in June of this year. The communication standard involves different scenarios and different channels and involves multiple technical solutions.