13th IST Mobil & Wireless
By John Latta, WAVE
June 28-30, 2004
We begin our reporting from a top down perspective. That
is, rather that leap into the details of what was presented we explore
the why. This certainly cannot be completed in such a short report but
this assessment puts into context, at least from a U.S. perspective,
the R&D efforts that are underway in Europe. With this context we
can better understand its implications, strengths and weaknesses.
Impact of European Culture
The success of GSM is seen as having had a major impact
on the global competitiveness of Europe in telecommunications. By selecting
one standard, which all of Europe supported, this created a de facto
world standard for cellular communications. At the same time this was
accomplished using a European approach – driven by the governments
in Europe, such as approach would be seen as heavy handing in the U.S.
Yet, there is more. Europe follows socialistic traditions and the governments,
and especially now with the EU, plays a strong role in policies that
impact the lives of everyone. This socialistic framework directly impacts
how research is done here. Some of the elements include:
There is an objective by 2010 that three percent of
the GDP be applied to R&D. Approximately one third would be public
funded and the rest in the business sector.
Europe is in a competitive race with Asia and the U.S.
for a leadership position in technology, especially technology that
will impact global markets.
The European objectives have evolved and include the
following as stated by one of the speakers:
Objective - Lisbon
To become the most dynamic and most competitive
knowledge based society
Objective - Göteborg
A strategy for sustainable development and growth
(environment, economy, employment)
Objective - Barcelona
Education, training, innovation, three percent of
The most recent EU strategy for the Information Society
is based on the following pillars:
Stimulate greater deployment of ICT products and services
through initiatives such as eEurope, eContent and eTEN.
Development of a regulatory framework to ensure fair
competition and eliminates obstacles to the adoption of ICT.
R&D into a new generation of ICT which will support
innovation and competitiveness.
The R&D plan in IST, Information Society Technologies,
is encompassed in the EU’s Sixth Framework Programs (FP6) for
Research and Technological Development (RDT). This covers the period
from 2002 to 2006. The budget was Euro 3.6 billon and was the highest
budget of all the priority areas. There are five key areas in FP6:
Applied IST research addressing major societal and
Communications and computing infrastructures.
Components and Microsystems.
Knowledge and interface technologies and
IST future and emerging technologies.
There is also support for research networking infrastructure
which includes GRIDs for knowledge and computing.
The EU has developed instruments for implementing FP6.
Integrated Programs (IPs) which support objective
Networks of Excellence (NoEs) which are to attack
fragmented research by fostering the integration of research capacities.
The objective is to create virtual centers of excellence.
Article 169 which encourages regional research by
EU member states.
Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) are shared
cost efforts of limited scope.
Coordinated Actions (CAs) which are undertaken by
interested parties in a specific research area.
Specific Support Actions (SSAs) which include conferences,
seminars and studies.
One of the major thrusts of the EU program is to make
information society technologies more people-centric and easier to
use. With this emphasis it is hoped that the deployment of technologies
will bridge the digital divide. An underlying philosophy is that IST
applications and services be available anytime, anywhere and to anyone
whatever the age or impairment and in a form that is most natural for
the individual. These objectives are captured in Ambient Intelligence
Ambient Intelligence envisions a world where there is
greater user friendliness, more efficient services support, user-empowerment
and support for human interaction. There is a concept for an Ami Home
and Ami World.
This framework illustrates the strong role that the EU
plays in fostering and supporting research. Further, as evident here,
projects mandate industry and academia joint efforts. In fact, most of
the major projects here have an industry lead and the names include Nokia,
Siemens, Philips and others. By implication, the teaming of academia
with industry will foster the relevance of the research and create an
incentive for it to be commercialized. This has implications in time-to-market
but this is a larger issue than just a research plan.
One aspect of such a centralized approach to directing
research is the ability to focus on large problems and those which are
cross disciplinary. We see here the integration of communications with
individuals, including health and monitoring, just not seen outside of
Europe. This approach has the opportunity to break down traditional barriers
to making technology relevant.
The research efforts are part of a well funded managed
There is a strong social emphasis, from the way in which
the research is done to the expected benefits of it and
World competitiveness is an important measure of success.
Compared to the U.S.
There is nothing comparable in the U.S. and it can be argued
that the U.S. would resist such a strong hand of government. The only
similar research organization is NSF but its involvement of industry
in the funded research is limited. In a DoD context there is DARPA. It
fosters research across industry and academia but it mostly addresses
defense related technologies.
The strength of the U.S. system is entrepreneurial. This
spurs focused efforts to bring products to market. Supported by the venture
capital investment model there are usually funds available for concepts
with merit and which are supported by strong management teams. Given
the rapid time-to-market intent there is little time to engage in basic
or even applied research. Thus, the entrepreneurial model builds on research
conducted external to the start-up companies. Many such companies have
strong academic backgrounds or the principals come from companies which
have invested in such research. Thus, the entrepreneurial model is dependent
on a research foundation, as it deals with core technologies.
One shortfall of the entrepreneurial model is that it is
dependent on economic conditions. While some companies continue research
investment in difficult times, like Intel in the last down turn, most
cut back and the VC community shut the valves off. For example, many
have described the significant loss of IP which took place when many
dotcom companies died.
Another limitation is that focus limits addressing broad
issues, especially those that cross market boundaries. For example, doing
research on Ambient Intelligence and even bringing products to market
would be difficult, other than a large scale company research project.
There is also a limited parallel structure for joint industry
efforts in the U.S. Alliances, forums and other not-for-profit industry
groups foster collective efforts in standard, interoperability and market
development. Although such activities exist in Europe the U.S. has done
much to develop this means of stimulating markets. This is not research
but a means of bringing research to market.
The European model has much to say for it. We will explore
this in more detail in this report and subsequent ones. However, we should
not take a blind view. On the down side it also tends to be bureaucratic
and complex. There can be IP issues and managing multiple companies in
a project with competing interests can be complex or not productive.
We cited GSM as an example of where the European approach was successful.
But in the case of HiperLAN and HiperMAN Europe was not successful. The
U.S. with 802.11 was able to create a worldwide wireless LAN standard.
It is interesting to note that UWB is a subject of a number of sessions
here but this is where the U.S. regulatory process was ahead of the rest
of the world including Europe.
All of this said, there is broad agreement that the academic
research funding in the U.S. is inadequate. A number of these WAVE reports
have highlighted the declining state of U.S. research on a world wide
basis. This is certainly the case in nanotechnology and here at the IST
Summit the emphasis on the role of communications goes well beyond where
the U.S. is investing in research.
Intel Describes Wireless Research
Kevin Kahn, Intel Senior Fellow, Director Communications
Technology Lab, Intel described RCA, a Reconfigurable Communications
Architecture. The talk addressed a flexible baseband architecture which
included an array of heterogeneous processing elements that can be reconfigurable
logic, i.e., programmable and parameterized. This architecture can be
configured on the fly with software downloadable.
One basis for this work was to examine the key kernels
in each of the protocols. Examined included: 802.11a, 3G, WCDMA-FDD,
802.15.3a (wireless USB), 802.16 a/d/e, 4G (VSF OFCDMA) and MIMO (802.11n
and more). From this came a set of computational kernels which are required
by a large number of protocols. Intel then compared various methods of
implementing these. This ranged from dedicated hardware to FPGA. Note
that one of the reasons for this work is to support software defined
radios and thus the ability to support many radio types is central to
the concept. The RCA architecture combines analog with digital. The front
end of the radio is analog. Its output is then converted to a digitized
analog waveform. The next steps include a series of PE (processing elements)
that execute on the key kernels described earlier.
Intel is interested in making this work in CMOS. First,
this is the technology that the company is strong in and second it scales
to mass markets. An example was shown of a sampling transceiver. Intel’s
current focus is on the transceiver and tunable filters.
Kevin ended the presentation by asking these research questions:
Can CMOS do the job?
Can radios be made more like logic?
European Research Directions
Dick Beernaert, European Commission, Head of Integrated
Micro-and Nanosystems Unit, gave one of the most interesting talks about
the convergence of microsystems, i.e., silicon, with nanotechnology.
His talk also had some of the political background on the IST program.
Some of this was used in other parts of this report. Key points made
When the EU recently went from 15 to 25 and then 28
countries this increased the population by 45 percent and the GNP went
from Euro 8,500 billion to 9,450 billion. He asked the question: will
the EU have 45 percent more creativity?
The European Strategy for RTD in innovation is supported
by the following mechanisms.
The research area is to foster internal market in
research, restructure the research fabric and to support a research
To accomplish this are Technology Platforms, which
are a gateway to implementing Joint European Technology Initiatives.
Then comes the Framework Program, such as FP6 discussed
Ambient Intelligence is much more that people centric
communication. It is about interactive, intelligent, emotional environments
servicing smart players. These can include humans, animals, objects,
working places and machines/processes.
There is a symbiosis between Ambient Intelligence and
small technology, i.e., nanotechnology. This includes seamless and
rich connectivity, intelligent environments and anthropocentric interfaces.
At the EU we see the convergence of these technologies - micro & nano
beginning in 2010. This is where the electrical and life sciences meet.
The integration of micro and nano systems is more than
small technology. It is about smart technology and systems. Some of
the characteristics include:
Plastic (polymer) based micro/nano systems Very high
density hybrid integration (egrains) Integration of nano-devices
on various materials Interfacing with organic molecules and living
cells Technologies for energy supply, for micro-machines and micro-robotics
Mixed technology micro-nano systems such as Bio/ICT/micro/nano and
more Mass storage and smart displays
The research policy in Europe for Integrated Micro-Nano
systems is to put these systems, displays and enabled subsystems inside
One effort is towards Healthy Aims - on and in the body.
This will be integrated with Body Area Networks (BANs). This current
research project has 25 EU partners. There are 6 areas of body research
including retina implants.
Micro/Nanosystems is a system within the Ami system.
Some of the attributes are:
It is about a new infrastructure.
It is about legislation, standards and global
competition It is about privacy and acceptance by the users and society
It is about education. We need more engineers and other engineers and more
So what does this mean?
Small is beautiful, portable and silicon rules the
Plastic is flexible, bendable, shining and cheap;
Bio integrated is life compatible;
Micro-nano fluidics and chemistry is sustainable and
Large scale integration is omni present and ubiquitous.
European Research Efforts
Early in the conference there surfaced many research activities
which we will summarize.
Networks that provide a ubiquitous common control
layer for various network types. This is to enable seamless multi-access
connectivity. Underlying the network design is the ability to rapidly
offer new services.
Wireless World Initiative New Radio is an access concept
to support high flexibility and scalability across data rates and
Apply advances in mobile applications so that they
can reach users in every day lives. Involves user centric research
into service frame-works and applications.
End-to-End Reconfigurability, which is the EU term
for software defined radios. This is to design, develop and trial
architecture design of reconfigurable devices. Also works with regulators.
Broadband services for everyone over fixed wireless
access networks. Supports the development of economical network architectures
for all citizens of Europe.
The development of connectivity while in flight. Has
many services as an objective.
Foster the development of Personal Networks. These
networks are to be use centric and secure.
Power Aware Communications for Wireless OptiMized
personal Area Network. Building a PAN which has very low power, is
scalable and supports ad-hoc networking. Integrates with CAN - community
area networks. Note that PANs and CANs can also be mobile.
The development of miniaturized autonomous sensors
on and around the body to improve individual’s health, comfort
The integration of technology with the body.
The development of a wearable interface for health
A project on the storage and retrieval of information
in the home.
Disappearing Computer II. This is the second phase
of an effort to explore the impacts of making the computer disappear.
A project to develop interconnections between devices
in the home for high quality high speed transfers.
This is only a small sample.
WINNER – The EU Competes with Market Dynamics
Earlier in this report we described the differences between
the US and Europe in research and the development of markets. The WINNER
project provided an excellent illustration. The best way to frame WINNER
is to ask the question
If one could define a ubiquitous radio, i.e., wireless,
architecture from scratch how would this be done?
WINNER is it.
Driven by the user not the technology
Analyze and assess the most promising technologies
Optimize the combination of technologies for best performance
The result is a masterful systems engineering approach.
The flow diagram includes:
WP1 – Scenarios
WP2 – Radio Interface
WP3 – Radio Network Deployment Concepts
WP4 – Cooperation of Radio Access Systems
WP5 – Channel Modeling
WP6 – Spectrum and Coexistence
WP7 – System Engineering
This all results in a Technology Assessment and from this
comes the Ubiquitous Radio System Concept.
The basic system concept is due in December 2005.
WiMAX, 802.11d, products are expected to be on market
in April 2005 – some 8 months ahead of the WINNER concept.
802.16e specification should be completed by March 2005
and products are expected in H2 2006.
The WAVE spoke with Jörn von Häfen. He was knowledgable
of the efforts in 802.16 and 802.11x. But the approach being taken in
WINNER is typical of German engineering. A key point is they want a solid
recommendation for the WRC in 2007. It is his view that the WRC will
allow for the harmonization of the spectrum worldwide and this is important
for a worldwide market. Yet, he recognized that this approach has issues.
A description of the efforts in the U.S. includes the following:
It is purely market driven – it is all about making
profits at the earliest time.
No one cares about the WRC, with the possible exception
of the State Department.
There are huge gains by implementing some of the system
at 700MHz but no one is talking about this.
WiMAX may be a mobility Trojan horse able to attack
3G cellular and possibly more.
Intel has a major stake in these efforts for one reason – selling
chips and dominating the market for them. Intel’s presentation
yesterday was another example of how Intel is doing research for this
Outside looking in, the effort to develop a wireless concept
and infrastructure in the U.S. looks incoherent. It is. But one must
know the motivations of the players to gain some sense for the actions
being taken. Even that may not be evident.
The differences between the U.S. and Europe in developing
the next generation wireless are very different. This is not to say who
is the winner (pun intended), only time will tell. The WAVE’s sense
from Jörn is that WINNER may change due to these realities. The
race is on.
Moby Dick – IPv6 All the Way
Moby Dick is a EU funded program for an all IP 4G wireless
network. A presentation was given by Antonio Cuevas on field trials of
the system architecture. The major challenges with Moby Dick is that
it supports AAAC, QoS and Mobility, totally under IPv6. AAAC stands for
Auditing, Authentication, Authorization, Accounting, Charging and Security
while mobility supports handover, mobile IP, paging and context transfer.
QoS includes Differentiated Services, Signaling, L2 and L3 mapping and
The system architecture is daunting. Some of the functional
components include: Paging Agent, AAAC Server, Home Agent, QoS Broker,
radio gateways, access router and WLAN access router. There is a test
bed in Madrid, Spain and Stuttgart, Germany. This paper described a series
of tests to determine the performance of the system architecture. There
were two levels of tests: Expert tests to evaluate system performance
and IPv6 legacy applications that included Quake, VoIP, videoconferencing
and IM. Part of the objective was to overload links and inject high demand
One observation was that one of the most difficult parts
of the tests was getting the test bed running. There were 11 machines
running in Madrid and each had 7 modules operating.
Examples of the performance measured included:
70ms RTT between Domains
200ms AAA Registration Processing Time
FHO (Fast Hand Off) to be accomplished in <50ms
Paging Awaking – 500ms
One of the most interesting comments came in response to
a question. The design of the system is such that everything on it must
support IPv6 even including the terminal devices.
This test bed will be used to FP6 Daidalos project for
evaluation of a new 4G network.
Simplicity – The Network as a Driver of
the User I/F
This project is to address the conflicts between increasing
network complexity, rising user services and the need to make the user
interface more simplistic. It is assumed that pervasive computing will
increase the number of services; there will be more devices and the number
of different access technologies will rise. This creates a situation
where the users will use heterogeneous services and devices while the
operators will face a multi-access networking environment. This makes
today’s WiFi and cellular networks look relatively simple.
The goals of project Simplify include:
To simplify user access to services;
The required user interaction will be limited to special decisions
The middleware manages complexity; and
Users can even roam across ambiences that have differing degrees of intelligence.
The net of this is that there is a need for a User Profile.
Not surprising, the solution is a Simplicity Device that the user carries
with them. The form factor of the device has not been determined and
it was implied it can take many shapes: from a smart card to a system
To support Simplify, an architectural approach is described
that includes the simplicity device and a brokerage framework. This framework
is policy based which blends user preferences with the terminal characteristics.
The presentation gave examples of the implementation of the brokerage
with a layered middleware architecture.
One of the most telling aspects of this project, and similar
to others, is the illustration of the candidates for implementation.
Service Discovery - SLP, JINI
Auto configuration and Software Downloads - OSGi, JADE
P2P Solutions - JXTA
Execution Environment - JAVA2 SE, ME, Personal JAVA
FLOW - Shaping Simultaneous Use of the Convergence of Wireless Systems
One aspect of the FLOW project is to examine how it is
possible to support connection to multiple wireless systems. The premise
is that the ‘best’ connection may result from simultaneous
use of services, systems and operators. With that they developed the
Always Best Connected (ABC) concept.
The analysis examined three components:
And from this extracted 11 concepts. They developed a terminology
which was expressed as
(xSe, xSy, xOp)
where x can be 0,1,n
Some of the cases considered included
(nSe, 1Sy, 1Op) - Different services via the same system
such as voice and data;
(nSe, nSy, 1Op) - Different services via different systems;
(nSe, 1Sy, nOp) - Different services via different operators;
(1Se, nSy, 1Op) - Cooperative redundant transmission
such as making an emergency call over several systems;
(1Se, nSy, 1Op) - Vertical handover between systems;
This analysis then showed the cases of:
Which drives the need for a complex multi-protocol
and multi-service terminal
Which drives the need for a complex multi-service
terminal that has hardware and software integration
There is the need for a 3rd party broker and increased
complexity in signaling, security, authentication and billing.
There was one component missing from this assessment -
least cost usage - which will add another dimension to the assessment.
Predicting the Wireless Future
A final plenary session asked the question: What possible
industrial activity in Europe on wireless communications in 2010? It
provided a number of high level views of the direction that the technology
will be taking.
Many speakers provided varied views which we summarize
One of the most interesting presentations was given
by Bo Karlson, of the Wireless@KTH research organization. This organization
was created in 2001 by the Royal Institute of Technology and the
wireless industry to support joint research. One of the first projects
was Wireless Foresight which was conducted from September 2001 to
Une 2002. This has been published in a book by John Wiley with the
title “Wireless Foresight: Scenarios of the Mobil World in
2015. Bo gave a brief overview of the scenarios. These are all encompassing
in that they look at the direction the industry, governments, operators
and users might take. The scenarios are called:
Wireless Explosion - Creative Destruction,
Rediscovering Harmony and
Big Moguls and Snoop Government
They provide a rich view into possible directions
for the industry. The book is the best source of information.
One of the major challenges the wireless industry
faces Is creating a wideband wireless infrastructure which provides
affordable and seamless service. The issues are daunting.
System complexity made up of heterogeneous systems;
Service complexity which as many types of users and services;
Industry disruption creating winners and losers;
Spectrum usage, release and dynamics around use;
Better batteries as users do not like daily Recharging and
Better usability which means seamless, useful and intuitive.
Bo presented some provocative research that showed
why it is so hard to achieve anytime anywhere communications. He
showed that the cost per transmitted bit is virtually the same when
the bandwidth per user in increased. That is, it costs 10X to send
10X the bandwidth. This is a huge barrier to broadband wireless.
Work arounds include QoS sacrifices, coverage sacrifices and the
potential for new infrastructures.
A strong case was made that to build high priced sophisticated
wireless networks that are not for mass markets is flawed strategy.
He suggested an approach called the “IKEA way.” That
is, to make wireless like light bulbs. There would be wireless infrastructure
everywhere. It would be highly redundant, in homes, on streets and
on individuals. Multi-hopping, e.g. mesh networking, would be assumed.
The networks would be self-configuring and the costs so low that
if one network AP fails it would be thrown away.
The “IKEA way” looks a lot like the computer
industry and in his words, the business approach comes from companies
such as Intel, HP and Microsoft in the U.S. While the more traditional
communications industry, high end communications implementation,
comes from Europe and the companies of Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel and
[This characterization of computer vs. communications
industry view of the emerging market is no more apparent than in
Intel’s efforts to break into the communications business
with WiMAX. Intel uses the same computer based corporate culture
to drive communications as it does the rest of its business. It
is seen as a huge opportunity by Intel and a threat by the traditional
Bo concluded his talk by laying out the Wireless@KTHs
Vision of the future.
A multitude of wireless systems;
Partial coverage at varying data rates - sometime someplace;
High bit rates - somewhere provided by cheap ad hoc technologies;
Rudimentary coverage in rural areas
Moderate reliability and
Limited QoS Guarantees.
Paul Polakos, Director, Wireless Technology Research,
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies spoke to Future Technologies
for Next Generation Wireless Access. This presentation was a self
serving myopic perspective. It looks like Lucent is seeking to sell
big high cost boxes to large phone/cellular operators all over again.
The central premise is the wireless convergence is making the mobile
internet. As a result it is necessary to have a converged packet
network behind all the various access technologies. Lucent is living
in the past.
Nicolas Demassieux, Director of European Communications
Research, Motorola spoke of going Towards the Future of Seamless
Mobility. If there is one thing about U.S. companies at this conference
it is the unusual presence of Motorola. Their name comes up in many
partner lists on the EU projects. Motorola has embedded itself in
this culture. Nicolas’s presentation reflected this. He cited
that Motorola has 800 researchers in 14 sites worldwide. In Europe
the emphasis is on
Applications, Content and Services Research; Networks
and Systems Research and Wireless Access Research.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Motorola
approach to research is the breadth of involvement outside of the
company. The chart titled Extending beyond our walls cited the many
ways that Motorola is exposed to outside influences in its research
work. These include:
Funding of University Research
Acceptance of Government Research Funds
Cooperative R&D efforts with Customers
External Forums- WWRF and more
Motorola Ventures for investment and
Visionary Research Board.
Nokia Walks from WiMAX
Nokia made news when they did not renew their membership
in the WiMAX Forum. Lauri Oksanen, Director, Network Systems Research,
Nokia, was asked why they had dropped from these efforts. His response
was direct: WiMAX does not have near term potential.
The WAVE posed to Nokia the question - can one assume that
WiMAX will not be able to fulfill the concept of future wireless services
given in your presentation today? With that Lauri spoke of the Nokia
position on WiMAX.
Nokia is very familiar with the technologies being used
in WiMAX. This technology will work well in rural areas but its ability
to support other uses such as mobile is less certain. At the present
time there are other technologies which can do what WiMAX proposes
and these are more near term. For example, the handoff problem which
WiMAX must address is at a higher level than within the charter of
the IEEE 802.xx standards process.
There are also too many conflicts around the mobility
issues and 802.20 is a good example of this.
WiMAX, i.e., 802.16, is likely to become a complementary
technology like 802.11/WiFi. However, there are other technologies
which will address what 802.16/WiMAX proposes to do.
The EU Director General Information Society, Unit D1: Communications
and Network Technologies, Augusto de Albuquerque laid out the EU’s
plans for future research. Augusto described the plans for the 7th Framework,
FP7. It is expected that the Research Budget will be doubled over the
6th Framework. An earlier EU speaker stated that this would rise from
Euro 17 billion to Euro 40 billion. Europe is serious about mobile communications.
Augusto left no doubt about the importance of mobile technologies
in his presentation.
Today the EU research budget is 2 percent of GDP (58
percent private), while it is 2.8 percent in the US (67 percent private)
and 3 percent in Japan (72 percent private). The objective of the EU
is to reach 3 percent GDP by 2010 with 66 percent private.
The goal is to increase the number of individuals doing
research from 6 to 8/1000 of the labor force.
The Seventh Framework Programs (FP7) will launch a Technology
Platform initiative in Mobil Communications. This is being done to
REINFORCE Europe’s leadership in mobile communications. A key
element in this is the penetration of UMTS worldwide. The UMTS Forum
predicts that there will be 12 - 15m UMTS customers by the end of 2004,
50 percent in Europe and 50 percent in Asia.
GSM passed 1B customers in February 2003. The average
monthly growth rate is 16.5M subscribers.
The EU Commissioner Likanen set up a high level Mobil
Communications group of 14 CEOs in October 2003 to advise on the Mobil
Platform. This group reported back to Commissioner Likanen on June
9, 2004 with its final report. This group emphasized the need for a
coherent approach to policy and regulation. They identified issues
to be addressed by the Mobil Platform - research efforts.
Two research areas under the Platform Research are:
Ambient Wireless Networks
When one asks the question in the U.S. - what is the future
of wireless and networking in 2010 and beyond - blank stares result.
Not here in Europe. The research environment is driven by the European
culture and much more. At the epicenter is global technology leadership.
The U.S. has had the lead and the Europeans want to build on the success
of GSM and pass the U.S. At CHI 2004, the WAVE sampled the impact of
the managed research agenda in Europe. At the IST Mobil and Wireless
Communications Summit we were immersed in it. This has some fundamental
impacts on the role of computing and how individuals relate to and use
We can expect to see in the coming months and years even
more research output from the EU’s aggressive agenda. It is also
clear this is not enough – it must support the expansion of Europe’s
lead in wireless communications.