WAVE Report

13th IST Mobil & Wireless
Communications Summit
By John Latta, WAVE 0428 7/23/04

Lyon, France
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 GDP.

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 economic challenges.

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. These include:

Integrated Programs (IPs) which support objective driven research;

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 (Ami).

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.

In summary:

The research efforts are part of a well funded managed environment;

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 included:

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 policy.

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 above.

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 everything.

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 multi-discipline research.

So what does this mean?

Small is beautiful, portable and silicon rules the world BUT

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.

Ambient Networks

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 radio environments.


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.

Human ++

The development of miniaturized autonomous sensors on and around the body to improve individual’s health, comfort and safety.

Healthy Aims

The integration of technology with the body.


The development of a wearable interface for health management.


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.

It includes:


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.

Slight problem.

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 market.

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 policing.

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 QoS profiles.

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 log on.

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. These include:

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:

Service (Se)
System (Sy)
Operator (Op)

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:

Service Simultaneity

Which drives the need for a complex multi-protocol and multi-service terminal

System Simultaneity

Which drives the need for a complex multi-service terminal that has hardware and software integration

Operator Simultaneity

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 below.


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,
Slow Motion
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 Lucent.

[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 communications companies.]

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.

Bell Laboratores

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.

EU Speaks

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 Radio
Ambient Wireless Networks

WAVE Comments

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 technology.

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.