Application Time Standards Chart For 2008. Application Time Standards Chart For 2008: Fill & Download for Free

Short answer: yes.Slightly longer answer: unless you were piping in a hugely expensive cable package, your reserve retirement will easily pay for it, your boat, probably your car, too, AND possibly the food and beverages you will need to host cable-watching parties…the modern reserve retirement is probably better than most civilian retirement plans, excepting some civil service and many public safety professionals. Not including an active duty military pension, A-list entertainers, (some) professional athletes in a few of the top tier sports, and golden-parachute type CEO packages, you are highly unlikely to find a better retirement plan. But like all military and public safety plans, you have to put your sweat and tears, and possibly blood, into it…but, if you are willing to put that blood, sweat, and tears into 20+ years of at least part-time service (and honestly, most of that will be for about 2 days a month and a couple of weeks per year, for which you will probably be paid quite well for the time spent involved, not to mention other benefits that probably exceed the benefit package for most full-time jobs in America today), the end result is well worth it. And you don’t put a single penny of your own $$$ into it: it’s defined benefit, inflation-protected, and essentially limited only by how much effort you want to put into accruing “reserve points,” as defined in much greater depth below.Edited 3 Jan 2020: the new Blended Retirement System began 1 January 2018. Many servicemembers who had not yet retired were eligible to “opt in” to the BRS; I have heard anecdotally that most of those eligible to opt in did NOT do so…Under the BRS, which is mandatory for those who first entered the military on/after 1 January 2018, individuals still are not required to put any of their own pay in…but they won’t get much out of it (only the Govt 1% minimum automatic TSP defined contribution after the first 60 days until 26 years of service, when it ends) unless they do, when they can put in 5% of their basic pay and get 4% more matching contributions (for a total of 10%, I believe: 5% from the member, 5% from the Govt), although their TOTAL contributions are limited only to the standard 401K limits (something like $22,000 per year)…The Long Answer, to questions not asked, for fuller understanding is below:IN addition to the other answers:Reserve retirement under 10 USC 12731, meaning as a “non-regular retirement,” is earned through completion of 20 “qualifying” years.For each qualifying year, the servicemember must earn at least 50 “reserve retirement points.”Points are earned in many ways, the most common:One point for every day of active duty or active duty for training, can only earn one point on any calendar day of active duty. (Up to 365 active duty days can be credited per year.)One point for every period of “inactive duty for training,” or “IDT,” and can earn up to 2 points of IDT on any given calendar day. (Up to 130 “reserve points” — of all flavors — not counting any type of active duty, can be credited in any given year.)Each IDT must be at least 2 hours in length (per DoD Regs), but Service Secretaries may require longer periods to qualify (as in the USMC where IDT must be at least 4 hours in length before it is creditable).15 points for “membership” during an entire 365 day “anniversary year,” which generally begins on the day the servicemember first joined the military until 365 days later, when it rolls over to the next “AY.” (Only time spent in the Reserve Component counts for crediting membership points.)EDITED 3 JANUARY 2020: This is another example of the Govt granting “free money” as an incentive to reservists…the 15 membership points are essentially 3 five-day work weeks, or 2 complete calendar weeks (+1 day)…and the Govt credits them for free, without any work done whatsoever…Over a career of 20 years, that is 300 days (or 300 reserve retirement points, however you wish to view them) added to reserve retirement…10 full months of retirement credit without having done anything except breathe…but only as a reservist, whether on active duty or not. Regulars don’t get this.Membership points are non-paid, and are pro-rated at 1.25 points per 30 days in any AY where the servicemember is a member of the Active Status List of the Reserve Component. Service in a non-creditable status for membership points includes: Regular/Active Component service, service in the Delayed Entry Program after swearing the Oath of Enlistment, but before shipping to basic training, service in the Inactive Status List of the Standby Reserve, service in the Retired Reserve or Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, and service as a Midshipman/Cadet at any Service Academy or ROTC scholarship/college program.Any partial AY in which the ratio of points credited vs. the days counted in that partial AY period is at least .139 is considered a “qualifying partial year.” Multiple “qualifying partial years” can be added together to equal or exceed a single “qualifying year.”No more than 2 points can be earned on any given calendar day, regardless of the combination of methods used to earn the points.“Correspondence points” are non-paid, and can be earned through the completion of authorized military-specific correspondence or on-line coursework, as determined by each Service Secretary. This is usually at the rate of 1 correspondence point for every 3 hours of study. Each Service Secretary determines not only which courses are acceptable for credit of correspondence points, but how many credits will be awarded for completion of each course, e.g., an Army Correspondence Course Program (ACCP) course that is accredited by the Army for 4 correspondence points will normally take about 12 study hours to complete.Funeral Honors Duty, per DoD Instruction 1215.07, is a special type of Inactive Duty (ID) that only requires a minimum of 2 hours of duty to receive one reserve retirement point, and one day’s base pay.(Note 1: Additionally, travel to/from Funeral Honors Duty may be compensated by official travel orders. Only one Funeral Honors Duty may be performed in a calendar day, but another type of IDT may be performed before or after the Funeral Honors, for a maximum of 2 days’ pay and 2 reserve retirement points in a single calendar day.)(Note 2: Funeral Honors Duty is NOT considered Inactive Duty Training, in that no training supporting the Unit’s warfighting mission will be completed while on FHD status.)(Note 3: Funeral Honors Duty is the only type of Inactive Duty (either IDT or ID) that can be performed by members of the Individual Ready Reserve for 1 day’s pay and 1 point, and Funeral Honors Duty may be performed by any Retired servicemember (subject to each Service’s specific regulations) for a daily stipend of $50, plus travel if required, but WITHOUT reserve retirement credit granted for retirees…$50/day taxable, cold, hard cash only.)Points may also be earned for such functions as:assisting with local JROTC or ROTC units.assisting with Young Marines or Sea Cadets programs.marksmanship programs authorized by the Services.other “appropriate” duties as determined by each Service.These points will often be earned at the rate of either 1 point for every 4 hour minimum (max of 2 per day), or 1 point per day.4. Points are not to be confused with pay. Any active duty, or inactive duty for training, may be conducted either WITH, or WITHOUT, pay. I.e., most pay in the reserves is “optional” for any day of AD or IDT, but successful completion of that period of duty MUST be awarded a point. Commanders will determine in advance whether any given period of AD or IDT will be with, or without pay. Any period of AD or IDT without pay MUST be voluntary. (The only type of ID that can be made involuntary is “muster duty,” which is solely for IRR members ordered to report to a particular location for a screening per DoD Directive 1200.7, which directs the annual screening of all members of the reserve component. Muster duty pays 125% of the National per diem rate, perhaps somewhere in the $200 range, for a couple of hours of various screening functions and briefings, but it CANNOT be used to credit any reserve retirement points…$$$ only. Theoretically, failure to appear for mandatory Muster Duty is grounds for various unpleasant consequences, including unfavorable administrative discharges or involuntary recall to active duty. Each Service handles it differently…or not at all in some cases.)Additionally, any period of IDT that is not completed satisfactorily (e.g., arrived for drill weekend too hung over to participate, or refused to train, or engaged in insubordinate behavior, etc.), may be granted the pay for “physical presence” during the entire period of the scheduled period of IDT, but the reserve retirement point may be denied.Any such period of “unsatisfactory IDT” exposes the servicemember to various unpleasant administrative measures (in addition to disciplinary measures if there are actual violations of the UCMJ involved) such as:Promotion restrictions to eligibility for higher grade.Adverse personnel rankings, marks, evaluations, or fitness reporting.Administrative reductions in grade to as low as E-1. (Not officers, and only for enlisted if authorized by Service regulations at any given level of command.)Suspension, and possible permanent revocation, of SGLI insurance coverage.Suspension, and possible permanent revocation, of MGIB-Selected Reserve GI Bill eligibility.Administrative discharge from the Service (only for enlisted, and often with an Other than Honorable discharge characterization…the least desirable discharge that doesn’t involve a Special or General Court-Martial imposing a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge as sentence).Dropped from the rolls (only for officers, equivalent to an enlisted OTH administrative discharge…career-ending action that is the worst type of discharge for an officer other than “dismissal” as a result of a General Court-Martial [where “dismissal” is equivalent to a Dishonorable Discharge for an enlisted]).Each Service implements its own set of regulations about these administrative sanctions for “unsatisfactory participation,” with the exception of: MGIB-SR and SGLI provisions are common across the Services, but may be enforced with differing degrees of alacrity and steel.5. Upon completion of at least 20 total qualifying years, and otherwise meeting the requirements of Chapter 1223 of 10 USC: U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCESSee: Estimate Your PayReserve retired pay is calculated by adding all active duty points, all IDT points, and all other reserve retirement points credited to the servicemember.Determine your Retired Pay Base:Final Pay: If you entered active or reserve military service before September 8, 1980, your retired pay will be based on your final basic pay.High-3: If you entered active or reserve military service after September 7, 1980, your retired pay base is the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay. If you served less than three years, your base will be the average monthly active duty basic pay during your period of service.What is My Service Percent Multiplier?ACTIVE DUTYThe longer you stay on active duty, the higher your retirement pay. Each year of active duty service is worth 2.5 percent toward your service percent multiplier.A retiree with 20 years of service would have a service percent multiplier of 50 percent:2.5% x 20 years = 50%Read more about active duty retirement on the OSD website.EDITED 3 JANUARY 2020: the new BRS has changed this. See: Blended RetirementRESERVEReserve service is “converted” to active service by dividing retirement points by 360.7200 points divided by 360 = 20 years of active duty service2.5% x 20 years = 50%Read more about reserve retirement on the OSD website.EDITED 3 JANUARY 2020: the new BRS has changed this. See: Blended Retirement6. Why is the Reserve retirement “service percent multiplier” not converted using 365 (as in “365 days”)?The military pay system uses 30 day base pay periods, i.e., every “month.”But not all calendar months are exactly 30 days long.There are 7 months that have 31 days.There is 1 month (February) that has either 28 or 29 days (based on leap years), i.e., 2 (or 1 in leap years) days short of the 30 day pay period.Because pay is made for 30 days in each month, regardless of how many days are actually in that month, that means there can be only 360 days of pay in any given year:12 months x 30 days = 360 days of pay per yearLeap days are ignored in calculation of service percent multiplier (because no credit can be given beyond 360 days in a year).The 7 extra days (1 each from January, March, May, July, August, October, December) are essentially non-paid even though they may be worked.The 2 days missing from February are essentially paid even though never worked.Total: 7 extra days without pay less 2 missing days with pay = 5 calendar days of the standard 365 day calendar without pay…360 total days maximum possible for service percent multiplier.7. Example 1:Typical grade for reserve retirement for officers is O-5:A good rule of thumb is 24 total qualifying years of service for an O-5.Using a low-end estimate: 4 years of active duty, 20 years of reserve duty:4 years active = 1,460 days total served (not paid…wait for the difference at the next step).20 years reserve = average of 100 points per year (comprised of combinations of active duty, IDT, correspondence, membership, and other points), for 2,000 days total served (again, not necessarily paid, in fact, many reserve retirement points will NOT be paid, especially membership and correspondence/PME points).Sub-Total: 1,460 + 2,000 = 3,460 reserve retirement points credited.3,460 divided by 360 = 9.611 years “equivalent” (as opposed to the standard “20+ years of active duty” upon which an active duty pension would be based…).9.611 x 2.5% = 24% (as opposed to the standard “50% at 20 years” upon which an active duty pension would be based…).High-3 calculation rule of thumb is to use the previous year’s pay chart for a quick estimate: $8,762.40. (Found at 2015 pay chart for O-5 with over 22 years of service creditable for pay, which is also the maximum base pay for an O-5. See: http://www.dfas.mil/dam/jcr:b6ef41d4-f071-45f9-b863-70b202be05a6/2015MilitaryPayChart_2.pdf.)Total: $8,762.40 x 24% = $2102.98 per month in reserve retired pay, at age 60.See the Final Pay for the 2016 pay chart for O-5 with over 22 years of service creditable for pay, which is also the maximum base pay for an O-5: http://www.dfas.mil/dam/jcr:81e6bd2c-a106-461b-851d-c77c7066baa5/2016MilitaryPayChart.pdf.8. Example 2:Typical grade for reserve retirement for an enlisted servicemember is E-7:A good rule of thumb is 22 total qualifying years of service for an E-7.Using a relatively low-end estimate: 3 years of active duty, 19 years of reserve duty:3 years active = 1,095 days total served (not paid…wait for the difference at the next step).19 years reserve = average of 75 points per year (comprised of combinations of active duty, IDT, correspondence, membership, and other points), for 1,425 days total served (again, not necessarily paid, in fact, many reserve retirement points will NOT be paid, especially membership and correspondence/PME points).Sub-Total: 1,095 + 1,425 = 2,520 reserve retirement points credited.2,520 divided by 360 = 7.000 years “equivalent” (as opposed to the standard “20+ years of active duty” upon which an active duty pension would be based…).7.000 x 2.5% = 17.5% (as opposed to the standard “50% at 20 years” upon which an active duty pension would be based…).High-3 calculation rule of thumb is to use the previous year’s pay chart for a quick estimate: $4,577.70. (Found at 2015 pay chart for E-7 with over 22 years of service creditable for pay. See: http://www.dfas.mil/dam/jcr:b6ef41d4-f071-45f9-b863-70b202be05a6/2015MilitaryPayChart_2.pdf.)Total: $4,577.70 x 17.5% = $801.10 per month in reserve retired pay, at age 60.Enlisted reservists tend to retire earlier, and with fewer retired points, than officer reservists. Officers tend to serve more active duty, especially early in their careers, and participate more often in creditable reserve activities such as joining (and remaining) in reserve units. Officers also tend to be more mobile in accepting continuous assignments in distant locations when local reserve/Guard units can no longer accommodate their seniority (or MOS). Finally, officer PME at nearly every grade requires significantly more “correspondence/online” work, and often more days of active duty, than enlisted PME, thus the annual reserve point totals tend to be higher and more years served.See the Final Pay for the 2016 pay chart for E-7 with over 22 years of service creditable for pay: http://www.dfas.mil/dam/jcr:81e6bd2c-a106-461b-851d-c77c7066baa5/2016MilitaryPayChart.pdf.9. Retired Awaiting Pay Age 60.Military retirees (whether Active or Reserve Component) who have more than 20 years of active duty will retire using the standard Active Duty retirement plan (Number Years/Months of Active Duty times 2.5% per year times Final Pay/High-3 Plan, as applicable), and their retired pay will begin immediately upon retirement, as early as age 37.Under the 2012–2018 Temporary Early Retirement rules, certain servicemembers with more than 15 years of active duty may volunteer (or be forced involuntarily) to retire before reaching 20 years. Those rules are complex, and can be found here: 2012-2018 TERA.EDIT 3 JANUARY 2020: Congress extended the authority to use TERA until 2025, but as of now, only the USMC has chosen to do so since the original authority expired. Which doesn’t mean another Service might reengage between now in 2020 and 2025.Both Active and Reserve Component servicemembers may be retired for Disability at any point, if found physically unfit as a result of a line of duty injury or illness and unable to continue to perform their duties. Those rules are even more complex than TERA, and can be found here: Disability RetirementReservists, retiring under 10 USC Chapter 1223 law, are considered “retired awaiting pay at age 60.” (Another common term is “gray area retirees.”)Unless eligible for reduced retirement age under the provisions of NDAA 2008 (see below), they will be eligible to draw retired pay beginning on their 60th birthday.Reservists who die “in the gray area” between their date of retirement, and their earliest eligibility for reserve retired pay (either age 60 or sooner if qualified under NDAA 2008) have the opportunity under various Survivor Benefit Plans to have their retired annuity carried over and paid to their eligible beneficiaries.Their TRICARE military medical benefits, at that point identical to the TRICARE benefits for active duty retirees, will also begin at age 60 for themselves and their dependent family members. (Unlike retired pay or SBP annuities for survivors, TRICARE medical benefits cannot begin earlier than the date the gray area reserve retiree would have turned age 60, regardless of NDAA 2008 provisions for early retired pay.)Retired Reserve Lists:All Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard Reserve Component retirees: whether retired under Active Duty or any other retirement plan, are transferred immediately upon retirement to the respective Retired Reserve category of their Service.Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Component officer retirees: whether retired under Active Duty or any other retirement plan, are transferred immediately upon retirement to the respective Retired Reserve category of their Service.Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Component enlisted retirees (with more than 30 total years of cumulative service on any combination of any Active Duty or Reserve Active Status List, or in the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve; or at the point of retirement for those retirees without 20+ years of active duty; or at the point of retirement for all Disability Retirees): transferred immediately upon reaching their 30th year to their respective Retired Reserve category, or immediately upon retirement for those retired for disability or without 20+ years of active service.Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Component enlisted retirees (with 20+ years of active duty, but less than 30 total years of cumulative service on any Active Duty or Reserve Active Status List, or in the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve): when retired under the Active Duty retirement plan, except for Disability, are transferred to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, as appropriate. Time served in the FR/FMCR is inactive service, but when added to all prior active service, immediately upon reaching their 30th year will be transferred to their respective Retired Reserve category.For all gray area retirees, all service on any Retired Reserve category (including FR/FMCR) between date of retirement and the date when eligibility to retired pay begins (whether age 60 or earlier based on NDAA 2008), will count for purposes of determining the years of longevity on the pay charts in effect at age 60. However, unless recalled to active service, no time served in the Retired Reserve (or FR/FMCR) will count to add service credit for the retired pay multiplier (i.e, more active service = more retired pay).The pay table in effect on the date retired pay begins to accrue will be used to determine actual retired pay, including:All accrued longevity within the retired grade.All accrued pay raises included in any pay table since the date of retirement (thus, the retired pay base may be different when retired pay begins than if retired Cost of Living Adjustments were considered, because in most years, the raises provided by Congress to active and reserve servicemembers are different than the amount of COLA for retirees).Example: a reservist retires as a E-7 with 20 qualifying years at age 37. Their retired pay, on the date when it begins at age 60, will be computed as if they were an E-7 with 43 years of service for longevity pay scales. The pay tables used to compute retired pay will be the pay table in effect at the time they turn age 60. Thus, the “gray area retirement” provides inflation-protected prospective retired pay, at no cost to the retiree.10. Starting retired pay before age 60.The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 enacted the Reduced Retirement Age for Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers based on Active Duty (AD) performance.See: National Guard and Reserve Early Retirement AgeSome Reserve/Guard members may actually be eligible for a retirement earlier than age 60. In early 2008, the law changed to reduce the Reserve Retirement Awaiting Pay at Age 60 requirement by three months for every 90 aggregate days of mobilization, contingency, or active duty orders performed under 10 USC 12301d (except AGR/FTS duty) during the same fiscal year.The NDAA for 2008 reduced the retirement age for Reserve Component (RC) from 60 to a lesser age, but not below age 50, for those who have served on Active Duty (AD) in an eligible status on or after 28Jan 08. For qualifying service on or after 28 Jan 08, each day on that AD tour could count toward a reduction in retirement age. However, even though each day counts, days are credited in aggregates of 90 days only within any Fiscal Year. A day of duty shall be included in only one aggregate of 90 days.In order to ensure each servicemember receives proper credit, it is incumbent upon the individual to maintain supporting documentation, which includes: Department of Defense (DD) Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From AD), and DD Forms 220 (AD Report) for periods of AD less than 90 days. For periods of AD not covered by DD Forms 214 or 220, copies of your Leave and Earning Statements with your mobilization orders will suffice. Orders alone are not proof of duty performed, but merely an authorizing document.AD, for this purpose, means service pursuant to a call or order to AD on orders specifying, as the authority for such orders, a provision of law referred to in section 101(a) (13)(B), and performed under section 688, 12301 (a), 12302, 12304, 12305, 12406, and chapter 15 (insurrection), or under section 12301 (d) of Title 10 USC. Active Guard Reserve (AGR) duty under section 12310 of Title 10 USC, will not be included as service on active duty for determining eligibility for reduced age retired pay for non-regular service.The new law (NDAA 2015) allows that time to cross into consecutive fiscal years. However, this only applies to deployments that started after 30 September, 2014 (or deployments that began in FY 2015).This law is not retroactive to 28 January, 2008, which is the date of the original early retirement rule.In other words, a Reservist volunteering to deploy under contingency orders, or for any type of Active Duty Operational Support (ADOS) orders (again, except for voluntary AGR/FTS orders) would be eligible to start their Reserve pension 90 days earlier than age 60 for every aggregate 90 days under such orders are credited.A member of the National Guard who deploys with their unit for 24 months of the next five years (at least 90 days in the fiscal years) would be able to draw their pension at age 58. But this law only applies for deployment time served after Jan. 28, 2008.Recap:Early retirement qualifying service (28 January 2008 – 30 September 2014): Must serve 90 days on active duty within the same fiscal year.Early retirement qualifying service (01 October 2014 – present): Must serve 90 days on active duty; service time can cross into consecutive fiscal years.Qualifying and Non-Qualifying Service for Early RetirementQualifying Service: Most active duty time counts for early retirement, including deployments in support of overseas operations, mobilizations for natural emergencies which are authorized by the governor and paid for by federal funds, and other active duty service including training and attending military schools. However, not all service counts toward early retirement.Non-Qualifying Service: You must have been a member of the Guard or Reserves when you were activated for the qualifying service. Members who originally joined the service as active duty then later transitioned to the Guard or Reserves are not able to count their previous active duty service toward early retirement. Other ineligible Guard or Reserve duty includes actions such as performing weekend drills, 2 weeks annual training, those in full-time AGR or TAR status, muster duty, those who were activated for courts-martial or disciplinary reasons, and those who were listed as not participating at a satisfactory level.Several amendments have been proposed since 2008 to retroactively extend this benefit back to 11 September 2001, but none of these modifications have been approved by Congress.

PrologueFirst, let me start off by saying that I agree with Benedict Evans that 5G as a technology isn’t all that earth-shattering. It’s really just a continuation of a well-established trend: fatter and fatter data pipes. Imagine being able to take your home Wi-Fi everywhere and that pretty much describes 5G.Getting excited about 5G, or talking about amazing new applications it enables, is pretty much like getting excited about a new version of DSL or DOCSIS.— Benedict Evans (@benedictevans) March 14, 2018This is not to say that 5G is not important, or diminish the work done by hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists and other wireless industry professionals around the world … or that it won’t catalyze the development of a host of cool new applications bearing all of the latest buzzwords and acronyms.It’s just more that I find the underlying economic and geopolitical story far more interesting and meaningful. Sort of like the 2006 film Babel starring Brad Pitt, it is a multiple-storyline epic featuring two main protagonists that lead completely separate lives for the first four acts while gradually converging … until the climactic moment when their paths smash into each other.As the curtains open on Act V, we find the two protagonists having finally taken the stage at the same time. And while we can make some guesses as to how things unfold from here, the reality is that the story is still being written.The implications are enormous and bigger than the wireless industry itself. Indeed, this is perhaps the most important area to pay attention to in today’s increasingly tech-driven geopolitical arena.But we are getting ahead of ourselves; to fully appreciate the saga we need to start at the very beginning … where we find ourselves on a deserted Hamptons beach at the break of dawn, sometime in the mid-80s …Act I“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way — in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”Opening paragraph to A Tale of Two Cities by Charles DickensI remember the iconic scene[1] in 1987 film Wall Street when Gordon Gekko officially brings Bud Fox, an ambitious young broker, “inside” the curtain. It is a critical scene in the movie, made even more dramatic by use of what was then a novel piece of modern technology — the cellular phone. Gekko delivers the coup de grâce to the young broker by expounding — in real-time on that phone — on the beauty and awe of the sunrise from his beachfront palace as a metaphor for a new world of hitherto unimaginable wealth that he was about to enter.The first cellular phones were analog radio devices that would connect to a local tower that oversaw a fixed area, or “cell”, on a dedicated frequency. The radio-frequency (RF) technology was pretty much the same as that powering walkie-talkies — the trick there was figuring out how to connect the walkie-talkie to the circuit-switched phone network.Call capacity was limited because there are only so many slices of frequency into which you could divide spectrum before you run into quality issues. As a result, early cellphones and their related service plans were extremely expensive and generally limited to wealthy moguls like the fictional Gordon Gekko.But while Gekko extolled the “virtues” of unmitigated greed, scientists and engineers were working on the next generation of wireless standards, and trying to solve the fundamental problem of how to cram more channels into the same allotment of limited spectrum. It is essentially the same problem that they continue to try to improve on today.At the time, there were two competing methods on how to do this. The first was something called time-division multiple access (TDMA)[2]. With TDMA, you could have multiple users share the same frequency by dividing the signal into fixed time slots that were assigned to each active user.The second method was code-division multiple access (CDMA).As with TDMA, the goal of CDMA was to permit multiple users from sharing the same slice of frequency but instead of having fixed, assigned time slots to differentiate between users, CDMA used unique codes to identify each user (hence the name). These codes could switch and hop across multiple channels, making it more flexible than TDMA.From a technology perspective, CDMA was better because it was more scalable especially as the world became more digital and less analog over time. But as we saw in the battle between VHS and Betamax[3], sometimes it is not just about technological superiority.Act IIThe race was on between the two competing standards.Western European countries latched onto the TDMA method and a generally open, collaborative approach, releasing Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)[4] in 1991.The world’s first GSM call was made by Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri on July 1st, 1991 and commercially deployed at the end of the year on a network built by German conglomerate Siemens and a then-relatively unknown conglomerate subsidiary called Telenokia. It would later drop the prefix, adopt the name of its conglomerate parent and become widely known simply as “Nokia”.Helsinki, Finland (Photo: Paasitorni)The competing CDMA method was not entirely novel — it had been pioneered as early as the 1930s by scientists from the Soviet Union. Interestingly, wireless phones based on the CDMA method were used in Moscow as early as 1963. However, it wasn’t until a former electrical engineering professor from MIT named Irwin Jacobs latched onto the technology that it found mainstream, commercial applications.In 1985, Jacobs launched Qualcomm — which stood for “Quality Communications” — based in the Southern California paradise of San Diego. The new company was initially focused on mobile satellite communications and because satellite bandwidth was so expensive and precious, there was an intense focus on bandwidth efficiency, which is what had led Jacobs to CDMA.The company went public in September 1991, raising $68 million to fund its CDMA research and later an additional $486 million to help commercialize a CDMA-based ecosystem. Qualcomm was perhaps the highest flier in the high-flyin’ 90s, ending the decade with its stock price increasing around 180x from its IPO price eight years earlier.Knowing nothing else but Qualcomm’s stock chart in the 1990s, one could have reasonably concluded that CDMA and its superior technology had won.But that was not to be, at least here in Act II.One issue for Qualcomm and its CDMA-based “cdmaOne” standard was that GSM had gotten a big head start.The “cdmaOne” standard was not adopted as a standard until 1995[5] at which point GSM networks in Western Europe and the United States had already reached 10 million active subscribers. By the time cdmaOne networks were deployed at scale, GSM networks had already reached over 100 million active subscribers.The other issue is that for voice, the technical advantages of CDMA were not that significant. TDMA did a fine job of transmitting voice and capacity constraints could be alleviated by adding additional wireless radios or reducing the size of each cell, especially if those radios could be purchased at affordable rates.Taking a more open, collaborative approach, GSM had also incorporated certain features such as a standard ID schema that allowed cellphones to be used across multiple networks by simply switching out the SIM card — which was much more important in Europe with its multiple country networks vs. the United States where people tended to travel internationally far less frequently.Ultimately, GSM won decisively by achieving scale and driving down cost. Because GSM networks were first to market, equipment manufacturers were able to deploy networks more quickly and inexpensively. Because GSM operators reached scale, handset manufacturers designed handsets around GSM standards. Because GSM was developed with a more open, collaborative approach, its technology licensing fees were lower. And because costs were lower, active subscribers tended to go with GSM networks vs. cdmaOne when given a choice.In September 2001, shortly after 9/11[6], I moved out to Hong Kong, which had deployed a GSM network.I was amazed at how much cheaper and better my cellphone service was compared to the United States. It was incredibly convenient to be able to simply switch out a small SIM card and start using your phone on another network. I loved my Nokia 8310 handset[7]. And I still distinctly remember how one annoying thing about work trips to South Korea — one of the few markets that had chosen CDMA over GSM — was having to use a clunky loaner Sanyo handset that didn’t have my address book or Snake[8].My Nokia 8310 handset (circa December 2003)GSM and Nokia had won the 2G war. CDMA-based technology was expensive and clunky and few people wanted it. By the early 2000s, Nokia was a giant, one of the world’s most valuable companies, at one point accounting for 21% of Finland’s exports and 70% of the Helsinki stock exchange market capitalization.But we were really just getting warmed up.Act IIILong before Apple unlocked “Smartphones” on the Technology Research Tree in 2007[9], wireless industry executives had suspected that data and not voice was going to be the long-term future of wireless. Fresh off the release of GSM in 1991, the various industry groups that set wireless standards had already begun trying to figure out how to transmit data at high speeds over the airwaves.Most had already known that GSM’s TDMA approach — perfectly adequate for voice communications — was just not going to cut it for data. While data could be transmitted over GSM networks, the transmission rate was capped at speeds reminiscent of the early days of dial-up modems. As nostalgic as I was for the halcyon days of the mid–90s, it was just not practical for anything outside of short-form messaging (i.e. SMS/texting).As wireless industry executives tried to find solutions for this technical issue, every path seemed to lead back to San Diego.San Diego, California (Photo: PV Magazine)It’s not enough to just have a good idea — you need to execute.While wireless operators worked 24/7 to deploy mostly GSM mobile networks around the world in response to the surge in active subscriber growth, Qualcomm was busy executing … and betting its future on CDMA. It too worked round-the-clock — frankly, an amazing accomplishment considering San Diego’s gorgeous year-round weather — to solve fundamental issues related to implementing wireless networks using the CDMA approach.Its main approach was to patent specific methods on how to perform various functions that were important in enabling wireless communication. For example, US Patent No. 5,280,472[10], issued on January 18, 1994, called for a “CDMA communication system in which cellular techniques are utilized in a distributed antenna system environment”. This particular one would cover instances where wireless signals need to be split up and re-routed and amplified within large buildings that remote tower-generated wireless signals would have difficulty penetrating.This was just one of an estimated 16,000 patents filed by Qualcomm over the years[11], of which at least 6,000 are related to wireless. In addition to building its IP portfolio, Qualcomm took a lead role in fostering eco-system development, including at various points producing handsets, network equipment and designing RF chips and chipsets.Photo: Gizmodo: Qualcomm's Amazing Wall of PatentsAs various 3G standards — represented by confusing acronyms like UMTS, W-CDMA, TD-SCDMA, CDMA2000 — emerged and were implemented, it became abundantly clear that CDMA was the common technology tying all of them together. With such a large patent portfolio around this method, it also became clear that Qualcomm was going to be collecting a recurring, steadily increasing stream of royalty payments for the foreseeable future.As 4G standards (LTE) rolled around in the mid- to late-2000s, cementing data as the key focus of the wireless industry, Qualcomm emerged as the dominant toll collector in one of the largest and most strategic industries on the planet.Act IV — Part I:For most of the first three acts, China is a mere after-thought, a minor character that is largely relegated to watching the main action from backstage:While Gordon Gekko was recruiting Bud Fox into his insider trading cabal, China was figuring out how to motivate its farmers to really put their backs into it so the nation could avoid teetering so close to the edge of starvation.While Nokia was busy deploying early GSM networks in Western Europe, China was figuring out how to dismantle its centrally planned industry without uprooting the lives of urban workers to the point where they would pour out into the streets by the millions like they did that fateful spring of 1989.While Qualcomm’s scientists were patenting thousands of wireless patents, China was figuring out how to open its doors so it could actually start trading the things that it had in abundance — e.g. inexpensive labor — for the things that it lacked, like wireless technology.In 1987, Ren Zhengfei — a former mid-level officer in the People's Liberation Army engineering division — founded Huawei in Shenzhen, the city bordering Hong Kong which was at the front lines of China’s economic reform program. At this point, China was 100%-reliant on foreign telecom equipment for its landline industry and most major international telecom equipment companies had established a presence in the country on the promise of tapping into China’s billion-person market.Shenzhen in the late 80s / early 90s (Photo: Shenzhen Municipal Government)At first, Huawei focused on re-selling imported telephone switches and fire alarms from Hong Kong. But for whatever reason, its founders decided very early on that the company should develop its own technology in-house vs. the “easier” path taken by others like Shanghai Bell to form a joint venture with multinationals to access foreign technology via transfers. Ren believed that “foreign companies were unlikely to transfer their cutting-edge technology and that Huawei would be better served by performing its own R&D”[12].Starting from a technology base of virtually nil, Huawei nonetheless prioritized R&D from its early stages. As a private company (vs. state-owned enterprise), Huawei suffered from lack of access to capital and was forced to borrow at extremely high rates in the early years. Despite these challenges, by 1993 Huawei had released its first significant in-house developed product — an electronic switch that could handle 10,000 lines, unprecedented for a domestic company at the time. It was a mature product and comprised almost entirely of foreign components but it was still quite impressive for the six-year old company.Huawei C&C08 Circuit Switch (Photo: DIY Trade, Shenzhen Huaxinzhihe Technology Co.)One of its strategies was to focus on market segments that were ignored by foreign technology suppliers. For example, international telecom companies preferred to focus on the rapidly growing urban centers while ignoring the poor, rural areas. Seeing this, Huawei adapted foreign technology to deal with “frontier market” issues — problems such as unreliable power grids and rats that like to gnaw on cables. Its business practices were “controversial” and by international standards probably textbook “corrupt” but in China at this time, function prevailed over form.Huawei began to separate itself from its domestic peers. By 1996, less than a decade after founding, it had secured its first international customer, selling circuit switches to Li Ka-shing’s telephone company in Hong Kong. By 2002, Huawei had overtaken Shanghai Bell, the largest Chinese-international JV at the time. Around this time it began expanding into adjacent markets like Internet and data communications, which was dominated by companies like Cisco.February 5th, 2003 marked the day that the name “Huawei” was formally introduced to the American lexicon (outside of a small group of telecom industry insiders). This was the day that Cisco sued Huawei’s American subsidiaries for copying code from its routers[13]. It marked the first major instance where a Chinese technology company had brushed up against an American one — not to mention the beginning of what I can only describe as a “lengthy and systematic effort by Americans to devise ever-increasingly creative and sophisticated ways to butcher the pronunciation of its name”.The suit was settled in 2004 but the damage had already been done. By this time, Huawei had captured one-third of China’s enterprise market and has never looked back.By the mid-2000s, Huawei was pushing hard into developing markets with an increasingly sophisticated array of products and services for both landline and wireless communications. Like its foray into China’s rural markets in the early 1990s, Huawei adapted mature products for developing countries facing problems that China had dealt with the prior decade such as non-existent or unreliable power grids and inexperienced technical staff.An example from one of my early Quora answers[14] was a low-power base station that could run on solar power, targeted at African countries that lacked reliable power infrastructure. In another early answer[15], I also discuss the important role the China Development Bank played in helping Huawei expand into overseas markets.RuralStar Base Station (Photo: Huawei)By 2011, Huawei had overtaken Ericsson as the largest telecom equipment supplier in the world with approximately $33 billion in revenue and industry-leading profit margins.It was around this time that Huawei had started aggressively pushing into consumer electronics[16] as well, piggybacking on the smartphone revolution and its now massive R&D operation to vault into the Top 10 of smartphone OEMs. By 2017, Huawei was pushing $100 billion in revenue, largely driven by growth in its consumer devices division which was now challenging Samsung for the top spot in smartphone market share (by unit volume). Today, the company has around 180,000 employees worldwide with 80,000 of them involved in R&D[17].Act IV — Part II:While Huawei was pushing forward at breakneck speed (even compared to the rapidly evolving Chinese economy), China’s state-owned telecom operators were plodding along slowly, trying their best just to keep up with the rapid and accelerating march of communications technology.Prior to 1994, the state held a monopoly on the provision of telecommunications services through the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and its operational arm, China Telecom. In 1994, to kick off reforms, the first competitor was established (China Unicom) and in the following years, there would be a series of reforms as Chinese policymakers tried to mold these former government ministries into modern corporations.It was around this time that Qualcomm had first reached out to China. Although the Chinese government had already selected GSM for commercial use in 1994 — attracted by lower cost and ease-of-deployment — Qualcomm set up a partnership with the People’s Liberation Army (kind of crazy when you look back and think about it) to use its CDMA technology for military communications. However, in 1998, Chinese President Jiang Zemin “shocked the world” when he announced[18] that the PLA would no longer be allowed to engage in civilian activities, swiftly killing off the joint venture plans.The Chinese government was initially hesitant to partner with Qualcomm until they would address three priority issues:It wanted to be able to deploy phones that could work on both GSM and CDMA networksIt did not want to pay the royalty fees or structure that Qualcomm was demanding for its CDMA technologyIt wanted access to the design of Qualcomm’s CDMA chipsetHowever, as detailed excellently by MacroPolo[19], in the backdrop of late-90s negotiations to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), Chinese policymakers decided to drop most of these demands and, under pressure from the US government, agreed to allow Qualcomm and its CDMA technology into the Chinese market. This decision would prove very costly in later years but for now, China was more focused on WTO accession.Source: MacroPolo: From Windfalls to Pitfalls: Qualcomm’s China Conundrum - MacroPoloFollowing this decision, over the next decade Qualcomm’s revenue in the Chinese market grew from zero to nearly $2.5 billion and came to represent almost one-fifth of the company’s revenue. And this was just the beginning — as China began to commercially deploy 3G networks in 2008, this number was set to explode even higher.Source: Company Filings via Capital IQIn the most recent fiscal year (12 months ending September 30, 2018), Qualcomm’s revenue from China had increased to over $14 billion and represented over two-thirds of its revenue stream.A large part of this revenue stream, especially in the earlier years, was paid by foreign smartphone OEMs like Apple[20] but as Chinese smartphone OEMs (incl. Huawei) took market share in China and around the world, they began to realize how much Qualcomm was making off its intellectual property — because they were now the ones paying these royalty fees in increasing amounts.But just as Americans are about to break out the champagne and “USA! USA!!” chants, the latest missive from the Debbie Downer-in-Chief[21] himself flashes across our feed …We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 4, 2018Somewhere between China’s reputation as the world’s most rapacious “intellectual property thief” and the tens of billions of dollars per year it pays to international technology companies like Qualcomm … lies reality.Act V is where we are going to find out what that reality is.Act VOn November 8th, 2016, Donald Trump pulled off a surprise win over Hillary Clinton in the United States presidential election. Eight days later, a far less publicized political battle was taking place, this time over a topic that only a handful of people in the world really understand at a deep, technical level.Remember the industry groups that we met in Acts I to III that played such a critical role in choosing and setting wireless standards?Well, they are still around and playing just as critical a role. Depending on which technologies are incorporated, the respective IP holders may be richly rewarded, just as Qualcomm had for the better part of the last three decades.On November 16th, 2016, members of this standards body, 3GPP[22], met in Nevada to decide whether something called “polar coding” would be incorporated into official 5G canon. It was up against an alternative approach called “low-density parity check”. Intense debate ensued over which one was better.To a casual observer, the debate of “polar coding” vs. “low-density parity check” may have appeared to be a Nerd Fight of Epic Proportions but behind all of the computer science and technical jargon was something much deeper — what it was really about was control over the next-generation of communications technologies.As you may have guessed, this is where the paths of Huawei and Qualcomm finally began to converge.You see, China was getting weary from paying tens of billions of dollars every year in licensing and royalty fees for technology invented 15–20 years ago at a time when they did not have the capability or resources to even have a seat at the standards-setting table. While they had been late to the standards-setting game for even 4G/LTE standards, the country’s leaders had committed to making sure that this would not be the case with 5G. And Huawei was the main horse that they were betting on.As Huawei had grown through the years, it had continuously re-invested this growth back into R&D. By 2017[23], close to RMB90 billion ($13.8 billion) per year, out-spending Qualcomm by two and a half times in absolute terms (i.e. before adjusting for the approximately 3x[24] difference in wages between Shenzhen and San Diego).In doing so, it had quietly built up its very own patent wall:One of these patents was around the aforementioned “polar coding” method while Qualcomm held patents around the competing “low-density parity check” method. During the 3GPP debate, Western companies largely backed Qualcomm’s method while Asian manufacturers favored Huawei’s. In the end, both were accepted into as viable alternatives in the 5G standards book and each side moved on to battle over other (likely even nerdier) topics.While accumulating the most patents is still an important part of the game (as we saw in Act III with 3G), commercialization is an equally important consideration (as we saw in Act II with 2G).And on this front, China is racing ahead. Not only is it already the world’s largest wireless market by far, with 10x the number of base stations as the United States (and 40% of global sites[25]), its wireless operators are already well into the roll-out schedule and plan to be fully commercialized (for “standalone” or “full” 5G; see Note i) by the end of 2020[26][27]:The 3GPP debate in Nevada presaged the fault lines that we are now beginning to see, not only for 5G but other technologies as well. The elections of President Trump and the rise of other right-wing political parties in Western European countries has only increased the politicization trend.On April 16th, 2018, ZTE, the second-largest Chinese communications equipment supplier after Huawei, was hit by the U.S. Department of Commerce with an export ban[28]. The ban would prevent it from accessing critical components provided by U.S. suppliers (e.g. optical chips) and force it to re-design its equipment. It was a crippling blow to the company and while later reversed, was one of the first clear signs of this increased politicization.Then, just a few weeks ago on December 1st, 2018, Sabrina Meng, CFO of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S. government in what was viewed by most as a politically motivated escalation. President Trump essentially confirmed it several days later[29].And that pretty much brings us to the present.The key protagonists, Huawei and Qualcomm stand together on stage, surrounded by a host of supporting cast members. The crowd watches with rapt attention, eagerly awaiting the next twist in the story …EpilogueAs I sit here and write in the last few days of 2018, it is quite clear that we are still very much in the middle of Act V — and it looks like there will be plenty of more excitement and fireworks to come.I also must admit that I am not 100% sure how Act V and the “race for dominance” will ultimately play out between Qualcomm and Huawei, not to mention all of the other actors on stage.As you saw through the first four acts, there were many twists and turns along the way, with new characters entering the space and old ones fading away with each successive generation of wireless standards. Add to that the increasing politicization of technology and the oft-times capricious nature of geopolitics and my crystal ball is quite foggy at the moment.But I do think understanding how we got to this point is very important if we want to think about the possible future scenarios and where we go from here — and that is why I took you through this fairly expansive review of the history of wireless.That said, I do want to leave you with some final thoughts on the topic:The emergence of Huawei as a major IP holder will inevitably cut into Qualcomm’s wireless market dominance and position as the favored toll collector.Opening quote to Act I notwithstanding, this is actually not just a Tale of Two Companies; it is also about existing players like Ericsson, Nokia and Apple that have long chafed at Qualcomm’s licensing fees and dominant market position[30].As I wrote in a recent answer[31], Qualcomm collects upwards of $30–40 on each iPhone that was sold — on top of any chips it provides — due to its “double-dipping” licensing structure. For 5G, Qualcomm announced that it would charge “up to $16.25” in royalties for every phone — much lower, an indication of lower negotiating leverage.The battle between commercialization vs. technology will be another area to watch.I do not know enough of the technical minutiae — stuff like “polar coding” vs. “low-density parity check” — to fully assess but my gut tells me that the differences between Huawei’s approach and the one supported by Qualcomm may not be that material and certainly not like the difference between TDMA and CDMA during the 2G and 3G mobile standards wars.We cannot rule out the possibility (as unlikely as it may seem at this point) that Qualcomm and Huawei end up collaborating or working together out of pure self-interest (an “if ya can’t beat him, join ‘em” type situation).The likelihood of global wireless standards bifurcating into different camps seems to be increasing, although it is far from inevitable at this point.If this happens, there are two clear camps — China and the “Five Eyes” Anglophone group. If you throw the European Union and Japan into the Anglophone group (let’s call it the “U.S. Alliance”), you are talking about a combined population of around 1 billion (that is significantly wealthier on a per capita basis) compared to 1.4 billion in China — all things considered, fairly balanced.But we cannot forget about the other 5 billion+ people out there — and places like Southeast Asia, India and Africa are where the front lines of the battle for technology dominance will take place.From the perspective of these 5 billion plus, the entrance of Huawei into the fray is seen as a positive development, insofar as providing them with another option and greater leverage to negotiate on fees.This bifurcation trend may also play out in other areas of technology, not just wireless standards.Semiconductors are another strategic (and related) industry. Chips are how you take the IP from the patents and convert into real-world use cases. They are critical components in network equipment, as ZTE was reminded in April 2018.The U.S. Alliance dominates the semiconductor industry, especially upstream (i.e. semi capital equipment). Certain specialty equipment like extreme UV lithography[32] is dominated by European like ASML and Japanese players like Canon/Nikon and can be easily controlled through measures like export bans over “dual-use” technology.However downstream production is dominated by Asian manufacturers, notably Taiwanese and South Korean foundries. Moreover, the consumer electronics supply chain is deeply entrenched in China and the East Asia region.So it is very complicated, and this is what makes predicting how the various points of negotiating leverage play out so hard.National security concerns are very valid. But I think they can be addressed without forcing others to have to split into camps that are non-interoperable. That would be a shame for everyone.Finally, the one thing that I do know for sure is that we’ve come a long way since the days of Gordon Gekko and his massive brick of a cellular phone.Explanatory Note[Note i] There is a bit of confusion out there as to what constitutes “5G”. Part of the reason is that there are essentially two different levels of 5G implementation:The first is something called “non-standalone” which means augmenting the existing 4G network with 5G hardware that will focus on ultra-high-bandwidth data services.The second is called “standalone” which means everything can go on the 5G network.It is somewhat analogous to the difference between a plug-in hybrid vehicle like the Chevy Bolt and an electric-only vehicle like Tesla.Roll-outs for “non-standalone” 5G implementation are happening in 2019–2020 throughout most of the world — for example, Verizon announced that “5G services” would begin in 2019[33]. However, China is planning a particularly aggressive roll-out schedule for “standalone” 5G compared to every other country with scale deployments in 2020.Whether or not this is the right strategy remains an open question.Footnotes[1] Wall Street (1987) - Wake up call (Drop it)[2] Time-division multiple access - Wikipedia[3] Videotape format war - Wikipedia[4] GSM - Wikipedia[5] cdmaOne - Wikipedia[6] Glenn Luk's answer to Are there any survivors of 9/11 on Quora?[7] Glenn Luk's answer to Why is the smartphone industry dominated by the U.S. and East Asian nations (e.g. Japan, South Korea and China)?[8] Nokia 8310, giocando a Snake II / playing Snake II[9] Glenn Luk's answer to Will China become an innovator?[10] CDMA microcellular telephone system and distributed antenna system therefor[11] Which Are the Most Valuable Patents in Qualcomm Patent Portfolio? - GreyB[12] https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Huawei_casestudy_Web.pdf[13] https://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/Cisco_Mot_for_PI.pdf[14] Glenn Luk's answer to Is there an indigenous Chinese product that is the best in the world?[15] Glenn Luk's answer to How does China finance its development projects in Africa and South America?[16] INTERVIEW - Huawei makes aggressive push in consumer devices[17] Caring for Employees - Huawei Sustainability[18] 1998年江泽民宣布“军队不再经商” 震惊世界[19] From Windfalls to Pitfalls: Qualcomm’s China Conundrum - MacroPolo[20] Glenn Luk's answer to Where does the money I pay for an iPhone go?[21] Debbie Downer - Wikipedia[22] 3GPP - Wikipedia[23] https://www-file.huawei.com/-/media/corporate/pdf/annual-report/annual_report2017_en.pdf[24] Cost of Living Comparison Between[25] Blog: How many global base stations are there anyway?[26] Subscribe to read | Financial Times[27] China Mobile Confirms Aggressive 5G Standalone Plan | Light Reading[28] Secretary Ross Announces Activation of ZTE Denial Order in Response to Repeated False Statements to the U.S. Government[29] Trump says he would intervene in Huawei case to help secure China trade deal[30] Apple is still selling iPhones in China despite being ordered not to[31] Glenn Luk's answer to Where does the money I pay for an iPhone go?[32] Extreme ultraviolet lithography - Wikipedia[33] Verizon’s first 5G hotspot will launch in 2019

I am providing this guidance as an alumni of IIM Indore - batch of 2008, with a CAT percentile of 99.48.Preparation tactic: Do not prepare for CAT examinationWhat I mean:Preparing for the examination will get you nowhereCAT questions test you on application of common sense and presence of mind to the problems in each subjectCAT questions can actually be solved by a 10th standard student if he/she is given 4 hours to do it - the problems are deliberately confusing, but not complicatedMaths - Stop using calculator in college and/or your current job. The speed of dealing with numbers in your head or on paper will make a big differenceVerbal ability - Read business papers (Mint, is great), read business magazines, read non-fiction (preferably Economics, Civics, Current Affairs, etc.) to build verbal skills. Reading habit is the greatest power you can take to the examination hallDI/DS - Read business magazines and papers which have lots of charts and analyses. Reading them daily with intellectual rigor will transform the way your mind looks at dataLogical ability - No preparation neededPapers - Take a practice series with some coaching class to sit through the test environment (paper/online) and compete with other folks of your calibreAnalyze each paper - Review your test paper results with rigor. Identify strengths and weaknesses. Work on your strengths and NOT your weakness areas the moment you find that 70% of the course syllabus is already in your strength areaSelf awareness - Be very self aware of what you should not attempt in the examination. If you have never understood an area (say Probability), do not waste time working on it (based on rule 9), and instead be aware that you should not waste time in the exam on a Probability related question. This will not only save time and chances of negative marks, but also will provide significant peace of mindAll the best. Hope these are useful to you.